Federal Practitioner

Groceries, maybe a new shirt, and now some veterans can fit in some shopping at their next health care visit. In a pilot project, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is partnering with Walmart to offer veterans easy access to health care at 5 sites.

The VA-led ATLAS (Accessing telehealth through local area stations) program is part of the VA Anywhere to Anywhere telehealth initiative, which aims to provide care to veterans no matter where they live. Other telehealth pilot sites are in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa. In addition to Walmart, ATLAS sites are located at American Legion posts and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) posts.

The local VA facility associated with the ATLAS site determines which clinical services the site offers. The health care services do not require hands-on exams. Clinical services may include, for instance, primary care, mental health counseling, clinical pharmacy, nutrition services, and social work. On-site attendants provide information, help the veterans get started, troubleshoot technical issues, and clean the space between appointments. Walmart donated equipment and space, where veterans can meet with a VA provider in a private room via video technology.

Last year, nearly 500,000 veterans logged > 1.3 million VA video telehealth encounters. It is the “way of the future,” says VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “Veterans need the expansion of choice, and this partnership is vital to affording them convenient access to VA health care services where they live.”

Daryl Risinger, Chief Growth Officer for Walmart US Health and Wellness, is a veteran of the Air Force, and has a son and son-in-law serving. He says, “I know firsthand how important support and access is for our military, especially when it comes to health care. …This is another way we are helping our communities live better.”

For a veteran to attend an appointment at an ATLAS site, the site must be associated with the VA Medical Center where the veteran is enrolled. Family members who receive care through the VA can also visit ATLAS sites for select appointments.

Groceries, maybe a new shirt, and now some veterans can fit in some shopping at their next health care visit. In a pilot project, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is partnering with Walmart to offer veterans easy access to health care at 5 sites.

The VA-led ATLAS (Accessing telehealth through local area stations) program is part of the VA Anywhere to Anywhere telehealth initiative, which aims to provide care to veterans no matter where they live. Other telehealth pilot sites are in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa. In addition to Walmart, ATLAS sites are located at American Legion posts and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) posts.

The local VA facility associated with the ATLAS site determines which clinical services the site offers. The health care services do not require hands-on exams. Clinical services may include, for instance, primary care, mental health counseling, clinical pharmacy, nutrition services, and social work. On-site attendants provide information, help the veterans get started, troubleshoot technical issues, and clean the space between appointments. Walmart donated equipment and space, where veterans can meet with a VA provider in a private room via video technology.

Last year, nearly 500,000 veterans logged > 1.3 million VA video telehealth encounters. It is the “way of the future,” says VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “Veterans need the expansion of choice, and this partnership is vital to affording them convenient access to VA health care services where they live.”

Daryl Risinger, Chief Growth Officer for Walmart US Health and Wellness, is a veteran of the Air Force, and has a son and son-in-law serving. He says, “I know firsthand how important support and access is for our military, especially when it comes to health care. …This is another way we are helping our communities live better.”

For a veteran to attend an appointment at an ATLAS site, the site must be associated with the VA Medical Center where the veteran is enrolled. Family members who receive care through the VA can also visit ATLAS sites for select appointments.

Groceries, maybe a new shirt, and now some veterans can fit in some shopping at their next health care visit. In a pilot project, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is partnering with Walmart to offer veterans easy access to health care at 5 sites.

The VA-led ATLAS (Accessing telehealth through local area stations) program is part of the VA Anywhere to Anywhere telehealth initiative, which aims to provide care to veterans no matter where they live. Other telehealth pilot sites are in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa. In addition to Walmart, ATLAS sites are located at American Legion posts and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) posts.

The local VA facility associated with the ATLAS site determines which clinical services the site offers. The health care services do not require hands-on exams. Clinical services may include, for instance, primary care, mental health counseling, clinical pharmacy, nutrition services, and social work. On-site attendants provide information, help the veterans get started, troubleshoot technical issues, and clean the space between appointments. Walmart donated equipment and space, where veterans can meet with a VA provider in a private room via video technology.

Last year, nearly 500,000 veterans logged > 1.3 million VA video telehealth encounters. It is the “way of the future,” says VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “Veterans need the expansion of choice, and this partnership is vital to affording them convenient access to VA health care services where they live.”

Daryl Risinger, Chief Growth Officer for Walmart US Health and Wellness, is a veteran of the Air Force, and has a son and son-in-law serving. He says, “I know firsthand how important support and access is for our military, especially when it comes to health care. …This is another way we are helping our communities live better.”

For a veteran to attend an appointment at an ATLAS site, the site must be associated with the VA Medical Center where the veteran is enrolled. Family members who receive care through the VA can also visit ATLAS sites for select appointments.

The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.

CDC/John Hierholzer, MD

The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.

More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.

Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.

The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.

Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.

The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.

Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
 

[email protected]

CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.

The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.

CDC/John Hierholzer, MD

The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.

More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.

Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.

The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.

Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.

The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.

Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
 

[email protected]

CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.

The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.

CDC/John Hierholzer, MD

The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.

More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.

Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.

The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.

Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.

The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.

Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
 

[email protected]

CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.

The opioid crisis has hit the American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities particularly hard, and “[i]nfants born withdrawing from opioids represent one of the most heartbreaking aspects,” says US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

Intrauterine exposure to opioids can induce symptoms that may result in spontaneous abortion, placental injury, and reduced nutrients for the fetus. Moreover, as many as 55% to 94% of infants prenatally exposed to opioids develop neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), which can vary in severity from mild to life-threatening.

AI/AN women face significant barriers to obtaining appropriate care for substance use disorders, which may delay early interventions for the newborn’s health, said Shaquita Bell, MD, FAAP, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Native American Child Health. The Indian Health Service (IHS) and the AAP have recently released clinical recommendations on NOWS for IHS, tribal, and urban Indian organization health care facilities.

The recommendations describe supportive, culturally appropriate standards of care for screening, diagnosing, and treating pregnant mothers and infants affected by prenatal opioid exposure. Management of NOWS begins with identifying women at risk, says the multidisciplinary panel responsible for the recommendations. Among other things, the experts advise screening a pregnant woman at the initial presentation for risk of substance use disorder, as well as for prescription opioid use for treatment of pain, and other risk factors for NOWS.

The panel notes that early application of nonpharmacologic treatment and support can reduce the need for pharmacologic treatment and transfer. Patient education should be a “key component of every prenatal care visit,” the panel says, provided in a nonjudgmental, culturally competent way to increase engagement, involving the partner and other family members if possible. Discussion topics may include the physical effects of continued substance use on both the woman and her infant, but also may include social and legal consequences of continued use.

The recommendations are also a companion guide to clinical recommendations for improving care of AI/AN pregnant women and women of childbearing age with opioid use disorder, which were announced by IHS and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in March 2019.

The opioid crisis has hit the American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities particularly hard, and “[i]nfants born withdrawing from opioids represent one of the most heartbreaking aspects,” says US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

Intrauterine exposure to opioids can induce symptoms that may result in spontaneous abortion, placental injury, and reduced nutrients for the fetus. Moreover, as many as 55% to 94% of infants prenatally exposed to opioids develop neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), which can vary in severity from mild to life-threatening.

AI/AN women face significant barriers to obtaining appropriate care for substance use disorders, which may delay early interventions for the newborn’s health, said Shaquita Bell, MD, FAAP, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Native American Child Health. The Indian Health Service (IHS) and the AAP have recently released clinical recommendations on NOWS for IHS, tribal, and urban Indian organization health care facilities.

The recommendations describe supportive, culturally appropriate standards of care for screening, diagnosing, and treating pregnant mothers and infants affected by prenatal opioid exposure. Management of NOWS begins with identifying women at risk, says the multidisciplinary panel responsible for the recommendations. Among other things, the experts advise screening a pregnant woman at the initial presentation for risk of substance use disorder, as well as for prescription opioid use for treatment of pain, and other risk factors for NOWS.

The panel notes that early application of nonpharmacologic treatment and support can reduce the need for pharmacologic treatment and transfer. Patient education should be a “key component of every prenatal care visit,” the panel says, provided in a nonjudgmental, culturally competent way to increase engagement, involving the partner and other family members if possible. Discussion topics may include the physical effects of continued substance use on both the woman and her infant, but also may include social and legal consequences of continued use.

The recommendations are also a companion guide to clinical recommendations for improving care of AI/AN pregnant women and women of childbearing age with opioid use disorder, which were announced by IHS and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in March 2019.

The opioid crisis has hit the American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities particularly hard, and “[i]nfants born withdrawing from opioids represent one of the most heartbreaking aspects,” says US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

Intrauterine exposure to opioids can induce symptoms that may result in spontaneous abortion, placental injury, and reduced nutrients for the fetus. Moreover, as many as 55% to 94% of infants prenatally exposed to opioids develop neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), which can vary in severity from mild to life-threatening.

AI/AN women face significant barriers to obtaining appropriate care for substance use disorders, which may delay early interventions for the newborn’s health, said Shaquita Bell, MD, FAAP, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Native American Child Health. The Indian Health Service (IHS) and the AAP have recently released clinical recommendations on NOWS for IHS, tribal, and urban Indian organization health care facilities.

The recommendations describe supportive, culturally appropriate standards of care for screening, diagnosing, and treating pregnant mothers and infants affected by prenatal opioid exposure. Management of NOWS begins with identifying women at risk, says the multidisciplinary panel responsible for the recommendations. Among other things, the experts advise screening a pregnant woman at the initial presentation for risk of substance use disorder, as well as for prescription opioid use for treatment of pain, and other risk factors for NOWS.

The panel notes that early application of nonpharmacologic treatment and support can reduce the need for pharmacologic treatment and transfer. Patient education should be a “key component of every prenatal care visit,” the panel says, provided in a nonjudgmental, culturally competent way to increase engagement, involving the partner and other family members if possible. Discussion topics may include the physical effects of continued substance use on both the woman and her infant, but also may include social and legal consequences of continued use.

The recommendations are also a companion guide to clinical recommendations for improving care of AI/AN pregnant women and women of childbearing age with opioid use disorder, which were announced by IHS and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in March 2019.

The introduction of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5 of the complement cascade, revolutionized the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a rare hematologic disorder characterized by complement-mediated intravascular hemolysis, bone marrow failure, and thrombophilia. Treatment options for PNH were limited before eculizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2007.

Its use resulted in the inhibition of intravascular hemolysis, hemoglobin stabilization, and substantial reductions in transfusion requirements. Moreover, eculizumab had the unexpected effect of reducing the risk of thromboembolic complications, the most severe complication of PNH. Patients treated with eculizumab experienced fewer thrombotic events (4%), compared with historical cohorts (27%). Importantly, 5-year overall survival rates for patients with PNH taking eculizumab improved more than 90%, compared wity the 80% reported historically.

More than 10 years later, we are tasked with assessing the impact of this drug. Unquestionably, eculizumab has done more for PNH than we could have hoped for. However, 10 years of additional data reveal the limitations of this groundbreaking therapy. Despite the overall sustained response and survival benefit, hematologic response remains variable. Complete normalization of hemoglobin occurs in less than one-third of patients. Transfusion requirements persist in many patients. Residual anemia during eculizumab therapy is at least partly attributed to bone marrow failure, a feature the complement inhibition does not address. Still, pharmacokinetic limitations of the drug also contribute to the lack of complete responses. There is residual intravascular hemolysis because of insufficient inhibition of C5 and the emergence of C3-mediated extravascular hemolysis constitutes an unanticipated mechanistic complication of all C5-mediated therapies.

The last few years have seen a surge in novel anticomplement agents, which improve upon the already well-established inhibition of C5 but also explore the efficacy of targeting earlier aspects of the complement pathway. During the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting, we had exciting updates on some of the promising new kids on the block.

Ravulizumab, the newest C5 monoclonal antibody approved by the FDA for PNH, displays more robust C5 inhibition, thereby reducing the breakthrough hemolysis still seen with eculizumab use. Crovalimab, also an anti-C5 humanized antibody, is engineered with Sequential Monoclonal Antibody Recycling Technology that improves the half-life of the drug and facilitates subcutaneous dosing while still achieving complete C5 inhibition. Some of the most exciting data is on danicopan, a small-molecule factor D inhibitor that targets the alternative pathway thereby inhibiting C3 convertase and blocking extravascular hemolysis. It has shown promise as a stand-alone agent, as well as with combined C5 inhibition, while promising safety, a reasonable concern as we explore the long-term risks of targeting the proximal complement pathway.

I was recently asked to comment on how the new complement inhibitors are addressing unmet needs in PNH. While the recent presentations at ASH demonstrate an improvement on the efficacy of C5 inhibition, pharmacokinetics, and drug delivery – all which translate to improved hemoglobin and reduced breakthrough hemolysis for PNH patients – I am most excited at the promise this new generation of drugs holds for other diseases. Since its approval for PNH, eculizumab has also been approved for use in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.

Perhaps the greatest potential I envision for the new generation of drugs is in aHUS, a chronic disease characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-stage renal disease that cannot be cured with renal transplantation. The pathophysiology involves dysregulation of complement activation because of genetic mutations or autoantibodies to key proteins in the complement cascade. Though we have experienced some success with eculizumab, responses can be incomplete, particularly in patients with C5 mutations. The newer drugs offer the opportunity to inhibit complement activation at both proximal and distal aspects of the cascade, which may prove ideal in a disease in which the affected protein is not consistent. Moreover, preclinical and clinical trials have shown promise for these novel complement inhibitors in other autoimmune diseases: antibody-mediated vasculitis, C3 glomerulopathy, catastrophic antibody syndrome, membranous nephropathy, and lupus nephritis.

The surge of new complement inhibitors could revolutionize our strategy for treatment of autoimmune-mediated diseases, in which downstream complement activation can manifest with life-threatening tissue injury. Inhibition of complement offers a promising strategy for blocking downstream immune-mediated effector mechanisms of injury common in several autoimmune diseases.

As the results from various clinical trials come to fruition, it will be exciting to determine how to best use this new generation of drugs to target new diseases and whether the next decade is poised to eclipse the progress in complement therapy already established by eculizumab.
 

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

The introduction of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5 of the complement cascade, revolutionized the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a rare hematologic disorder characterized by complement-mediated intravascular hemolysis, bone marrow failure, and thrombophilia. Treatment options for PNH were limited before eculizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2007.

Its use resulted in the inhibition of intravascular hemolysis, hemoglobin stabilization, and substantial reductions in transfusion requirements. Moreover, eculizumab had the unexpected effect of reducing the risk of thromboembolic complications, the most severe complication of PNH. Patients treated with eculizumab experienced fewer thrombotic events (4%), compared with historical cohorts (27%). Importantly, 5-year overall survival rates for patients with PNH taking eculizumab improved more than 90%, compared wity the 80% reported historically.

More than 10 years later, we are tasked with assessing the impact of this drug. Unquestionably, eculizumab has done more for PNH than we could have hoped for. However, 10 years of additional data reveal the limitations of this groundbreaking therapy. Despite the overall sustained response and survival benefit, hematologic response remains variable. Complete normalization of hemoglobin occurs in less than one-third of patients. Transfusion requirements persist in many patients. Residual anemia during eculizumab therapy is at least partly attributed to bone marrow failure, a feature the complement inhibition does not address. Still, pharmacokinetic limitations of the drug also contribute to the lack of complete responses. There is residual intravascular hemolysis because of insufficient inhibition of C5 and the emergence of C3-mediated extravascular hemolysis constitutes an unanticipated mechanistic complication of all C5-mediated therapies.

The last few years have seen a surge in novel anticomplement agents, which improve upon the already well-established inhibition of C5 but also explore the efficacy of targeting earlier aspects of the complement pathway. During the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting, we had exciting updates on some of the promising new kids on the block.

Ravulizumab, the newest C5 monoclonal antibody approved by the FDA for PNH, displays more robust C5 inhibition, thereby reducing the breakthrough hemolysis still seen with eculizumab use. Crovalimab, also an anti-C5 humanized antibody, is engineered with Sequential Monoclonal Antibody Recycling Technology that improves the half-life of the drug and facilitates subcutaneous dosing while still achieving complete C5 inhibition. Some of the most exciting data is on danicopan, a small-molecule factor D inhibitor that targets the alternative pathway thereby inhibiting C3 convertase and blocking extravascular hemolysis. It has shown promise as a stand-alone agent, as well as with combined C5 inhibition, while promising safety, a reasonable concern as we explore the long-term risks of targeting the proximal complement pathway.

I was recently asked to comment on how the new complement inhibitors are addressing unmet needs in PNH. While the recent presentations at ASH demonstrate an improvement on the efficacy of C5 inhibition, pharmacokinetics, and drug delivery – all which translate to improved hemoglobin and reduced breakthrough hemolysis for PNH patients – I am most excited at the promise this new generation of drugs holds for other diseases. Since its approval for PNH, eculizumab has also been approved for use in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.

Perhaps the greatest potential I envision for the new generation of drugs is in aHUS, a chronic disease characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-stage renal disease that cannot be cured with renal transplantation. The pathophysiology involves dysregulation of complement activation because of genetic mutations or autoantibodies to key proteins in the complement cascade. Though we have experienced some success with eculizumab, responses can be incomplete, particularly in patients with C5 mutations. The newer drugs offer the opportunity to inhibit complement activation at both proximal and distal aspects of the cascade, which may prove ideal in a disease in which the affected protein is not consistent. Moreover, preclinical and clinical trials have shown promise for these novel complement inhibitors in other autoimmune diseases: antibody-mediated vasculitis, C3 glomerulopathy, catastrophic antibody syndrome, membranous nephropathy, and lupus nephritis.

The surge of new complement inhibitors could revolutionize our strategy for treatment of autoimmune-mediated diseases, in which downstream complement activation can manifest with life-threatening tissue injury. Inhibition of complement offers a promising strategy for blocking downstream immune-mediated effector mechanisms of injury common in several autoimmune diseases.

As the results from various clinical trials come to fruition, it will be exciting to determine how to best use this new generation of drugs to target new diseases and whether the next decade is poised to eclipse the progress in complement therapy already established by eculizumab.
 

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

The introduction of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5 of the complement cascade, revolutionized the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a rare hematologic disorder characterized by complement-mediated intravascular hemolysis, bone marrow failure, and thrombophilia. Treatment options for PNH were limited before eculizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2007.

Its use resulted in the inhibition of intravascular hemolysis, hemoglobin stabilization, and substantial reductions in transfusion requirements. Moreover, eculizumab had the unexpected effect of reducing the risk of thromboembolic complications, the most severe complication of PNH. Patients treated with eculizumab experienced fewer thrombotic events (4%), compared with historical cohorts (27%). Importantly, 5-year overall survival rates for patients with PNH taking eculizumab improved more than 90%, compared wity the 80% reported historically.

More than 10 years later, we are tasked with assessing the impact of this drug. Unquestionably, eculizumab has done more for PNH than we could have hoped for. However, 10 years of additional data reveal the limitations of this groundbreaking therapy. Despite the overall sustained response and survival benefit, hematologic response remains variable. Complete normalization of hemoglobin occurs in less than one-third of patients. Transfusion requirements persist in many patients. Residual anemia during eculizumab therapy is at least partly attributed to bone marrow failure, a feature the complement inhibition does not address. Still, pharmacokinetic limitations of the drug also contribute to the lack of complete responses. There is residual intravascular hemolysis because of insufficient inhibition of C5 and the emergence of C3-mediated extravascular hemolysis constitutes an unanticipated mechanistic complication of all C5-mediated therapies.

The last few years have seen a surge in novel anticomplement agents, which improve upon the already well-established inhibition of C5 but also explore the efficacy of targeting earlier aspects of the complement pathway. During the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting, we had exciting updates on some of the promising new kids on the block.

Ravulizumab, the newest C5 monoclonal antibody approved by the FDA for PNH, displays more robust C5 inhibition, thereby reducing the breakthrough hemolysis still seen with eculizumab use. Crovalimab, also an anti-C5 humanized antibody, is engineered with Sequential Monoclonal Antibody Recycling Technology that improves the half-life of the drug and facilitates subcutaneous dosing while still achieving complete C5 inhibition. Some of the most exciting data is on danicopan, a small-molecule factor D inhibitor that targets the alternative pathway thereby inhibiting C3 convertase and blocking extravascular hemolysis. It has shown promise as a stand-alone agent, as well as with combined C5 inhibition, while promising safety, a reasonable concern as we explore the long-term risks of targeting the proximal complement pathway.

I was recently asked to comment on how the new complement inhibitors are addressing unmet needs in PNH. While the recent presentations at ASH demonstrate an improvement on the efficacy of C5 inhibition, pharmacokinetics, and drug delivery – all which translate to improved hemoglobin and reduced breakthrough hemolysis for PNH patients – I am most excited at the promise this new generation of drugs holds for other diseases. Since its approval for PNH, eculizumab has also been approved for use in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.

Perhaps the greatest potential I envision for the new generation of drugs is in aHUS, a chronic disease characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-stage renal disease that cannot be cured with renal transplantation. The pathophysiology involves dysregulation of complement activation because of genetic mutations or autoantibodies to key proteins in the complement cascade. Though we have experienced some success with eculizumab, responses can be incomplete, particularly in patients with C5 mutations. The newer drugs offer the opportunity to inhibit complement activation at both proximal and distal aspects of the cascade, which may prove ideal in a disease in which the affected protein is not consistent. Moreover, preclinical and clinical trials have shown promise for these novel complement inhibitors in other autoimmune diseases: antibody-mediated vasculitis, C3 glomerulopathy, catastrophic antibody syndrome, membranous nephropathy, and lupus nephritis.

The surge of new complement inhibitors could revolutionize our strategy for treatment of autoimmune-mediated diseases, in which downstream complement activation can manifest with life-threatening tissue injury. Inhibition of complement offers a promising strategy for blocking downstream immune-mediated effector mechanisms of injury common in several autoimmune diseases.

As the results from various clinical trials come to fruition, it will be exciting to determine how to best use this new generation of drugs to target new diseases and whether the next decade is poised to eclipse the progress in complement therapy already established by eculizumab.
 

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is generally associated with good long-term neuropsychiatric status, based on a recent patient-reported outcomes study.

But almost one out of five patients may have notably worse cognitive and psychiatric outcomes within 1-5 years of therapy, reported Julia Ruark, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. According to Dr. Ruark and associates, this latter finding suggests that CAR T-cell therapy may negatively impact mental health in a subset of patients.

These findings provide clinical insight into a minimally researched patient population.

“At this time, only limited data are available regarding the long-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. “Thus, it is important to evaluate the late neuropsychiatric effects of CAR T and evaluate their effect on survivors’ quality of life.”

The study involved 40 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Before undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, patients underwent standardized mental health screening with validated instruments such as the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. At least 1 year after CAR T-cell therapy, patients completed a questionnaire consisting of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale v1.2 Global Health and the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1, and 30 additional questions, 4 of which evaluated cognitive function. These data were converted to T scores for comparative purposes.

Patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had statistically similar T scores to the general population mean, suggesting comparable overall neuropsychiatric status. However, a closer look at the data showed that almost one out of five patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had global mental health scores that were at least 1 standard deviation lower than the mean for the general population and patients with cancer.

Almost half of the patients (47.5%) who underwent CAR T-cell therapy reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome. Specifically, 20% reported cognitive difficulties and depression or anxiety, 17.5% reported cognitive difficulties without depression or anxiety, and 10% reported depression or anxiety without cognitive difficulties. One-quarter (25%) of patients reported taking a medication for depression, 20% reported use of anxiolytics, and 15% reported use of sleep medications. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between younger age and depression (P = .01), anxiety (P = .001), and worse long-term global mental health (P = .02). Cognitive difficulties were significantly more common among patients with worse physical and/or mental health.

“[A] subset of patients may experience psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairment [which may be related to CAR T-cell therapy or other treatments patients have been exposed to], and it is important to identify those patients to assist with intervention strategies,” the investigators concluded.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Life Science Discovery Fund, Juno Therapeutics/Celgene, and others. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, T-CURX, and others.

SOURCE: Ruark J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.09.037.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is generally associated with good long-term neuropsychiatric status, based on a recent patient-reported outcomes study.

But almost one out of five patients may have notably worse cognitive and psychiatric outcomes within 1-5 years of therapy, reported Julia Ruark, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. According to Dr. Ruark and associates, this latter finding suggests that CAR T-cell therapy may negatively impact mental health in a subset of patients.

These findings provide clinical insight into a minimally researched patient population.

“At this time, only limited data are available regarding the long-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. “Thus, it is important to evaluate the late neuropsychiatric effects of CAR T and evaluate their effect on survivors’ quality of life.”

The study involved 40 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Before undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, patients underwent standardized mental health screening with validated instruments such as the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. At least 1 year after CAR T-cell therapy, patients completed a questionnaire consisting of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale v1.2 Global Health and the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1, and 30 additional questions, 4 of which evaluated cognitive function. These data were converted to T scores for comparative purposes.

Patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had statistically similar T scores to the general population mean, suggesting comparable overall neuropsychiatric status. However, a closer look at the data showed that almost one out of five patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had global mental health scores that were at least 1 standard deviation lower than the mean for the general population and patients with cancer.

Almost half of the patients (47.5%) who underwent CAR T-cell therapy reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome. Specifically, 20% reported cognitive difficulties and depression or anxiety, 17.5% reported cognitive difficulties without depression or anxiety, and 10% reported depression or anxiety without cognitive difficulties. One-quarter (25%) of patients reported taking a medication for depression, 20% reported use of anxiolytics, and 15% reported use of sleep medications. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between younger age and depression (P = .01), anxiety (P = .001), and worse long-term global mental health (P = .02). Cognitive difficulties were significantly more common among patients with worse physical and/or mental health.

“[A] subset of patients may experience psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairment [which may be related to CAR T-cell therapy or other treatments patients have been exposed to], and it is important to identify those patients to assist with intervention strategies,” the investigators concluded.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Life Science Discovery Fund, Juno Therapeutics/Celgene, and others. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, T-CURX, and others.

SOURCE: Ruark J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.09.037.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is generally associated with good long-term neuropsychiatric status, based on a recent patient-reported outcomes study.

But almost one out of five patients may have notably worse cognitive and psychiatric outcomes within 1-5 years of therapy, reported Julia Ruark, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. According to Dr. Ruark and associates, this latter finding suggests that CAR T-cell therapy may negatively impact mental health in a subset of patients.

These findings provide clinical insight into a minimally researched patient population.

“At this time, only limited data are available regarding the long-term effects of CAR T-cell therapy,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. “Thus, it is important to evaluate the late neuropsychiatric effects of CAR T and evaluate their effect on survivors’ quality of life.”

The study involved 40 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Before undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, patients underwent standardized mental health screening with validated instruments such as the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. At least 1 year after CAR T-cell therapy, patients completed a questionnaire consisting of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scale v1.2 Global Health and the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.1, and 30 additional questions, 4 of which evaluated cognitive function. These data were converted to T scores for comparative purposes.

Patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had statistically similar T scores to the general population mean, suggesting comparable overall neuropsychiatric status. However, a closer look at the data showed that almost one out of five patients who underwent CAR T-cell therapy had global mental health scores that were at least 1 standard deviation lower than the mean for the general population and patients with cancer.

Almost half of the patients (47.5%) who underwent CAR T-cell therapy reported at least one clinically meaningful negative neuropsychiatric outcome. Specifically, 20% reported cognitive difficulties and depression or anxiety, 17.5% reported cognitive difficulties without depression or anxiety, and 10% reported depression or anxiety without cognitive difficulties. One-quarter (25%) of patients reported taking a medication for depression, 20% reported use of anxiolytics, and 15% reported use of sleep medications. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between younger age and depression (P = .01), anxiety (P = .001), and worse long-term global mental health (P = .02). Cognitive difficulties were significantly more common among patients with worse physical and/or mental health.

“[A] subset of patients may experience psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairment [which may be related to CAR T-cell therapy or other treatments patients have been exposed to], and it is important to identify those patients to assist with intervention strategies,” the investigators concluded.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Life Science Discovery Fund, Juno Therapeutics/Celgene, and others. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, T-CURX, and others.

SOURCE: Ruark J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.09.037.

Burnout among physicians appears to have decreased slightly in the past few years, but remains a significant problem for the medical profession, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide.

olm26250/Thinkstock

A survey of more than 15,000 physicians revealed that 42% reported being burned out, down from 46% who responded to the survey 5 years ago. However, there are variations in the rates based on certain demographic factors such as specialty, age, and gender.

Urology sits at the top of the list as the specialty that is experiencing the highest rate of burnout, with 54% of urologists responding to the survey reporting burnout. Neurology and nephrology followed with rates of burnout at 50% and 49%, respectively. The next five specialties on the list all reported burnout rates of 46%: diabetes and endocrinology, family medicine, radiology, ob.gyn., and rheumatology. Pulmonology specialists reported a burnout rate of 41%. Gastroenterologists reported burnout rates of 37%.

The survey divided participants into three age categories – Millennial (ages 25-39 years), Generation X (ages 40-54 years), and Baby Boomer (ages 55-73 years). Both Millennials and Baby Boomers reported similar rates of burnout (38% and 39%, respectively) and those in Generation X reported a higher rate of burnout (48%).

This higher rate is not unexpected. The survey results cite Carol Bernstein, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, as noting that midcareer “is typically the time of highest burnout, which is where Gen Xers are in their career trajectory, suggesting a number of factors outside of work such as caring for children and elderly parents, planning for retirement, can play a role in contributing to burnout.”

Women also reported a higher rate of burnout, although the rate has dropped from the survey conducted 5 years ago. The rate of burnout among women reported for the 2020 survey was 48%, down from 51% reported 5 years ago. By comparison, the rate of burnout for men was 37% in 2020, down from 43% in 2015.

In terms of what is causing burnout, the biggest contributor is the bureaucratic tasks (charting and paperwork, for example) that physicians must complete, which 55% of respondents to the survey said was the leading cause of burnout. Next was spending too many hours at work (33%); lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (32%); and the increased computerization of the practice, including the use of electronic health records (30%).

When broken down by age category, the bureaucratic tasks was tops in all three groups (57% for Millennials, 56% for Generation X, and 54% for Baby Boomers), but what ranks next differs slightly by age group. For Millennials, the next two factors were too many hours at work (38%) and lack of respect (35%). Generation X respondents cited the same two factors, both at 33%. Baby Boomers cited computerization as their second-highest factor (41%) and spending too many hours at work as the third-highest factor (31%).

The generations had different approaches to coping with burnout. Millennials (56%) reported sleep as their top-ranked coping strategy, while Gen Xers and Baby Boomers ranked exercise and personal isolation as their top choice. For these two older groups, sleep was ranked last, after other activities such as talking with family and friends.

The survey also asked about depression, and respondents reported a similar rate across all age groups (15%, 18%, and 16%, respectively). Among those who said they were depressed, the three age groups had similar rates of suicidal thoughts (21%, 24%, and 22%).

Perhaps the most striking finding of the survey is the number of physicians who would take a pay cut to achieve a better work-life balance. Among Millennials, 52% would accept a pay cut, compared with 48% of Generation X and 49% of Baby Boomers. A surprising number (36%, 34%, and 31%, respectively, reported that they would accept a $10,000-$20,000 pay cut to have a 20% reduction in work hours. [email protected]

*This story was updated on 1/22/2020.

SOURCE: Kane L et al. Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide. Medscape. 2020 Jan 15.

Burnout among physicians appears to have decreased slightly in the past few years, but remains a significant problem for the medical profession, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide.

olm26250/Thinkstock

A survey of more than 15,000 physicians revealed that 42% reported being burned out, down from 46% who responded to the survey 5 years ago. However, there are variations in the rates based on certain demographic factors such as specialty, age, and gender.

Urology sits at the top of the list as the specialty that is experiencing the highest rate of burnout, with 54% of urologists responding to the survey reporting burnout. Neurology and nephrology followed with rates of burnout at 50% and 49%, respectively. The next five specialties on the list all reported burnout rates of 46%: diabetes and endocrinology, family medicine, radiology, ob.gyn., and rheumatology. Pulmonology specialists reported a burnout rate of 41%. Gastroenterologists reported burnout rates of 37%.

The survey divided participants into three age categories – Millennial (ages 25-39 years), Generation X (ages 40-54 years), and Baby Boomer (ages 55-73 years). Both Millennials and Baby Boomers reported similar rates of burnout (38% and 39%, respectively) and those in Generation X reported a higher rate of burnout (48%).

This higher rate is not unexpected. The survey results cite Carol Bernstein, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, as noting that midcareer “is typically the time of highest burnout, which is where Gen Xers are in their career trajectory, suggesting a number of factors outside of work such as caring for children and elderly parents, planning for retirement, can play a role in contributing to burnout.”

Women also reported a higher rate of burnout, although the rate has dropped from the survey conducted 5 years ago. The rate of burnout among women reported for the 2020 survey was 48%, down from 51% reported 5 years ago. By comparison, the rate of burnout for men was 37% in 2020, down from 43% in 2015.

In terms of what is causing burnout, the biggest contributor is the bureaucratic tasks (charting and paperwork, for example) that physicians must complete, which 55% of respondents to the survey said was the leading cause of burnout. Next was spending too many hours at work (33%); lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (32%); and the increased computerization of the practice, including the use of electronic health records (30%).

When broken down by age category, the bureaucratic tasks was tops in all three groups (57% for Millennials, 56% for Generation X, and 54% for Baby Boomers), but what ranks next differs slightly by age group. For Millennials, the next two factors were too many hours at work (38%) and lack of respect (35%). Generation X respondents cited the same two factors, both at 33%. Baby Boomers cited computerization as their second-highest factor (41%) and spending too many hours at work as the third-highest factor (31%).

The generations had different approaches to coping with burnout. Millennials (56%) reported sleep as their top-ranked coping strategy, while Gen Xers and Baby Boomers ranked exercise and personal isolation as their top choice. For these two older groups, sleep was ranked last, after other activities such as talking with family and friends.

The survey also asked about depression, and respondents reported a similar rate across all age groups (15%, 18%, and 16%, respectively). Among those who said they were depressed, the three age groups had similar rates of suicidal thoughts (21%, 24%, and 22%).

Perhaps the most striking finding of the survey is the number of physicians who would take a pay cut to achieve a better work-life balance. Among Millennials, 52% would accept a pay cut, compared with 48% of Generation X and 49% of Baby Boomers. A surprising number (36%, 34%, and 31%, respectively, reported that they would accept a $10,000-$20,000 pay cut to have a 20% reduction in work hours. [email protected]

*This story was updated on 1/22/2020.

SOURCE: Kane L et al. Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide. Medscape. 2020 Jan 15.

Burnout among physicians appears to have decreased slightly in the past few years, but remains a significant problem for the medical profession, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide.

olm26250/Thinkstock

A survey of more than 15,000 physicians revealed that 42% reported being burned out, down from 46% who responded to the survey 5 years ago. However, there are variations in the rates based on certain demographic factors such as specialty, age, and gender.

Urology sits at the top of the list as the specialty that is experiencing the highest rate of burnout, with 54% of urologists responding to the survey reporting burnout. Neurology and nephrology followed with rates of burnout at 50% and 49%, respectively. The next five specialties on the list all reported burnout rates of 46%: diabetes and endocrinology, family medicine, radiology, ob.gyn., and rheumatology. Pulmonology specialists reported a burnout rate of 41%. Gastroenterologists reported burnout rates of 37%.

The survey divided participants into three age categories – Millennial (ages 25-39 years), Generation X (ages 40-54 years), and Baby Boomer (ages 55-73 years). Both Millennials and Baby Boomers reported similar rates of burnout (38% and 39%, respectively) and those in Generation X reported a higher rate of burnout (48%).

This higher rate is not unexpected. The survey results cite Carol Bernstein, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, as noting that midcareer “is typically the time of highest burnout, which is where Gen Xers are in their career trajectory, suggesting a number of factors outside of work such as caring for children and elderly parents, planning for retirement, can play a role in contributing to burnout.”

Women also reported a higher rate of burnout, although the rate has dropped from the survey conducted 5 years ago. The rate of burnout among women reported for the 2020 survey was 48%, down from 51% reported 5 years ago. By comparison, the rate of burnout for men was 37% in 2020, down from 43% in 2015.

In terms of what is causing burnout, the biggest contributor is the bureaucratic tasks (charting and paperwork, for example) that physicians must complete, which 55% of respondents to the survey said was the leading cause of burnout. Next was spending too many hours at work (33%); lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (32%); and the increased computerization of the practice, including the use of electronic health records (30%).

When broken down by age category, the bureaucratic tasks was tops in all three groups (57% for Millennials, 56% for Generation X, and 54% for Baby Boomers), but what ranks next differs slightly by age group. For Millennials, the next two factors were too many hours at work (38%) and lack of respect (35%). Generation X respondents cited the same two factors, both at 33%. Baby Boomers cited computerization as their second-highest factor (41%) and spending too many hours at work as the third-highest factor (31%).

The generations had different approaches to coping with burnout. Millennials (56%) reported sleep as their top-ranked coping strategy, while Gen Xers and Baby Boomers ranked exercise and personal isolation as their top choice. For these two older groups, sleep was ranked last, after other activities such as talking with family and friends.

The survey also asked about depression, and respondents reported a similar rate across all age groups (15%, 18%, and 16%, respectively). Among those who said they were depressed, the three age groups had similar rates of suicidal thoughts (21%, 24%, and 22%).

Perhaps the most striking finding of the survey is the number of physicians who would take a pay cut to achieve a better work-life balance. Among Millennials, 52% would accept a pay cut, compared with 48% of Generation X and 49% of Baby Boomers. A surprising number (36%, 34%, and 31%, respectively, reported that they would accept a $10,000-$20,000 pay cut to have a 20% reduction in work hours. [email protected]

*This story was updated on 1/22/2020.

SOURCE: Kane L et al. Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2020: The Generational Divide. Medscape. 2020 Jan 15.

When Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote “Prozac Nation,” an autobiographical account published in 1994 of her experience with depression and psychiatric medications, she helped shift the public dialogue about mental illness, and in doing so chipped away at the stigma that continues to haunt many of our patients.

Ms. Wurtzel, who died recently at age 52, wrote about depression passionately and matter-of-factly.

As she stated in “Prozac Nation”: “Depression was the loneliest &*%$ thing on earth. There were no halfway houses for depressives, no Depression Anonymous meetings that I knew of. Yes, of course, there were mental hospitals like McLean and Bellevue and Payne Whitney and the Menninger Clinic, but I couldn’t hope to end up in one of those places unless I made a suicide attempt serious enough to warrant oxygen or stitches or a stomach pump.

“I used to wish – to pray to God for the courage and strength – that I’d have the guts not to get better, but to slit my wrists and get a whole lot worse so I could land in some mental ward, where real help might have been possible.”

Think of where the public consciousness was in 1994. Peter D. Kramer, MD, had started the conversation on Prozac a year earlier with his book, “Listening to Prozac,” Kurt Cobain died by suicide in 1994, and 2 years later President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a law that “reformed” welfare and some say made it more difficult for low-income Americans to secure psychiatric and addiction services (Milbank Q. 2005 Mar;83[1]:65-99).

Prozac, as we know, was the first SSRI on the market in the late 1980s and was hailed as a major medication breakthrough in the treatment of depression. It lacked the side effects of the tricyclic antidepressants of previous years and did not have the potentially dangerous food restrictions associated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Interestingly, the major reviews of Ms. Wurtzel’s book, mainly written by men, were negative. Those reviews focused more on the lifestyle of Ms. Wurtzel, her introspection, and how difficult life was for her, rather than the importance of the book. To me, her writing skills were exceptional, as was her willingness to put her lifestyle and suffering on the line.

The literary critics failed to recognize the book’s importance in unmasking the massive denial of mental illnesses and what Ms. Wurtzel was trying to get across. There have been many successful male writers over the years whose lives were difficult and replete with emotional pain and suffering, and their work was lauded. Regardless of the reviews’ negativity, readers found her book open and enlightening, making it a bestseller – thus paving the way for better and more-open discussion of mental disorders. It also became a touchstone in discussions of antidepressants in the psychiatric literature (Lancet. 1998 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)08418-9; Lancet. 2015 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00430-7; and Biol Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 1;84[11]:e73-5).

However, unfortunately, the stigma still exists on many levels, often starting with the medical profession itself. In my experience over the years in teaching and supervising medical students, many of those not interested in becoming a psychiatrist all too often could not wait for their psych rotation to be over. Generally, they did not take the rotation seriously. I’ve even heard students making light of the delusions and paranoia seen in the suffering of acutely ill patients.

We can take this even further within the profession. I have had many referrals from far too many extremely competent physicians, across many medical specialties, who would refer to their patient as “sort of crazy.” Those physicians want the best for their patients, clearly, in making the referral, but they need to change their thinking and, therefore, their vocabulary about mental disorders. I’d like to see these physicians be more respectful of our patients – just as I would be if I were referring a patient complaining of fatigue and joint pain to a general internist or rheumatologist.

I once knew a brilliant orthopedic surgeon who, when he made a referral, would sit down with the patient and clearly explain why they were not crazy but had an anxiety or a mood problem that he didn’t treat but had a person to refer to who could help. Likewise, I know an ophthalmologist who tells his patients with some emotional symptoms that they are experiencing a difficult situation and would benefit from help that he is not able to provide but could be resolved with another type of specialist who works with their “difficulties.” We clearly need more docs like this who go out of their specialty to explain what patients might need – despite the administrative burden exacted by EMRs on doctors’ time and energy.

As we grow more tolerant in our culture and eliminate distasteful words about people and groups, maybe we should try and avoid the word crazy – even in our general vocabulary. Furthermore, in social situations, while out to dinner with friends, at the gym, or even while in the workplace, just as we may refer to our primary care doc as the best or report we have the best cardiologist or dermatologist, we rarely hear someone being open about the best psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist in the same manner.

“If ‘Prozac Nation’ has any particular purpose,” she wrote in the afterword, “it would be to come out and say that clinical depression is a real problem, that it ruins lives, that it ends lives, that it very nearly ended my life, that it afflicts many, many people, many very bright and worthy and thoughtful and caring people, people who could probably save the world or at the very least do it some real good.” Those people are our patients, and medicine should take the lead in working further to destigmatize mental illness.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

When Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote “Prozac Nation,” an autobiographical account published in 1994 of her experience with depression and psychiatric medications, she helped shift the public dialogue about mental illness, and in doing so chipped away at the stigma that continues to haunt many of our patients.

Ms. Wurtzel, who died recently at age 52, wrote about depression passionately and matter-of-factly.

As she stated in “Prozac Nation”: “Depression was the loneliest &*%$ thing on earth. There were no halfway houses for depressives, no Depression Anonymous meetings that I knew of. Yes, of course, there were mental hospitals like McLean and Bellevue and Payne Whitney and the Menninger Clinic, but I couldn’t hope to end up in one of those places unless I made a suicide attempt serious enough to warrant oxygen or stitches or a stomach pump.

“I used to wish – to pray to God for the courage and strength – that I’d have the guts not to get better, but to slit my wrists and get a whole lot worse so I could land in some mental ward, where real help might have been possible.”

Think of where the public consciousness was in 1994. Peter D. Kramer, MD, had started the conversation on Prozac a year earlier with his book, “Listening to Prozac,” Kurt Cobain died by suicide in 1994, and 2 years later President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a law that “reformed” welfare and some say made it more difficult for low-income Americans to secure psychiatric and addiction services (Milbank Q. 2005 Mar;83[1]:65-99).

Prozac, as we know, was the first SSRI on the market in the late 1980s and was hailed as a major medication breakthrough in the treatment of depression. It lacked the side effects of the tricyclic antidepressants of previous years and did not have the potentially dangerous food restrictions associated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Interestingly, the major reviews of Ms. Wurtzel’s book, mainly written by men, were negative. Those reviews focused more on the lifestyle of Ms. Wurtzel, her introspection, and how difficult life was for her, rather than the importance of the book. To me, her writing skills were exceptional, as was her willingness to put her lifestyle and suffering on the line.

The literary critics failed to recognize the book’s importance in unmasking the massive denial of mental illnesses and what Ms. Wurtzel was trying to get across. There have been many successful male writers over the years whose lives were difficult and replete with emotional pain and suffering, and their work was lauded. Regardless of the reviews’ negativity, readers found her book open and enlightening, making it a bestseller – thus paving the way for better and more-open discussion of mental disorders. It also became a touchstone in discussions of antidepressants in the psychiatric literature (Lancet. 1998 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)08418-9; Lancet. 2015 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00430-7; and Biol Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 1;84[11]:e73-5).

However, unfortunately, the stigma still exists on many levels, often starting with the medical profession itself. In my experience over the years in teaching and supervising medical students, many of those not interested in becoming a psychiatrist all too often could not wait for their psych rotation to be over. Generally, they did not take the rotation seriously. I’ve even heard students making light of the delusions and paranoia seen in the suffering of acutely ill patients.

We can take this even further within the profession. I have had many referrals from far too many extremely competent physicians, across many medical specialties, who would refer to their patient as “sort of crazy.” Those physicians want the best for their patients, clearly, in making the referral, but they need to change their thinking and, therefore, their vocabulary about mental disorders. I’d like to see these physicians be more respectful of our patients – just as I would be if I were referring a patient complaining of fatigue and joint pain to a general internist or rheumatologist.

I once knew a brilliant orthopedic surgeon who, when he made a referral, would sit down with the patient and clearly explain why they were not crazy but had an anxiety or a mood problem that he didn’t treat but had a person to refer to who could help. Likewise, I know an ophthalmologist who tells his patients with some emotional symptoms that they are experiencing a difficult situation and would benefit from help that he is not able to provide but could be resolved with another type of specialist who works with their “difficulties.” We clearly need more docs like this who go out of their specialty to explain what patients might need – despite the administrative burden exacted by EMRs on doctors’ time and energy.

As we grow more tolerant in our culture and eliminate distasteful words about people and groups, maybe we should try and avoid the word crazy – even in our general vocabulary. Furthermore, in social situations, while out to dinner with friends, at the gym, or even while in the workplace, just as we may refer to our primary care doc as the best or report we have the best cardiologist or dermatologist, we rarely hear someone being open about the best psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist in the same manner.

“If ‘Prozac Nation’ has any particular purpose,” she wrote in the afterword, “it would be to come out and say that clinical depression is a real problem, that it ruins lives, that it ends lives, that it very nearly ended my life, that it afflicts many, many people, many very bright and worthy and thoughtful and caring people, people who could probably save the world or at the very least do it some real good.” Those people are our patients, and medicine should take the lead in working further to destigmatize mental illness.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

When Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote “Prozac Nation,” an autobiographical account published in 1994 of her experience with depression and psychiatric medications, she helped shift the public dialogue about mental illness, and in doing so chipped away at the stigma that continues to haunt many of our patients.

Ms. Wurtzel, who died recently at age 52, wrote about depression passionately and matter-of-factly.

As she stated in “Prozac Nation”: “Depression was the loneliest &*%$ thing on earth. There were no halfway houses for depressives, no Depression Anonymous meetings that I knew of. Yes, of course, there were mental hospitals like McLean and Bellevue and Payne Whitney and the Menninger Clinic, but I couldn’t hope to end up in one of those places unless I made a suicide attempt serious enough to warrant oxygen or stitches or a stomach pump.

“I used to wish – to pray to God for the courage and strength – that I’d have the guts not to get better, but to slit my wrists and get a whole lot worse so I could land in some mental ward, where real help might have been possible.”

Think of where the public consciousness was in 1994. Peter D. Kramer, MD, had started the conversation on Prozac a year earlier with his book, “Listening to Prozac,” Kurt Cobain died by suicide in 1994, and 2 years later President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a law that “reformed” welfare and some say made it more difficult for low-income Americans to secure psychiatric and addiction services (Milbank Q. 2005 Mar;83[1]:65-99).

Prozac, as we know, was the first SSRI on the market in the late 1980s and was hailed as a major medication breakthrough in the treatment of depression. It lacked the side effects of the tricyclic antidepressants of previous years and did not have the potentially dangerous food restrictions associated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Interestingly, the major reviews of Ms. Wurtzel’s book, mainly written by men, were negative. Those reviews focused more on the lifestyle of Ms. Wurtzel, her introspection, and how difficult life was for her, rather than the importance of the book. To me, her writing skills were exceptional, as was her willingness to put her lifestyle and suffering on the line.

The literary critics failed to recognize the book’s importance in unmasking the massive denial of mental illnesses and what Ms. Wurtzel was trying to get across. There have been many successful male writers over the years whose lives were difficult and replete with emotional pain and suffering, and their work was lauded. Regardless of the reviews’ negativity, readers found her book open and enlightening, making it a bestseller – thus paving the way for better and more-open discussion of mental disorders. It also became a touchstone in discussions of antidepressants in the psychiatric literature (Lancet. 1998 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)08418-9; Lancet. 2015 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00430-7; and Biol Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 1;84[11]:e73-5).

However, unfortunately, the stigma still exists on many levels, often starting with the medical profession itself. In my experience over the years in teaching and supervising medical students, many of those not interested in becoming a psychiatrist all too often could not wait for their psych rotation to be over. Generally, they did not take the rotation seriously. I’ve even heard students making light of the delusions and paranoia seen in the suffering of acutely ill patients.

We can take this even further within the profession. I have had many referrals from far too many extremely competent physicians, across many medical specialties, who would refer to their patient as “sort of crazy.” Those physicians want the best for their patients, clearly, in making the referral, but they need to change their thinking and, therefore, their vocabulary about mental disorders. I’d like to see these physicians be more respectful of our patients – just as I would be if I were referring a patient complaining of fatigue and joint pain to a general internist or rheumatologist.

I once knew a brilliant orthopedic surgeon who, when he made a referral, would sit down with the patient and clearly explain why they were not crazy but had an anxiety or a mood problem that he didn’t treat but had a person to refer to who could help. Likewise, I know an ophthalmologist who tells his patients with some emotional symptoms that they are experiencing a difficult situation and would benefit from help that he is not able to provide but could be resolved with another type of specialist who works with their “difficulties.” We clearly need more docs like this who go out of their specialty to explain what patients might need – despite the administrative burden exacted by EMRs on doctors’ time and energy.

As we grow more tolerant in our culture and eliminate distasteful words about people and groups, maybe we should try and avoid the word crazy – even in our general vocabulary. Furthermore, in social situations, while out to dinner with friends, at the gym, or even while in the workplace, just as we may refer to our primary care doc as the best or report we have the best cardiologist or dermatologist, we rarely hear someone being open about the best psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist in the same manner.

“If ‘Prozac Nation’ has any particular purpose,” she wrote in the afterword, “it would be to come out and say that clinical depression is a real problem, that it ruins lives, that it ends lives, that it very nearly ended my life, that it afflicts many, many people, many very bright and worthy and thoughtful and caring people, people who could probably save the world or at the very least do it some real good.” Those people are our patients, and medicine should take the lead in working further to destigmatize mental illness.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

A new study of claims-based data has found that the incidence and prevalence of nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) lung disease is increasing in most states.

Dr. George Kubica/CDC

To assess the NTM lung disease burden on a national level, Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and associates analyzed patient data from a U.S. managed care claims database between 2008 and 2015. Their findings were published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

A case of NTM lung disease was defined as a patient with at least two medical claims with the disease’s diagnostic codes – 031.0 and A31.0 – that were at least 30 days apart. Of the 74,984,596 beneficiaries in the database, 9,476 met the case definition for NTM lung disease; 69% (n = 6,530) were women.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of NTM lung disease increased from 3.13 (95% confidence interval, 2.88-3.40) to 4.73 (95% CI, 4.43-5.05) per 100,000 person-years, with the average rate of yearly change being +5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.4%; P less than .01).The annual prevalence increased from 6.78 (95% CI, 6.45-7.14) to 11.70 (95% CI, 11.26-12.16) per 100,000 persons, with the average rate of yearly change being +7.5% (95% CI, 6.7-8.2%; P less than .01).

The majority of NTM lung disease in the United States is caused by Mycobacterium avium complex (17), although other species such as M. abscessus, M. kansasii, M. xenopi, and others contribute to this disease burden.

“It’s a classic chicken-or-egg scenario,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, a pulmonologist in San Francisco, in regard to the rising numbers. “Increased awareness of NTM lung disease is, in part, why we’re seeing prevalence and incidence go up. And yet the disease itself may also be growing in clusters and pockets, as the data show, in various places across the nation.

“The worrisome aspect here,” he added, “is that future studies will likely show that, as incidence is increasing, mortality is increasing as well. That speaks to the challenges with these bugs: Very hard to diagnose, very hard to treat.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the lack of microbiologic or radiographic confirmation of the NTM infection and the inherent shortcomings of claims data–based studies overall. They did note a previous report, however, that “claims-based case identification has a high positive predictive value of approximately 82% for NTM lung disease.”

The study was funded by Insmed; the Intramural Research Programs of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Dec 13. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201804-236OC.

A new study of claims-based data has found that the incidence and prevalence of nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) lung disease is increasing in most states.

Dr. George Kubica/CDC

To assess the NTM lung disease burden on a national level, Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and associates analyzed patient data from a U.S. managed care claims database between 2008 and 2015. Their findings were published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

A case of NTM lung disease was defined as a patient with at least two medical claims with the disease’s diagnostic codes – 031.0 and A31.0 – that were at least 30 days apart. Of the 74,984,596 beneficiaries in the database, 9,476 met the case definition for NTM lung disease; 69% (n = 6,530) were women.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of NTM lung disease increased from 3.13 (95% confidence interval, 2.88-3.40) to 4.73 (95% CI, 4.43-5.05) per 100,000 person-years, with the average rate of yearly change being +5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.4%; P less than .01).The annual prevalence increased from 6.78 (95% CI, 6.45-7.14) to 11.70 (95% CI, 11.26-12.16) per 100,000 persons, with the average rate of yearly change being +7.5% (95% CI, 6.7-8.2%; P less than .01).

The majority of NTM lung disease in the United States is caused by Mycobacterium avium complex (17), although other species such as M. abscessus, M. kansasii, M. xenopi, and others contribute to this disease burden.

“It’s a classic chicken-or-egg scenario,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, a pulmonologist in San Francisco, in regard to the rising numbers. “Increased awareness of NTM lung disease is, in part, why we’re seeing prevalence and incidence go up. And yet the disease itself may also be growing in clusters and pockets, as the data show, in various places across the nation.

“The worrisome aspect here,” he added, “is that future studies will likely show that, as incidence is increasing, mortality is increasing as well. That speaks to the challenges with these bugs: Very hard to diagnose, very hard to treat.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the lack of microbiologic or radiographic confirmation of the NTM infection and the inherent shortcomings of claims data–based studies overall. They did note a previous report, however, that “claims-based case identification has a high positive predictive value of approximately 82% for NTM lung disease.”

The study was funded by Insmed; the Intramural Research Programs of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Dec 13. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201804-236OC.

A new study of claims-based data has found that the incidence and prevalence of nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) lung disease is increasing in most states.

Dr. George Kubica/CDC

To assess the NTM lung disease burden on a national level, Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and associates analyzed patient data from a U.S. managed care claims database between 2008 and 2015. Their findings were published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

A case of NTM lung disease was defined as a patient with at least two medical claims with the disease’s diagnostic codes – 031.0 and A31.0 – that were at least 30 days apart. Of the 74,984,596 beneficiaries in the database, 9,476 met the case definition for NTM lung disease; 69% (n = 6,530) were women.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of NTM lung disease increased from 3.13 (95% confidence interval, 2.88-3.40) to 4.73 (95% CI, 4.43-5.05) per 100,000 person-years, with the average rate of yearly change being +5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.4%; P less than .01).The annual prevalence increased from 6.78 (95% CI, 6.45-7.14) to 11.70 (95% CI, 11.26-12.16) per 100,000 persons, with the average rate of yearly change being +7.5% (95% CI, 6.7-8.2%; P less than .01).

The majority of NTM lung disease in the United States is caused by Mycobacterium avium complex (17), although other species such as M. abscessus, M. kansasii, M. xenopi, and others contribute to this disease burden.

“It’s a classic chicken-or-egg scenario,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, a pulmonologist in San Francisco, in regard to the rising numbers. “Increased awareness of NTM lung disease is, in part, why we’re seeing prevalence and incidence go up. And yet the disease itself may also be growing in clusters and pockets, as the data show, in various places across the nation.

“The worrisome aspect here,” he added, “is that future studies will likely show that, as incidence is increasing, mortality is increasing as well. That speaks to the challenges with these bugs: Very hard to diagnose, very hard to treat.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the lack of microbiologic or radiographic confirmation of the NTM infection and the inherent shortcomings of claims data–based studies overall. They did note a previous report, however, that “claims-based case identification has a high positive predictive value of approximately 82% for NTM lung disease.”

The study was funded by Insmed; the Intramural Research Programs of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Dec 13. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201804-236OC.

Researchers are recommending routine screening of marijuana use in cardiovascular care settings.

Scott Harms/iStockphoto

A review of current evidence suggests an association between marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects, as well as interactions between marijuana and cardiovascular medications.

Although more research is needed, the review authors suggested patients may benefit from marijuana screening and testing as well as discussions about the potential risks of marijuana use in the setting of cardiovascular disease.

Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York and colleagues conducted this review, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors noted that research on marijuana use and cardiovascular disease is limited. The different forms of cannabis and various routes of administration have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about marijuana products. Additionally, there have been no randomized, controlled trials of marijuana products in the United States because such trials are illegal; however, there are observational studies linking marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects.

Snapshot of available evidence

One study showed that smoking marijuana produces many of the same cardiotoxic chemicals produced by smoking tobacco (BMJ. 2003 May 3;326[7396]:942-3). Another study suggested marijuana smokers may have greater exposure to harmful chemicals (J Psychoactive Drugs. 1988 Jan-Mar;20[1]:43-6).

More specifically, a meta-analysis suggested that smoking marijuana was one of the top three triggers of myocardial infarction (Lancet. 2011 Feb 26;377[9767]:732-40). And in a systematic analysis, 28 of 33 studies linked marijuana use to an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (Clin Toxicol [Phila]. 2019 Oct;57[10]:831-41).

Furthermore, a study of 2.5 million marijuana users showed that 3% experienced arrhythmias (Int J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 1;264:91-2). A population survey showed that people who smoked marijuana in the past year experienced a 3.3-fold higher rate of cerebrovascular events (Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Jun;40[3]:226-30).

Studies have also indicated that cannabinoids can affect cardiovascular medications, including antiarrhythmics, calcium-channel blockers, isosorbide dinitrate/mononitrate, statins, beta-blockers, warfarin, theophylline, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Medicines [Basel]. 2018 Dec 23;6[1] pii: E3; Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2017;32:249-62; Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009 Jul;19[7]:559-62; Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Jul;43[7]:1347-53; Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Sep;201:25-38).

Reviewer recommendations

Cardiovascular specialists should be informed about regulations governing marijuana products, as well as “potential health consequences of marijuana and its derivatives,” according to Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues.

The authors recommend routinely screening patients for marijuana use, perhaps using the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory (PLoS One. 2017 May 26;12[5]:e0178194) or the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018 Jun;27[2]:e1597).

The authors say urine toxicology “may be reasonable” for patients with myocardial infarction or new-onset heart failure. Such testing is required for patients undergoing a heart transplant because marijuana use may affect their candidacy.

Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues say cardiovascular specialists should inform patients about the risks associated with marijuana use. The authors recommend shared decision making for patients who use marijuana for symptom management or palliative purposes.

Three review authors disclosed relationships with many different pharmaceutical companies. One author disclosed relationships with Medscape Cardiology and WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.025.

Researchers are recommending routine screening of marijuana use in cardiovascular care settings.

Scott Harms/iStockphoto

A review of current evidence suggests an association between marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects, as well as interactions between marijuana and cardiovascular medications.

Although more research is needed, the review authors suggested patients may benefit from marijuana screening and testing as well as discussions about the potential risks of marijuana use in the setting of cardiovascular disease.

Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York and colleagues conducted this review, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors noted that research on marijuana use and cardiovascular disease is limited. The different forms of cannabis and various routes of administration have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about marijuana products. Additionally, there have been no randomized, controlled trials of marijuana products in the United States because such trials are illegal; however, there are observational studies linking marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects.

Snapshot of available evidence

One study showed that smoking marijuana produces many of the same cardiotoxic chemicals produced by smoking tobacco (BMJ. 2003 May 3;326[7396]:942-3). Another study suggested marijuana smokers may have greater exposure to harmful chemicals (J Psychoactive Drugs. 1988 Jan-Mar;20[1]:43-6).

More specifically, a meta-analysis suggested that smoking marijuana was one of the top three triggers of myocardial infarction (Lancet. 2011 Feb 26;377[9767]:732-40). And in a systematic analysis, 28 of 33 studies linked marijuana use to an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (Clin Toxicol [Phila]. 2019 Oct;57[10]:831-41).

Furthermore, a study of 2.5 million marijuana users showed that 3% experienced arrhythmias (Int J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 1;264:91-2). A population survey showed that people who smoked marijuana in the past year experienced a 3.3-fold higher rate of cerebrovascular events (Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Jun;40[3]:226-30).

Studies have also indicated that cannabinoids can affect cardiovascular medications, including antiarrhythmics, calcium-channel blockers, isosorbide dinitrate/mononitrate, statins, beta-blockers, warfarin, theophylline, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Medicines [Basel]. 2018 Dec 23;6[1] pii: E3; Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2017;32:249-62; Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009 Jul;19[7]:559-62; Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Jul;43[7]:1347-53; Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Sep;201:25-38).

Reviewer recommendations

Cardiovascular specialists should be informed about regulations governing marijuana products, as well as “potential health consequences of marijuana and its derivatives,” according to Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues.

The authors recommend routinely screening patients for marijuana use, perhaps using the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory (PLoS One. 2017 May 26;12[5]:e0178194) or the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018 Jun;27[2]:e1597).

The authors say urine toxicology “may be reasonable” for patients with myocardial infarction or new-onset heart failure. Such testing is required for patients undergoing a heart transplant because marijuana use may affect their candidacy.

Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues say cardiovascular specialists should inform patients about the risks associated with marijuana use. The authors recommend shared decision making for patients who use marijuana for symptom management or palliative purposes.

Three review authors disclosed relationships with many different pharmaceutical companies. One author disclosed relationships with Medscape Cardiology and WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.025.

Researchers are recommending routine screening of marijuana use in cardiovascular care settings.

Scott Harms/iStockphoto

A review of current evidence suggests an association between marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects, as well as interactions between marijuana and cardiovascular medications.

Although more research is needed, the review authors suggested patients may benefit from marijuana screening and testing as well as discussions about the potential risks of marijuana use in the setting of cardiovascular disease.

Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York and colleagues conducted this review, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors noted that research on marijuana use and cardiovascular disease is limited. The different forms of cannabis and various routes of administration have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about marijuana products. Additionally, there have been no randomized, controlled trials of marijuana products in the United States because such trials are illegal; however, there are observational studies linking marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects.

Snapshot of available evidence

One study showed that smoking marijuana produces many of the same cardiotoxic chemicals produced by smoking tobacco (BMJ. 2003 May 3;326[7396]:942-3). Another study suggested marijuana smokers may have greater exposure to harmful chemicals (J Psychoactive Drugs. 1988 Jan-Mar;20[1]:43-6).

More specifically, a meta-analysis suggested that smoking marijuana was one of the top three triggers of myocardial infarction (Lancet. 2011 Feb 26;377[9767]:732-40). And in a systematic analysis, 28 of 33 studies linked marijuana use to an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (Clin Toxicol [Phila]. 2019 Oct;57[10]:831-41).

Furthermore, a study of 2.5 million marijuana users showed that 3% experienced arrhythmias (Int J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 1;264:91-2). A population survey showed that people who smoked marijuana in the past year experienced a 3.3-fold higher rate of cerebrovascular events (Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Jun;40[3]:226-30).

Studies have also indicated that cannabinoids can affect cardiovascular medications, including antiarrhythmics, calcium-channel blockers, isosorbide dinitrate/mononitrate, statins, beta-blockers, warfarin, theophylline, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Medicines [Basel]. 2018 Dec 23;6[1] pii: E3; Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2017;32:249-62; Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009 Jul;19[7]:559-62; Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Jul;43[7]:1347-53; Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Sep;201:25-38).

Reviewer recommendations

Cardiovascular specialists should be informed about regulations governing marijuana products, as well as “potential health consequences of marijuana and its derivatives,” according to Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues.

The authors recommend routinely screening patients for marijuana use, perhaps using the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory (PLoS One. 2017 May 26;12[5]:e0178194) or the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018 Jun;27[2]:e1597).

The authors say urine toxicology “may be reasonable” for patients with myocardial infarction or new-onset heart failure. Such testing is required for patients undergoing a heart transplant because marijuana use may affect their candidacy.

Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues say cardiovascular specialists should inform patients about the risks associated with marijuana use. The authors recommend shared decision making for patients who use marijuana for symptom management or palliative purposes.

Three review authors disclosed relationships with many different pharmaceutical companies. One author disclosed relationships with Medscape Cardiology and WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.025.

Three U.S. airports will begin health screening for travelers from Wuhan, China, because of an outbreak of pneumonia caused by a newly identified coronavirus called 2019-nCoV, according to an announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC/John Hierholzer, MD

Starting today, Jan. 17, 2020, people traveling from Wuhan to New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports will be screened for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV, which include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing.

“Based on the information that CDC has today, we believe the current risk for this virus to the general public is low,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a CDC telebriefing.

To date, 45 cases of 2019-nCoV have been reported in Wuhan, according to the CDC. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said 15 patients have been cured and discharged, 5 severe cases are still being treated, and 2 patients have died. Both deaths occurred in older patients, one of whom was aged 69 years and one aged 61 years. One of the patients was known to have underlying health conditions.

Three cases of 2019-nCoV have been confirmed outside of Wuhan, one in Japan and two in Thailand. All three were travelers from Wuhan.

The virus is believed to have originated at Wuhan South China Seafood City, a market that sold seafood, chickens, bats, cats, marmots, and other wild animals. (The market has since been closed and disinfected.) The origin suggests animal-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV, but it appears that human-to-human transmission can occur as well.

“While most of these infections seem to be happening from animals to people, there is some indication that limited person-to-person spread is happening,” Dr. Messonnier said.

Maridav/Shutterstock

[email protected]

Three U.S. airports will begin health screening for travelers from Wuhan, China, because of an outbreak of pneumonia caused by a newly identified coronavirus called 2019-nCoV, according to an announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC/John Hierholzer, MD

Starting today, Jan. 17, 2020, people traveling from Wuhan to New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports will be screened for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV, which include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing.

“Based on the information that CDC has today, we believe the current risk for this virus to the general public is low,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a CDC telebriefing.

To date, 45 cases of 2019-nCoV have been reported in Wuhan, according to the CDC. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said 15 patients have been cured and discharged, 5 severe cases are still being treated, and 2 patients have died. Both deaths occurred in older patients, one of whom was aged 69 years and one aged 61 years. One of the patients was known to have underlying health conditions.

Three cases of 2019-nCoV have been confirmed outside of Wuhan, one in Japan and two in Thailand. All three were travelers from Wuhan.

The virus is believed to have originated at Wuhan South China Seafood City, a market that sold seafood, chickens, bats, cats, marmots, and other wild animals. (The market has since been closed and disinfected.) The origin suggests animal-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV, but it appears that human-to-human transmission can occur as well.

“While most of these infections seem to be happening from animals to people, there is some indication that limited person-to-person spread is happening,” Dr. Messonnier said.

Maridav/Shutterstock

[email protected]

Three U.S. airports will begin health screening for travelers from Wuhan, China, because of an outbreak of pneumonia caused by a newly identified coronavirus called 2019-nCoV, according to an announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC/John Hierholzer, MD

Starting today, Jan. 17, 2020, people traveling from Wuhan to New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports will be screened for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV, which include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing.

“Based on the information that CDC has today, we believe the current risk for this virus to the general public is low,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a CDC telebriefing.

To date, 45 cases of 2019-nCoV have been reported in Wuhan, according to the CDC. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said 15 patients have been cured and discharged, 5 severe cases are still being treated, and 2 patients have died. Both deaths occurred in older patients, one of whom was aged 69 years and one aged 61 years. One of the patients was known to have underlying health conditions.

Three cases of 2019-nCoV have been confirmed outside of Wuhan, one in Japan and two in Thailand. All three were travelers from Wuhan.

The virus is believed to have originated at Wuhan South China Seafood City, a market that sold seafood, chickens, bats, cats, marmots, and other wild animals. (The market has since been closed and disinfected.) The origin suggests animal-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV, but it appears that human-to-human transmission can occur as well.

“While most of these infections seem to be happening from animals to people, there is some indication that limited person-to-person spread is happening,” Dr. Messonnier said.

Maridav/Shutterstock

[email protected]