User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Could your patient benefit? New trials in lung cancer
Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti–PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCLC are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on Aug. 25 at Stanford (Calif.) University. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on Sept. 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti–PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCLC are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on Aug. 25 at Stanford (Calif.) University. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on Sept. 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti–PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCLC are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on Aug. 25 at Stanford (Calif.) University. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on Sept. 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nitrogen test predicts lung function decline
The slope of the alveolar plateau on the single-breath nitrogen test (SBN2) was a significant predictor of lung function decline and of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 907 adults.
In recent years, interest in small airways disease (SAD) has renewed, with research suggesting a link between SAD pathology and COPD progression, wrote Francesco Pistelli, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and colleagues.
The SBN2 has been used to detect early SAD, but few studies have examined the relationship between SBN2 measures and lung function decline over time, they said.
In a study published in Pulmonology , the researchers reviewed data from adults aged 20 years and older who were enrolled in the Po River Delta prospective study in Italy. The study population included 907 individuals, with a mean age of 37.4 years; 56% were male.
The primary outcome was a change in lung function and incidence of COPD during an 8-year follow-up period.
COPD was defined using either the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) or ATS European Respiratory Society (ATS-ERS) criteria.
In a multinomial regression model, one SBN2 index, the slope of alveolar plateau (N2-slope) was significantly associated with rates of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) decline, with a decrease of 7.93 mL/year for each one-unit change in N2-slope.
, with a relative risk of 1.81 for mild obstruction and 2.78 for severe obstruction based on GOLD criteria. The association was similar for COPD based on the ATS-ERS criteria, with a relative risk of 1.62 for mild obstruction and 3.40 for moderate to severe obstruction.
Age was associated with an increased COPD risk using the GOLD criteria, but not the ATS-ERS criteria; neither sex nor current or former smoking were associated with increased COPD risk for either measure.
The results are consistent with some previous longitudinal studies, but not others, possibly because of differences in sampling procedures, test techniques, or statistical approaches, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The study findings were limited by several factors including incomplete data on closing capacity and vital capacity, and by the lack of bronchodilator for performing baseline spirometry, since bronchodilator testing was not recommended at the time of the study, the researchers noted.
However, the results support the role of SAD as a contributor to COPD, and the potential value of the SBN2 test, they said. “Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate whether new proposed functional or imaging tests that measure small airways impairment may be useful in the early detection of COPD,” they noted. In the meantime, “pulmonologists could rediscover an ‘old’ test, which could provide important information on their patients at risk for developing COPD,” they concluded.
The study was supported in part by the National Research Council, Targeted Project and the Italian Electric Power Authority (ENEL). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The slope of the alveolar plateau on the single-breath nitrogen test (SBN2) was a significant predictor of lung function decline and of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 907 adults.
In recent years, interest in small airways disease (SAD) has renewed, with research suggesting a link between SAD pathology and COPD progression, wrote Francesco Pistelli, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and colleagues.
The SBN2 has been used to detect early SAD, but few studies have examined the relationship between SBN2 measures and lung function decline over time, they said.
In a study published in Pulmonology , the researchers reviewed data from adults aged 20 years and older who were enrolled in the Po River Delta prospective study in Italy. The study population included 907 individuals, with a mean age of 37.4 years; 56% were male.
The primary outcome was a change in lung function and incidence of COPD during an 8-year follow-up period.
COPD was defined using either the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) or ATS European Respiratory Society (ATS-ERS) criteria.
In a multinomial regression model, one SBN2 index, the slope of alveolar plateau (N2-slope) was significantly associated with rates of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) decline, with a decrease of 7.93 mL/year for each one-unit change in N2-slope.
, with a relative risk of 1.81 for mild obstruction and 2.78 for severe obstruction based on GOLD criteria. The association was similar for COPD based on the ATS-ERS criteria, with a relative risk of 1.62 for mild obstruction and 3.40 for moderate to severe obstruction.
Age was associated with an increased COPD risk using the GOLD criteria, but not the ATS-ERS criteria; neither sex nor current or former smoking were associated with increased COPD risk for either measure.
The results are consistent with some previous longitudinal studies, but not others, possibly because of differences in sampling procedures, test techniques, or statistical approaches, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The study findings were limited by several factors including incomplete data on closing capacity and vital capacity, and by the lack of bronchodilator for performing baseline spirometry, since bronchodilator testing was not recommended at the time of the study, the researchers noted.
However, the results support the role of SAD as a contributor to COPD, and the potential value of the SBN2 test, they said. “Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate whether new proposed functional or imaging tests that measure small airways impairment may be useful in the early detection of COPD,” they noted. In the meantime, “pulmonologists could rediscover an ‘old’ test, which could provide important information on their patients at risk for developing COPD,” they concluded.
The study was supported in part by the National Research Council, Targeted Project and the Italian Electric Power Authority (ENEL). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The slope of the alveolar plateau on the single-breath nitrogen test (SBN2) was a significant predictor of lung function decline and of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 907 adults.
In recent years, interest in small airways disease (SAD) has renewed, with research suggesting a link between SAD pathology and COPD progression, wrote Francesco Pistelli, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and colleagues.
The SBN2 has been used to detect early SAD, but few studies have examined the relationship between SBN2 measures and lung function decline over time, they said.
In a study published in Pulmonology , the researchers reviewed data from adults aged 20 years and older who were enrolled in the Po River Delta prospective study in Italy. The study population included 907 individuals, with a mean age of 37.4 years; 56% were male.
The primary outcome was a change in lung function and incidence of COPD during an 8-year follow-up period.
COPD was defined using either the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) or ATS European Respiratory Society (ATS-ERS) criteria.
In a multinomial regression model, one SBN2 index, the slope of alveolar plateau (N2-slope) was significantly associated with rates of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) decline, with a decrease of 7.93 mL/year for each one-unit change in N2-slope.
, with a relative risk of 1.81 for mild obstruction and 2.78 for severe obstruction based on GOLD criteria. The association was similar for COPD based on the ATS-ERS criteria, with a relative risk of 1.62 for mild obstruction and 3.40 for moderate to severe obstruction.
Age was associated with an increased COPD risk using the GOLD criteria, but not the ATS-ERS criteria; neither sex nor current or former smoking were associated with increased COPD risk for either measure.
The results are consistent with some previous longitudinal studies, but not others, possibly because of differences in sampling procedures, test techniques, or statistical approaches, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The study findings were limited by several factors including incomplete data on closing capacity and vital capacity, and by the lack of bronchodilator for performing baseline spirometry, since bronchodilator testing was not recommended at the time of the study, the researchers noted.
However, the results support the role of SAD as a contributor to COPD, and the potential value of the SBN2 test, they said. “Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate whether new proposed functional or imaging tests that measure small airways impairment may be useful in the early detection of COPD,” they noted. In the meantime, “pulmonologists could rediscover an ‘old’ test, which could provide important information on their patients at risk for developing COPD,” they concluded.
The study was supported in part by the National Research Council, Targeted Project and the Italian Electric Power Authority (ENEL). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM PULMONOLOGY
Rituximab ‘a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide’ to improve ILD-CTD
PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.
“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Double-blind, double-dummy
RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.
The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.
Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.
“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
Improved lung function
While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.
“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.
But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).
“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”
Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.
“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”
The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.
Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.
Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”
Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.
“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Double-blind, double-dummy
RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.
The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.
Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.
“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
Improved lung function
While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.
“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.
But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).
“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”
Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.
“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”
The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.
Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.
Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”
Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.
“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Double-blind, double-dummy
RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.
The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.
Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.
“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
Improved lung function
While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.
“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.
But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).
“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”
Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.
“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”
The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.
Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.
Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”
Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
AT ACR 2022
No benefit of rivaroxaban in COVID outpatients: PREVENT-HD
A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.
The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.
PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.
However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.
Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.
The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.
The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.
Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.
The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.
The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.
A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.
The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.
Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.
Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.
In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant.
The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.
However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events.
In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.
There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.
Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.
Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.
While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said.
He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”
He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.
However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”
The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.
The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.
PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.
However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.
Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.
The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.
The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.
Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.
The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.
The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.
A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.
The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.
Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.
Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.
In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant.
The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.
However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events.
In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.
There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.
Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.
Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.
While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said.
He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”
He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.
However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”
The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.
The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.
PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.
However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.
Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.
The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.
The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.
Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.
The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.
The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.
A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.
The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.
Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.
Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.
In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant.
The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.
However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events.
In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.
There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.
Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.
Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.
While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said.
He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”
He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.
However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”
The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2022
Thoracic Oncology & Chest Imaging Network
Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section
VExUS scan: The missing piece of hemodynamic puzzle?
Volume status and tailoring the correct level of fluid resuscitation is challenging for the intensivist. Determining “fluid overload,” especially in the setting of acute kidney injury, can be difficult. While a Swan-Ganz catheter, central venous pressure, or inferior vena cava (IVC) ultrasound measurement can suggest elevated right atrial pressure, the effect on organ level hemodynamics is unknown.
Abdominal venous Doppler is a method to view the effects of venous pressure on abdominal organ venous flow. An application of this is the Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VExUS) (Rola, et al. Ultrasound J. 2021;13[1]:32). VExUS uses IVC diameter and pulse wave doppler waveforms from the hepatic, portal, and renal veins to grade venous congestion from none to severe. Studies demonstrate an association between venous congestion and renal dysfunction in cardiac surgery (Beaubien-Souligny, et al. Ultrasound J. 2020;12[1]:16) and general ICU patients (Spiegel, et al. Crit Care. 2020;24[1]:615).
This practice of identifying venous congestion and avoiding over-resuscitation could improve patient care. However, acquiring quality images and waveforms may prove to be difficult, and interpretation may be confounded by other disease states such as cirrhosis. Though it is postulated that removing fluid could be beneficial to patients with high VExUS scores, this has yet to be proven and may be difficult to prove. While the score estimates volume status well, the source of venous congestion is not identified such that it should be used as a clinical supplement to other data.
VExUS has a strong physiologic basis, and early clinical experience indicates a strong role in improving assessment of venous congestion, an important aspect of volume status. This is an area of ongoing research to ensure appropriate and effective use.
Kyle Swartz, DO
Steven Fox, MD
John Levasseur, DO
Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section
VExUS scan: The missing piece of hemodynamic puzzle?
Volume status and tailoring the correct level of fluid resuscitation is challenging for the intensivist. Determining “fluid overload,” especially in the setting of acute kidney injury, can be difficult. While a Swan-Ganz catheter, central venous pressure, or inferior vena cava (IVC) ultrasound measurement can suggest elevated right atrial pressure, the effect on organ level hemodynamics is unknown.
Abdominal venous Doppler is a method to view the effects of venous pressure on abdominal organ venous flow. An application of this is the Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VExUS) (Rola, et al. Ultrasound J. 2021;13[1]:32). VExUS uses IVC diameter and pulse wave doppler waveforms from the hepatic, portal, and renal veins to grade venous congestion from none to severe. Studies demonstrate an association between venous congestion and renal dysfunction in cardiac surgery (Beaubien-Souligny, et al. Ultrasound J. 2020;12[1]:16) and general ICU patients (Spiegel, et al. Crit Care. 2020;24[1]:615).
This practice of identifying venous congestion and avoiding over-resuscitation could improve patient care. However, acquiring quality images and waveforms may prove to be difficult, and interpretation may be confounded by other disease states such as cirrhosis. Though it is postulated that removing fluid could be beneficial to patients with high VExUS scores, this has yet to be proven and may be difficult to prove. While the score estimates volume status well, the source of venous congestion is not identified such that it should be used as a clinical supplement to other data.
VExUS has a strong physiologic basis, and early clinical experience indicates a strong role in improving assessment of venous congestion, an important aspect of volume status. This is an area of ongoing research to ensure appropriate and effective use.
Kyle Swartz, DO
Steven Fox, MD
John Levasseur, DO
Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section
VExUS scan: The missing piece of hemodynamic puzzle?
Volume status and tailoring the correct level of fluid resuscitation is challenging for the intensivist. Determining “fluid overload,” especially in the setting of acute kidney injury, can be difficult. While a Swan-Ganz catheter, central venous pressure, or inferior vena cava (IVC) ultrasound measurement can suggest elevated right atrial pressure, the effect on organ level hemodynamics is unknown.
Abdominal venous Doppler is a method to view the effects of venous pressure on abdominal organ venous flow. An application of this is the Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VExUS) (Rola, et al. Ultrasound J. 2021;13[1]:32). VExUS uses IVC diameter and pulse wave doppler waveforms from the hepatic, portal, and renal veins to grade venous congestion from none to severe. Studies demonstrate an association between venous congestion and renal dysfunction in cardiac surgery (Beaubien-Souligny, et al. Ultrasound J. 2020;12[1]:16) and general ICU patients (Spiegel, et al. Crit Care. 2020;24[1]:615).
This practice of identifying venous congestion and avoiding over-resuscitation could improve patient care. However, acquiring quality images and waveforms may prove to be difficult, and interpretation may be confounded by other disease states such as cirrhosis. Though it is postulated that removing fluid could be beneficial to patients with high VExUS scores, this has yet to be proven and may be difficult to prove. While the score estimates volume status well, the source of venous congestion is not identified such that it should be used as a clinical supplement to other data.
VExUS has a strong physiologic basis, and early clinical experience indicates a strong role in improving assessment of venous congestion, an important aspect of volume status. This is an area of ongoing research to ensure appropriate and effective use.
Kyle Swartz, DO
Steven Fox, MD
John Levasseur, DO
Critical Care Network
Sepsis/Shock Section
Fluid Resuscitation – Back to BaSICS
The age-old debate regarding the appropriate timing, volume, and type of fluid resuscitation for patients in septic shock rages on – or does it? In October 2021, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines for the management of sepsis. One of the biggest changes from prior versions was downgrading the recommendation for an initial 30mL/kg bolus of IV crystalloid for the initial resuscitation of a patient in septic shock to a suggestion, based on dynamic measures to assess individual patients’ fluid balance (Evans, et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:e1063-e1143).
Traditionally, 0.9% saline had been the resuscitative fluid of choice in sepsis. But it has a propensity to cause physiologic derangements such as hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, renal afferent vasoconstriction, and reduced glomerular filtration rate – not to mention, can be a signal for possibly increased mortality, as seen in the SMART trial (Semler, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378[9]:829-839). Normal saline had subsequently fallen from grace in favor of balanced crystalloids such as Lactated Ringer’s and Plasma-Lyte. However, the recent PLUS and BaSICS trials showed no significant difference in 90-day mortality or secondary outcomes of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or ICU mortality (Finfer, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[9]:815-826; Zampieri, et al. JAMA. 2021;326[9]:818-829). While these are large randomized controlled trials, a major weakness is the administration of uncontrolled resuscitative fluids prior to randomization and even postenrollment, which may have biased results.
Ultimately, does the choice between salt water or balanced crystalloids matter? Despite the limitations in the newest trials, probably less than the timely administration of antibiotics and pressors, unless your patient also has a traumatic TBI – then go with the saline. But, in the everlasting quest for medical excellence, choosing the balanced fluid that causes the least physiologic derangement seems to make the most sense.
LCDR Meredith Olsen, MD, USN
Ankita Agarwal, MD
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Sepsis/Shock Section
Fluid Resuscitation – Back to BaSICS
The age-old debate regarding the appropriate timing, volume, and type of fluid resuscitation for patients in septic shock rages on – or does it? In October 2021, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines for the management of sepsis. One of the biggest changes from prior versions was downgrading the recommendation for an initial 30mL/kg bolus of IV crystalloid for the initial resuscitation of a patient in septic shock to a suggestion, based on dynamic measures to assess individual patients’ fluid balance (Evans, et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:e1063-e1143).
Traditionally, 0.9% saline had been the resuscitative fluid of choice in sepsis. But it has a propensity to cause physiologic derangements such as hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, renal afferent vasoconstriction, and reduced glomerular filtration rate – not to mention, can be a signal for possibly increased mortality, as seen in the SMART trial (Semler, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378[9]:829-839). Normal saline had subsequently fallen from grace in favor of balanced crystalloids such as Lactated Ringer’s and Plasma-Lyte. However, the recent PLUS and BaSICS trials showed no significant difference in 90-day mortality or secondary outcomes of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or ICU mortality (Finfer, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[9]:815-826; Zampieri, et al. JAMA. 2021;326[9]:818-829). While these are large randomized controlled trials, a major weakness is the administration of uncontrolled resuscitative fluids prior to randomization and even postenrollment, which may have biased results.
Ultimately, does the choice between salt water or balanced crystalloids matter? Despite the limitations in the newest trials, probably less than the timely administration of antibiotics and pressors, unless your patient also has a traumatic TBI – then go with the saline. But, in the everlasting quest for medical excellence, choosing the balanced fluid that causes the least physiologic derangement seems to make the most sense.
LCDR Meredith Olsen, MD, USN
Ankita Agarwal, MD
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Sepsis/Shock Section
Fluid Resuscitation – Back to BaSICS
The age-old debate regarding the appropriate timing, volume, and type of fluid resuscitation for patients in septic shock rages on – or does it? In October 2021, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines for the management of sepsis. One of the biggest changes from prior versions was downgrading the recommendation for an initial 30mL/kg bolus of IV crystalloid for the initial resuscitation of a patient in septic shock to a suggestion, based on dynamic measures to assess individual patients’ fluid balance (Evans, et al. Crit Care Med. 2021;49[11]:e1063-e1143).
Traditionally, 0.9% saline had been the resuscitative fluid of choice in sepsis. But it has a propensity to cause physiologic derangements such as hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, renal afferent vasoconstriction, and reduced glomerular filtration rate – not to mention, can be a signal for possibly increased mortality, as seen in the SMART trial (Semler, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378[9]:829-839). Normal saline had subsequently fallen from grace in favor of balanced crystalloids such as Lactated Ringer’s and Plasma-Lyte. However, the recent PLUS and BaSICS trials showed no significant difference in 90-day mortality or secondary outcomes of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or ICU mortality (Finfer, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[9]:815-826; Zampieri, et al. JAMA. 2021;326[9]:818-829). While these are large randomized controlled trials, a major weakness is the administration of uncontrolled resuscitative fluids prior to randomization and even postenrollment, which may have biased results.
Ultimately, does the choice between salt water or balanced crystalloids matter? Despite the limitations in the newest trials, probably less than the timely administration of antibiotics and pressors, unless your patient also has a traumatic TBI – then go with the saline. But, in the everlasting quest for medical excellence, choosing the balanced fluid that causes the least physiologic derangement seems to make the most sense.
LCDR Meredith Olsen, MD, USN
Ankita Agarwal, MD
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Have you heard the one about the emergency dept. that called 911?
Who watches the ED staff?
We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.
A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”
“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”
“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”
“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.
“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”
“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.
“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”
“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.
“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”
“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”
The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”
Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.
Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering
When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.
Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.
In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.
Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.
Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.
So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.
Consider this myth mostly busted.
COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2
The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.
We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.
The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.
They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.
The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”
Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.
At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.
Who watches the ED staff?
We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.
A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”
“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”
“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”
“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.
“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”
“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.
“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”
“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.
“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”
“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”
The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”
Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.
Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering
When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.
Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.
In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.
Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.
Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.
So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.
Consider this myth mostly busted.
COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2
The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.
We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.
The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.
They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.
The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”
Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.
At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.
Who watches the ED staff?
We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.
A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”
“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”
“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”
“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.
“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”
“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.
“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”
“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.
“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”
“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”
The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”
Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.
Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering
When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.
Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.
In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.
Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.
Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.
So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.
Consider this myth mostly busted.
COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2
The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.
We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.
The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.
They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.
The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”
Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.
At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.
Physicians react: Climate change and other social issues
Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.
Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
Relevance of climate change to health care
In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.
What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”
However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.
And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
Domestic violence: What physicians can do
About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.
Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”
Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
Expanding legal immigration
In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.
“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.
A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.
A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
Reproductive rights: No easy answers
Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.
At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.
While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.
Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
Relevance of climate change to health care
In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.
What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”
However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.
And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
Domestic violence: What physicians can do
About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.
Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”
Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
Expanding legal immigration
In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.
“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.
A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.
A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
Reproductive rights: No easy answers
Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.
At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.
While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.
Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
Relevance of climate change to health care
In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.
What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”
However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.
And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
Domestic violence: What physicians can do
About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.
Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”
Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
Expanding legal immigration
In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.
“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.
A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.
A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
Reproductive rights: No easy answers
Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.
At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.
While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The danger when doctors don’t get mental health help
As medical professionals, you’re continually exposed to overwork, burnout, stressful situations, and challenging ethical decisions. Yet seeking help for mental health care may be last on your to-do list – or completely off your radar.
That’s sad and dangerous, since the American College of Emergency Physicians said 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, and the stigma keeps 69% of female physicians from seeking mental health care, according to a prepandemic study.
In the 2022 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 11% of female doctors and 9% of male doctors said they have had thoughts of suicide, and 64% experienced colloquial depression (feeling down, sad, or blue).
What’s more, physicians are typically seen as strong and capable and are often put on a pedestal by loved ones, patients, and the public and thought of as superhuman. No wonder it isn’t easy when you need to take time away to decompress and treat your mental well-being.
“There is a real fear for physicians when it comes to getting mental health care,” said Emil Tsai, MD, PhD, MAS, professor at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an internationally reputed scientist in neurosciences and brain disorders.
The fear, said Dr. Tsai, comes from the stigma of mental health issues, potential repercussions to employment, and conceivable medical board suspension or revocation of your medical license.
Dr. Tsai said in an interview that to combat anxiety about “punishment” that many physicians fear when seeking care for their mental health, we must allow physicians to take time away from their day-to-day patient care for respite and treatment without reprisal.
Since the medical profession is high stress and has a high depression and suicide rate, finding solutions is imperative. And physicians must feel supported enough to seek treatment when needed. So how can we normalize seeking mental health care among physicians?
Get honest about stress and burnout
The only way to normalize any behavior is to be open and candid, Dr. Tsai said in an interview. The mental health conversation must occur across the board, not just within the medical profession.
“The greatest thing we can do to try and lift the burden that we place on physicians is to be willing to talk and be honest about the stress that physicians deal with and the importance of everyone feeling free to seek treatment and rest to strengthen their mental health,” said Dr. Tsai.
The more we talk about mental health and its treatment, the more we lessen the stigma, said Dr. Tsai. That could be more employer-employee check-ins, counseling as part of physician wellness, and programs structured so as not to construe a penal system.
“Mental health in the medical profession is a big issue and one that has to be met with the same compassion and care as it should be for any patient. We have annual physical checkups. Why don’t we offer annual mental health checkups for all, physicians included?” asked Dr. Tsai.
Evaluate the workload
Elizabeth Lombardo, PhD, psychologist, coach, and global keynote speaker, thinks that health care employers should reexamine their physicians’ workloads to see if they’re contributing to mental health issues.
The conversation on mental health in the workplace shouldn’t be about whether a certain person can handle stressors that are “normal” for health care settings. Instead, workplace managers in health care institutions should redefine workloads to ensure that physicians aren’t too heavily burdened with responsibilities that can cause overwork, burnout, and mental health problems,” she said.
Lessen the stigma
Even when physicians want to seek help for their psychological struggles, they may be weary of how their colleagues would react if they knew.
Raffaello Antonino, MD, clinical director at Therapy Central in London, said several underlying fears may exist at a physician’s core that prevent them from seeking care – being seen as weak, being judged as unfit to practice medicine, and the notion that “something is wrong with them.”
Dr. Antonino said we need to understand that physicians face challenges of bereavement and trauma derived from losing patients and the inability to save someone’s life. “These issues can easily develop into an accumulation of difficult, unprocessed emotions, later arising in symptoms and signs of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.”
Education is the best way to end this stigma, just like with any form of prejudice and stereotypes. For instance, we know that health care professionals are at risk of developing burnout. So, educating physicians on the symptoms and management of burnout and its consequences and prevention strategies is a must.
“Imagine what could happen if there were regular opportunities to work through the day’s events before signing out from a shift. The idea that individual weekly therapy is the only way to relieve mental distress is false,” said Lori McIsaac Bewsher, MSW, RSW, a trauma therapist and owner of a trauma-focused mental health clinic in New Brunswick.
“There are ways of integrating individual care into our doctor’s offices and hospitals that can be brief, effective, and confidential. The best way to introduce these interventions is early and collectively; no one is immune to the potential impact of exposure to trauma. The earlier these interventions can be accessed, the better the outcomes for everyone,” she said.
Dr. Antonino suggests, perhaps in the future, organizations can have “burnout checks” or mental health wellness checks for physicians akin to how we also have quick examinations for various physical ailments. What if physicians regularly answered a 10-question mental health survey as part of a burnout or trauma prevention strategy?
“Theirs is a profession and an identity which is often linked with a sense of strength, leadership and [benevolent] power: adjectives, which on the surface one might see as incompatible with what instead, unfortunately, and wrongly, may be associated with mental health issues,” said Dr. Antonino.
Keep it private
When it comes to removing the stigma from mental health care and treatment for physicians, privacy is top of mind. There needs to be some form of privacy protection for physicians who seek professional help for mental health reasons. Dr. Lombardo said physicians need to have the choice to keep their mental health journeys private. “Ideally, normalization should mean openly conversing about mental health, but for physicians, it can be a matter of life or death for their career, so the choice to remain private is something that should be afforded to them.”
Along those lines, the American Medical Association is pushing for system changes in legislative and regulatory arenas to support the mental health of practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. The organization is also urging health systems and state medical licensing bodies to remove questions on their applications that ask about prior treatment for mental health conditions.
Among many programs across the country, the Foundation of the Pennsylvania Medical Society has also created a Physicians’ Health Program, which provides confidential assessment, counseling, and referral services for physicians with mental health concerns.
“All of these initiatives are important in helping to destigmatize mental health issues among physicians,” said Harold Hong, MD, a board-certified psychiatrist in Raleigh, N.C.
Hail the benefits of treatment
Dr. Hong said to continue to destigmatize mental health among physicians and normalize its treatment, we not only have to emphasize how attending to mental health has individual benefits but also how it helps us help our patients.
“One key aspect that perhaps underpins this issue is the still present separation between mental and physical health, between mind and body, Dr. Hong said in an interview. “Feeling sad or angry or anxious should become a fact of life, a characteristic of being human, just like catching a cold or breaking a leg.”
It’s a normalization that, perhaps more than anything else, can lead the way for improving physicians’ mental health outcomes while also improving them for the rest of society. When society can finally see the health and well-being of someone in both their psychological and physical status, some of the stigmas may dissipate, and perhaps more physicians’ lives can be saved.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As medical professionals, you’re continually exposed to overwork, burnout, stressful situations, and challenging ethical decisions. Yet seeking help for mental health care may be last on your to-do list – or completely off your radar.
That’s sad and dangerous, since the American College of Emergency Physicians said 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, and the stigma keeps 69% of female physicians from seeking mental health care, according to a prepandemic study.
In the 2022 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 11% of female doctors and 9% of male doctors said they have had thoughts of suicide, and 64% experienced colloquial depression (feeling down, sad, or blue).
What’s more, physicians are typically seen as strong and capable and are often put on a pedestal by loved ones, patients, and the public and thought of as superhuman. No wonder it isn’t easy when you need to take time away to decompress and treat your mental well-being.
“There is a real fear for physicians when it comes to getting mental health care,” said Emil Tsai, MD, PhD, MAS, professor at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an internationally reputed scientist in neurosciences and brain disorders.
The fear, said Dr. Tsai, comes from the stigma of mental health issues, potential repercussions to employment, and conceivable medical board suspension or revocation of your medical license.
Dr. Tsai said in an interview that to combat anxiety about “punishment” that many physicians fear when seeking care for their mental health, we must allow physicians to take time away from their day-to-day patient care for respite and treatment without reprisal.
Since the medical profession is high stress and has a high depression and suicide rate, finding solutions is imperative. And physicians must feel supported enough to seek treatment when needed. So how can we normalize seeking mental health care among physicians?
Get honest about stress and burnout
The only way to normalize any behavior is to be open and candid, Dr. Tsai said in an interview. The mental health conversation must occur across the board, not just within the medical profession.
“The greatest thing we can do to try and lift the burden that we place on physicians is to be willing to talk and be honest about the stress that physicians deal with and the importance of everyone feeling free to seek treatment and rest to strengthen their mental health,” said Dr. Tsai.
The more we talk about mental health and its treatment, the more we lessen the stigma, said Dr. Tsai. That could be more employer-employee check-ins, counseling as part of physician wellness, and programs structured so as not to construe a penal system.
“Mental health in the medical profession is a big issue and one that has to be met with the same compassion and care as it should be for any patient. We have annual physical checkups. Why don’t we offer annual mental health checkups for all, physicians included?” asked Dr. Tsai.
Evaluate the workload
Elizabeth Lombardo, PhD, psychologist, coach, and global keynote speaker, thinks that health care employers should reexamine their physicians’ workloads to see if they’re contributing to mental health issues.
The conversation on mental health in the workplace shouldn’t be about whether a certain person can handle stressors that are “normal” for health care settings. Instead, workplace managers in health care institutions should redefine workloads to ensure that physicians aren’t too heavily burdened with responsibilities that can cause overwork, burnout, and mental health problems,” she said.
Lessen the stigma
Even when physicians want to seek help for their psychological struggles, they may be weary of how their colleagues would react if they knew.
Raffaello Antonino, MD, clinical director at Therapy Central in London, said several underlying fears may exist at a physician’s core that prevent them from seeking care – being seen as weak, being judged as unfit to practice medicine, and the notion that “something is wrong with them.”
Dr. Antonino said we need to understand that physicians face challenges of bereavement and trauma derived from losing patients and the inability to save someone’s life. “These issues can easily develop into an accumulation of difficult, unprocessed emotions, later arising in symptoms and signs of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.”
Education is the best way to end this stigma, just like with any form of prejudice and stereotypes. For instance, we know that health care professionals are at risk of developing burnout. So, educating physicians on the symptoms and management of burnout and its consequences and prevention strategies is a must.
“Imagine what could happen if there were regular opportunities to work through the day’s events before signing out from a shift. The idea that individual weekly therapy is the only way to relieve mental distress is false,” said Lori McIsaac Bewsher, MSW, RSW, a trauma therapist and owner of a trauma-focused mental health clinic in New Brunswick.
“There are ways of integrating individual care into our doctor’s offices and hospitals that can be brief, effective, and confidential. The best way to introduce these interventions is early and collectively; no one is immune to the potential impact of exposure to trauma. The earlier these interventions can be accessed, the better the outcomes for everyone,” she said.
Dr. Antonino suggests, perhaps in the future, organizations can have “burnout checks” or mental health wellness checks for physicians akin to how we also have quick examinations for various physical ailments. What if physicians regularly answered a 10-question mental health survey as part of a burnout or trauma prevention strategy?
“Theirs is a profession and an identity which is often linked with a sense of strength, leadership and [benevolent] power: adjectives, which on the surface one might see as incompatible with what instead, unfortunately, and wrongly, may be associated with mental health issues,” said Dr. Antonino.
Keep it private
When it comes to removing the stigma from mental health care and treatment for physicians, privacy is top of mind. There needs to be some form of privacy protection for physicians who seek professional help for mental health reasons. Dr. Lombardo said physicians need to have the choice to keep their mental health journeys private. “Ideally, normalization should mean openly conversing about mental health, but for physicians, it can be a matter of life or death for their career, so the choice to remain private is something that should be afforded to them.”
Along those lines, the American Medical Association is pushing for system changes in legislative and regulatory arenas to support the mental health of practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. The organization is also urging health systems and state medical licensing bodies to remove questions on their applications that ask about prior treatment for mental health conditions.
Among many programs across the country, the Foundation of the Pennsylvania Medical Society has also created a Physicians’ Health Program, which provides confidential assessment, counseling, and referral services for physicians with mental health concerns.
“All of these initiatives are important in helping to destigmatize mental health issues among physicians,” said Harold Hong, MD, a board-certified psychiatrist in Raleigh, N.C.
Hail the benefits of treatment
Dr. Hong said to continue to destigmatize mental health among physicians and normalize its treatment, we not only have to emphasize how attending to mental health has individual benefits but also how it helps us help our patients.
“One key aspect that perhaps underpins this issue is the still present separation between mental and physical health, between mind and body, Dr. Hong said in an interview. “Feeling sad or angry or anxious should become a fact of life, a characteristic of being human, just like catching a cold or breaking a leg.”
It’s a normalization that, perhaps more than anything else, can lead the way for improving physicians’ mental health outcomes while also improving them for the rest of society. When society can finally see the health and well-being of someone in both their psychological and physical status, some of the stigmas may dissipate, and perhaps more physicians’ lives can be saved.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As medical professionals, you’re continually exposed to overwork, burnout, stressful situations, and challenging ethical decisions. Yet seeking help for mental health care may be last on your to-do list – or completely off your radar.
That’s sad and dangerous, since the American College of Emergency Physicians said 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, and the stigma keeps 69% of female physicians from seeking mental health care, according to a prepandemic study.
In the 2022 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 11% of female doctors and 9% of male doctors said they have had thoughts of suicide, and 64% experienced colloquial depression (feeling down, sad, or blue).
What’s more, physicians are typically seen as strong and capable and are often put on a pedestal by loved ones, patients, and the public and thought of as superhuman. No wonder it isn’t easy when you need to take time away to decompress and treat your mental well-being.
“There is a real fear for physicians when it comes to getting mental health care,” said Emil Tsai, MD, PhD, MAS, professor at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an internationally reputed scientist in neurosciences and brain disorders.
The fear, said Dr. Tsai, comes from the stigma of mental health issues, potential repercussions to employment, and conceivable medical board suspension or revocation of your medical license.
Dr. Tsai said in an interview that to combat anxiety about “punishment” that many physicians fear when seeking care for their mental health, we must allow physicians to take time away from their day-to-day patient care for respite and treatment without reprisal.
Since the medical profession is high stress and has a high depression and suicide rate, finding solutions is imperative. And physicians must feel supported enough to seek treatment when needed. So how can we normalize seeking mental health care among physicians?
Get honest about stress and burnout
The only way to normalize any behavior is to be open and candid, Dr. Tsai said in an interview. The mental health conversation must occur across the board, not just within the medical profession.
“The greatest thing we can do to try and lift the burden that we place on physicians is to be willing to talk and be honest about the stress that physicians deal with and the importance of everyone feeling free to seek treatment and rest to strengthen their mental health,” said Dr. Tsai.
The more we talk about mental health and its treatment, the more we lessen the stigma, said Dr. Tsai. That could be more employer-employee check-ins, counseling as part of physician wellness, and programs structured so as not to construe a penal system.
“Mental health in the medical profession is a big issue and one that has to be met with the same compassion and care as it should be for any patient. We have annual physical checkups. Why don’t we offer annual mental health checkups for all, physicians included?” asked Dr. Tsai.
Evaluate the workload
Elizabeth Lombardo, PhD, psychologist, coach, and global keynote speaker, thinks that health care employers should reexamine their physicians’ workloads to see if they’re contributing to mental health issues.
The conversation on mental health in the workplace shouldn’t be about whether a certain person can handle stressors that are “normal” for health care settings. Instead, workplace managers in health care institutions should redefine workloads to ensure that physicians aren’t too heavily burdened with responsibilities that can cause overwork, burnout, and mental health problems,” she said.
Lessen the stigma
Even when physicians want to seek help for their psychological struggles, they may be weary of how their colleagues would react if they knew.
Raffaello Antonino, MD, clinical director at Therapy Central in London, said several underlying fears may exist at a physician’s core that prevent them from seeking care – being seen as weak, being judged as unfit to practice medicine, and the notion that “something is wrong with them.”
Dr. Antonino said we need to understand that physicians face challenges of bereavement and trauma derived from losing patients and the inability to save someone’s life. “These issues can easily develop into an accumulation of difficult, unprocessed emotions, later arising in symptoms and signs of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.”
Education is the best way to end this stigma, just like with any form of prejudice and stereotypes. For instance, we know that health care professionals are at risk of developing burnout. So, educating physicians on the symptoms and management of burnout and its consequences and prevention strategies is a must.
“Imagine what could happen if there were regular opportunities to work through the day’s events before signing out from a shift. The idea that individual weekly therapy is the only way to relieve mental distress is false,” said Lori McIsaac Bewsher, MSW, RSW, a trauma therapist and owner of a trauma-focused mental health clinic in New Brunswick.
“There are ways of integrating individual care into our doctor’s offices and hospitals that can be brief, effective, and confidential. The best way to introduce these interventions is early and collectively; no one is immune to the potential impact of exposure to trauma. The earlier these interventions can be accessed, the better the outcomes for everyone,” she said.
Dr. Antonino suggests, perhaps in the future, organizations can have “burnout checks” or mental health wellness checks for physicians akin to how we also have quick examinations for various physical ailments. What if physicians regularly answered a 10-question mental health survey as part of a burnout or trauma prevention strategy?
“Theirs is a profession and an identity which is often linked with a sense of strength, leadership and [benevolent] power: adjectives, which on the surface one might see as incompatible with what instead, unfortunately, and wrongly, may be associated with mental health issues,” said Dr. Antonino.
Keep it private
When it comes to removing the stigma from mental health care and treatment for physicians, privacy is top of mind. There needs to be some form of privacy protection for physicians who seek professional help for mental health reasons. Dr. Lombardo said physicians need to have the choice to keep their mental health journeys private. “Ideally, normalization should mean openly conversing about mental health, but for physicians, it can be a matter of life or death for their career, so the choice to remain private is something that should be afforded to them.”
Along those lines, the American Medical Association is pushing for system changes in legislative and regulatory arenas to support the mental health of practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. The organization is also urging health systems and state medical licensing bodies to remove questions on their applications that ask about prior treatment for mental health conditions.
Among many programs across the country, the Foundation of the Pennsylvania Medical Society has also created a Physicians’ Health Program, which provides confidential assessment, counseling, and referral services for physicians with mental health concerns.
“All of these initiatives are important in helping to destigmatize mental health issues among physicians,” said Harold Hong, MD, a board-certified psychiatrist in Raleigh, N.C.
Hail the benefits of treatment
Dr. Hong said to continue to destigmatize mental health among physicians and normalize its treatment, we not only have to emphasize how attending to mental health has individual benefits but also how it helps us help our patients.
“One key aspect that perhaps underpins this issue is the still present separation between mental and physical health, between mind and body, Dr. Hong said in an interview. “Feeling sad or angry or anxious should become a fact of life, a characteristic of being human, just like catching a cold or breaking a leg.”
It’s a normalization that, perhaps more than anything else, can lead the way for improving physicians’ mental health outcomes while also improving them for the rest of society. When society can finally see the health and well-being of someone in both their psychological and physical status, some of the stigmas may dissipate, and perhaps more physicians’ lives can be saved.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Med students dismayed that residency match process won’t change
– mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.
The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.
Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.
In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.
“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.
The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.
The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”
Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.
Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.
“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”
Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.
“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.
More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.
The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.
“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”
The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.
The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.
Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.
In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.
“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.
The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.
The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”
Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.
Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.
“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”
Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.
“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.
More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.
The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.
“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”
The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.
The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.
Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.
In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.
“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.
The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.
The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”
Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.
Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.
“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”
Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.
“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.
More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.
The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.
“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”
The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.