The United States multi-society task force on colorectal cancer (CRC) has updated its 2014 guidance for optimizing the adequacy of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

The latest consensus recommendations emphasize the importance of verbal and written patient education, refine diet restrictions, update optimal purgative regimens, and advise tracking bowel prep adequacy rates at both the individual endoscopist and unit levels.

“Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, and colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating the colon, including assessing causes of colon-related signs or symptoms and the detection of precancerous lesions. It is well recognized that the adequacy of bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy performance,” the task force wrote.

 

Choice of Prep, Dosing and Timing, and Dietary Restrictions 

When choosing bowel preparation regimens, the task force recommends considering the individual’s medical history, medications, and, when available, the adequacy of bowel preparation reported from prior colonoscopies. Other considerations include patient preference, associated additional costs to the patient, and ease in obtaining and consuming any purgatives or adjuncts.

In terms of timing and dose, the task force now “suggests that lower-volume bowel preparation regimens, such as those that rely on only 2 liters of fluid compared to the traditional 4L, are acceptable options for individuals considered unlikely to have an inadequate bowel preparation. This assumes that the purgative is taken in a split-dose fashion (half the evening prior to colonoscopy and half the morning of the colonoscopy),” co–lead author Brian C. Jacobson, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

The task force also states that a same-day bowel preparation regimen for afternoon, but not morning, colonoscopy is a “reasonable alternative to the now-common split-dose regimen,” Jacobson said.

The group did not find one bowel preparation purgative to be better than others, although table 7 in the document details characteristics of commonly used prep regimens including their side effects and contraindications.

Recommendations regarding dietary modifications depend upon the patient’s risk for inadequate bowel prep. For patients at low risk for inadequate bowel prep, the task force recommends limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. Table 5 in the document provides a list of low-residue foods and sample meals.

The task force also suggests the adjunctive use of oral simethicone (≥ 320 mg) to bowel prep as a way to potentially improve visualization, although they acknowledge that further research is needed.

How might these updated consensus recommendations change current clinical practice? 

Jacobson said: “Some physicians may try to identify individuals who will do just as well with a more patient-friendly, easily tolerated bowel preparation regimen, including less stringent dietary restrictions leading up to colonoscopy.” 

He noted that the task force prefers the term “guidance” to “guidelines.”

 

New Quality Benchmark 

The task force recommends documenting bowel prep quality in the endoscopy report after all washing and suctioning have been completed using reliably understood descriptors that communicate the adequacy of the preparation.

They recommend the term “adequate bowel preparation” be used to indicate that standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy.

Additionally, the task force recommends that endoscopy units and individual endoscopists track and aim for ≥ 90% adequacy rates in bowel preparation — up from the 85% benchmark contained in the prior recommendations.

Jacobson told this news organization it’s “currently unknown” how many individual endoscopists and endoscopy units track and meet the 90% benchmark at present.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who wasn’t on the task force, said endoscopy units and providers “need to be accountable and should be tracking this quality metric.”

Johnson noted that bowel prep inadequacy has “intrinsic costs,” impacting lesion detection, CRC incidence, and patient outcomes. Inadequate prep leads to “increased risk for morbidity, mortality, longer appointment and wait times for rescheduling, and negative connotations that may deter patients from returning.”

 

Brian Sullivan, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, who wasn’t on the task force, said the recommendation to target a 90% or higher bowel preparation adequacy rate is “appreciated.”

“This benchmark encourages practices to standardize measurement, tracking, and reporting of preparation quality at both the individual and unit levels. Specifically, it should motivate providers to critically evaluate their interpretation of preparation quality and ensure adequate cleansing before making determinations,” Sullivan said in an interview.

“At the unit level, this metric can identify whether there are opportunities for quality improvement, such as by implementing evidence-based initiatives (provided in the guidance) to enhance outpatient preparation processes,” Sullivan noted.

The task force emphasized that the majority of consensus recommendations focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel prep. Patients at high risk for inadequate bowel prep (eg, diabetes, constipation, opioid use) should receive tailored instructions, including a more extended dietary prep and high-volume purgatives.

 

‘Timely and Important’ Updates

Sullivan said the updated consensus recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy are both “timely and important.” 

“Clear guidance facilitates dissemination and adoption, promoting flexible yet evidence-based approaches that enhance patient and provider satisfaction while potentially improving CRC prevention outcomes. For instance, surveys reveal that some practices still do not utilize split-dose bowel preparation, which is proven to improve preparation quality, particularly for the right-side of the colon. This gap underscores the need for standardized guidance to ensure high-quality colonoscopy and effective CRC screening,” Sullivan said.

He also noted that the inclusion of lower-volume bowel prep regimens and less intensive dietary modifications for selected patients is a “welcome update.”

“These options can improve patient adherence and satisfaction, which are critical not only for the quality of the index exam but also for ensuring patients return for future screenings, thereby supporting long-term CRC prevention efforts,” Sullivan said.

The task force includes representatives from the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The consensus document was published online in the three societies’ respective scientific journals — Gastroenterology, the American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Gastrointestinal Endsocopy.

This research had no financial support. Jacobson is a consultant for Curis and Guardant Health. Sullivan had no disclosures. Johnson is an adviser to ISOThrive and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

The United States multi-society task force on colorectal cancer (CRC) has updated its 2014 guidance for optimizing the adequacy of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

The latest consensus recommendations emphasize the importance of verbal and written patient education, refine diet restrictions, update optimal purgative regimens, and advise tracking bowel prep adequacy rates at both the individual endoscopist and unit levels.

“Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, and colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating the colon, including assessing causes of colon-related signs or symptoms and the detection of precancerous lesions. It is well recognized that the adequacy of bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy performance,” the task force wrote.

 

Choice of Prep, Dosing and Timing, and Dietary Restrictions 

When choosing bowel preparation regimens, the task force recommends considering the individual’s medical history, medications, and, when available, the adequacy of bowel preparation reported from prior colonoscopies. Other considerations include patient preference, associated additional costs to the patient, and ease in obtaining and consuming any purgatives or adjuncts.

In terms of timing and dose, the task force now “suggests that lower-volume bowel preparation regimens, such as those that rely on only 2 liters of fluid compared to the traditional 4L, are acceptable options for individuals considered unlikely to have an inadequate bowel preparation. This assumes that the purgative is taken in a split-dose fashion (half the evening prior to colonoscopy and half the morning of the colonoscopy),” co–lead author Brian C. Jacobson, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

The task force also states that a same-day bowel preparation regimen for afternoon, but not morning, colonoscopy is a “reasonable alternative to the now-common split-dose regimen,” Jacobson said.

The group did not find one bowel preparation purgative to be better than others, although table 7 in the document details characteristics of commonly used prep regimens including their side effects and contraindications.

Recommendations regarding dietary modifications depend upon the patient’s risk for inadequate bowel prep. For patients at low risk for inadequate bowel prep, the task force recommends limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. Table 5 in the document provides a list of low-residue foods and sample meals.

The task force also suggests the adjunctive use of oral simethicone (≥ 320 mg) to bowel prep as a way to potentially improve visualization, although they acknowledge that further research is needed.

How might these updated consensus recommendations change current clinical practice? 

Jacobson said: “Some physicians may try to identify individuals who will do just as well with a more patient-friendly, easily tolerated bowel preparation regimen, including less stringent dietary restrictions leading up to colonoscopy.” 

He noted that the task force prefers the term “guidance” to “guidelines.”

 

New Quality Benchmark 

The task force recommends documenting bowel prep quality in the endoscopy report after all washing and suctioning have been completed using reliably understood descriptors that communicate the adequacy of the preparation.

They recommend the term “adequate bowel preparation” be used to indicate that standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy.

Additionally, the task force recommends that endoscopy units and individual endoscopists track and aim for ≥ 90% adequacy rates in bowel preparation — up from the 85% benchmark contained in the prior recommendations.

Jacobson told this news organization it’s “currently unknown” how many individual endoscopists and endoscopy units track and meet the 90% benchmark at present.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who wasn’t on the task force, said endoscopy units and providers “need to be accountable and should be tracking this quality metric.”

Johnson noted that bowel prep inadequacy has “intrinsic costs,” impacting lesion detection, CRC incidence, and patient outcomes. Inadequate prep leads to “increased risk for morbidity, mortality, longer appointment and wait times for rescheduling, and negative connotations that may deter patients from returning.”

 

Brian Sullivan, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, who wasn’t on the task force, said the recommendation to target a 90% or higher bowel preparation adequacy rate is “appreciated.”

“This benchmark encourages practices to standardize measurement, tracking, and reporting of preparation quality at both the individual and unit levels. Specifically, it should motivate providers to critically evaluate their interpretation of preparation quality and ensure adequate cleansing before making determinations,” Sullivan said in an interview.

“At the unit level, this metric can identify whether there are opportunities for quality improvement, such as by implementing evidence-based initiatives (provided in the guidance) to enhance outpatient preparation processes,” Sullivan noted.

The task force emphasized that the majority of consensus recommendations focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel prep. Patients at high risk for inadequate bowel prep (eg, diabetes, constipation, opioid use) should receive tailored instructions, including a more extended dietary prep and high-volume purgatives.

 

‘Timely and Important’ Updates

Sullivan said the updated consensus recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy are both “timely and important.” 

“Clear guidance facilitates dissemination and adoption, promoting flexible yet evidence-based approaches that enhance patient and provider satisfaction while potentially improving CRC prevention outcomes. For instance, surveys reveal that some practices still do not utilize split-dose bowel preparation, which is proven to improve preparation quality, particularly for the right-side of the colon. This gap underscores the need for standardized guidance to ensure high-quality colonoscopy and effective CRC screening,” Sullivan said.

He also noted that the inclusion of lower-volume bowel prep regimens and less intensive dietary modifications for selected patients is a “welcome update.”

“These options can improve patient adherence and satisfaction, which are critical not only for the quality of the index exam but also for ensuring patients return for future screenings, thereby supporting long-term CRC prevention efforts,” Sullivan said.

The task force includes representatives from the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The consensus document was published online in the three societies’ respective scientific journals — Gastroenterology, the American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Gastrointestinal Endsocopy.

This research had no financial support. Jacobson is a consultant for Curis and Guardant Health. Sullivan had no disclosures. Johnson is an adviser to ISOThrive and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

The United States multi-society task force on colorectal cancer (CRC) has updated its 2014 guidance for optimizing the adequacy of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

The latest consensus recommendations emphasize the importance of verbal and written patient education, refine diet restrictions, update optimal purgative regimens, and advise tracking bowel prep adequacy rates at both the individual endoscopist and unit levels.

“Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, and colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating the colon, including assessing causes of colon-related signs or symptoms and the detection of precancerous lesions. It is well recognized that the adequacy of bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy performance,” the task force wrote.

 

Choice of Prep, Dosing and Timing, and Dietary Restrictions 

When choosing bowel preparation regimens, the task force recommends considering the individual’s medical history, medications, and, when available, the adequacy of bowel preparation reported from prior colonoscopies. Other considerations include patient preference, associated additional costs to the patient, and ease in obtaining and consuming any purgatives or adjuncts.

In terms of timing and dose, the task force now “suggests that lower-volume bowel preparation regimens, such as those that rely on only 2 liters of fluid compared to the traditional 4L, are acceptable options for individuals considered unlikely to have an inadequate bowel preparation. This assumes that the purgative is taken in a split-dose fashion (half the evening prior to colonoscopy and half the morning of the colonoscopy),” co–lead author Brian C. Jacobson, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

The task force also states that a same-day bowel preparation regimen for afternoon, but not morning, colonoscopy is a “reasonable alternative to the now-common split-dose regimen,” Jacobson said.

The group did not find one bowel preparation purgative to be better than others, although table 7 in the document details characteristics of commonly used prep regimens including their side effects and contraindications.

Recommendations regarding dietary modifications depend upon the patient’s risk for inadequate bowel prep. For patients at low risk for inadequate bowel prep, the task force recommends limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. Table 5 in the document provides a list of low-residue foods and sample meals.

The task force also suggests the adjunctive use of oral simethicone (≥ 320 mg) to bowel prep as a way to potentially improve visualization, although they acknowledge that further research is needed.

How might these updated consensus recommendations change current clinical practice? 

Jacobson said: “Some physicians may try to identify individuals who will do just as well with a more patient-friendly, easily tolerated bowel preparation regimen, including less stringent dietary restrictions leading up to colonoscopy.” 

He noted that the task force prefers the term “guidance” to “guidelines.”

 

New Quality Benchmark 

The task force recommends documenting bowel prep quality in the endoscopy report after all washing and suctioning have been completed using reliably understood descriptors that communicate the adequacy of the preparation.

They recommend the term “adequate bowel preparation” be used to indicate that standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy.

Additionally, the task force recommends that endoscopy units and individual endoscopists track and aim for ≥ 90% adequacy rates in bowel preparation — up from the 85% benchmark contained in the prior recommendations.

Jacobson told this news organization it’s “currently unknown” how many individual endoscopists and endoscopy units track and meet the 90% benchmark at present.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who wasn’t on the task force, said endoscopy units and providers “need to be accountable and should be tracking this quality metric.”

Johnson noted that bowel prep inadequacy has “intrinsic costs,” impacting lesion detection, CRC incidence, and patient outcomes. Inadequate prep leads to “increased risk for morbidity, mortality, longer appointment and wait times for rescheduling, and negative connotations that may deter patients from returning.”

 

Brian Sullivan, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, who wasn’t on the task force, said the recommendation to target a 90% or higher bowel preparation adequacy rate is “appreciated.”

“This benchmark encourages practices to standardize measurement, tracking, and reporting of preparation quality at both the individual and unit levels. Specifically, it should motivate providers to critically evaluate their interpretation of preparation quality and ensure adequate cleansing before making determinations,” Sullivan said in an interview.

“At the unit level, this metric can identify whether there are opportunities for quality improvement, such as by implementing evidence-based initiatives (provided in the guidance) to enhance outpatient preparation processes,” Sullivan noted.

The task force emphasized that the majority of consensus recommendations focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel prep. Patients at high risk for inadequate bowel prep (eg, diabetes, constipation, opioid use) should receive tailored instructions, including a more extended dietary prep and high-volume purgatives.

 

‘Timely and Important’ Updates

Sullivan said the updated consensus recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy are both “timely and important.” 

“Clear guidance facilitates dissemination and adoption, promoting flexible yet evidence-based approaches that enhance patient and provider satisfaction while potentially improving CRC prevention outcomes. For instance, surveys reveal that some practices still do not utilize split-dose bowel preparation, which is proven to improve preparation quality, particularly for the right-side of the colon. This gap underscores the need for standardized guidance to ensure high-quality colonoscopy and effective CRC screening,” Sullivan said.

He also noted that the inclusion of lower-volume bowel prep regimens and less intensive dietary modifications for selected patients is a “welcome update.”

“These options can improve patient adherence and satisfaction, which are critical not only for the quality of the index exam but also for ensuring patients return for future screenings, thereby supporting long-term CRC prevention efforts,” Sullivan said.

The task force includes representatives from the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The consensus document was published online in the three societies’ respective scientific journals — Gastroenterology, the American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Gastrointestinal Endsocopy.

This research had no financial support. Jacobson is a consultant for Curis and Guardant Health. Sullivan had no disclosures. Johnson is an adviser to ISOThrive and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

The most common pathology affecting the pancreas is excess intra-pancreatic fat deposition (IPFD), often called fatty pancreas disease (FPD) — a disorder experienced by roughly one fifth of the world’s population. Although it is more common than type 2 diabetes, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer combined, it has remained relatively obscure.

By contrast, fatty liver — once called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and recently renamed metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) — is well-known.

“When it comes to diseases of the liver and pancreas, the liver is the big brother that has gotten all the attention, while the pancreas is the neglected little stepbrother that’s not sufficiently profiled in most medical textbooks and gets very little attention,” Max Petrov, MD, MPH, PhD, professor of pancreatology, University of Auckland, New Zealand, said in an interview. “The phenomenon of fatty pancreas has been observed for decades, but it is underappreciated and underrecognized.”

 

As early as 1926, fat depositions were identified during autopsies, but the condition remained relatively unknown, Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Fortunately, FPD has recently been receiving more focus.”

Generally, healthy individuals have small amounts of fat in their pancreas. IPFD is defined as “the diffuse presence of fat in the pancreas, measured on a continuous scale,” and FPD refers to IPFD above the upper limit of normal. While there is no clear consensus as to what the normal range is, studies suggest it’s a pancreatic fat content ranging from 1.8% to 10.4%.

FPD’s “most important implication is that it can be a precursor for more challenging and burdensome diseases of the pancreas,” Petrov said.

Fatty changes in the pancreas affect both its endocrine and exocrine systems. FPD is associated with type 2 diabetes, the most common disease of the endocrine pancreas, as well as pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, the most common diseases of the exocrine pancreas. It’s also implicated in the development of carotid atherosclerosis, pancreatic fistula following surgery, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI).

 

A ‘Pandora’s Box’

Up to half of people with fatty pancreas are lean. The condition isn’t merely caused by an overflow of fat from the liver into the pancreas in people who consume more calories than they burn, Petrov said. Neither robust postmortem nor biopsy studies have found a statistically significant association between fatty deposition in the pancreas and liver fat.

Compared with the way people accumulate liver fat, the development of FPD is more complex, Petrov said.

“Hepatic fat is a relatively simple process: Lipid droplets accumulate in the hepatocytes; but, in the pancreas, there are several ways by which fat may accumulate,” he said.

One relates to the location of the pancreas within visceral, retroperitoneal fat, Petrov said. That fat can migrate and build up between pancreatic lobules.

Fat also can accumulate inside the lobes. This process can involve a buildup of fat droplets in acinar and stellate cells on the exocrine side and in the islets of Langerhans on the endocrine side. Additionally, when functional pancreatic cells die, particularly acinar cells, adult stem cells may replace them with adipocytes. Transformation of acinar cells into fat cells — a process called acinar-to-adipocyte transdifferentiation — also may be a way fat accumulates inside the lobes, Petrov said.

The accumulation of fat is a response to a wide array of insults to the pancreas over time. For example, obesity and metabolic syndrome lead to the accumulation of adipocytes and fat infiltration, whereas alcohol abuse and viral infections may lead to the death of acinar cells, which produce digestive enzymes.

Ultimately, the negative changes produced by excess fat in the pancreas are the origin of all common noninherited pancreatic diseases, bringing them under one umbrella, Petrov maintained. He dubbed this hypothesis PANcreatic Diseases Originating from intRapancreatic fAt (PANDORA).

The type of cells involved has implications for which disease may arise. For example, fat infiltration in stellate cells may promote pancreatic cancer, whereas its accumulation in the islets of Langerhans, which produce insulin and glucagon, is associated with type 2 diabetes.

The PANDORA hypothesis has eight foundational principles:

• Fatty pancreas is a key driver of pancreatic diseases in most people.
• Inflammation within the pancreatic microenvironment results from overwhelming lipotoxicity fueled by fatty pancreas.
• Aberrant communication between acinar cells involving lipid droplets drives acute pancreatitis.
• The pancreas responds to lipotoxicity with fibrosis and calcification — the hallmarks of chronic pancreatitis.
• Fat deposition affects signaling between stellate cells and other components of the microenvironment in ways that raise the risk for pancreatic cancer.
• The development of diabetes of the exocrine pancreas and EPI is affected by the presence of fatty pancreas.
• The higher risk for pancreatic disease in older adults is influenced by fatty pancreas.
• The multipronged nature of intrapancreatic fat deposition accounts for the common development of one pancreatic disease after another.

The idea that all common pancreatic diseases are the result of pathways emanating from FPD could “explain the bidirectional relationship between diabetes and pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer,” Petrov said.

 

Risk Factors, Symptoms, and Diagnosis

A variety of risk factors are involved in the accumulation of fat that may lead to pancreatic diseases, including aging, cholelithiasis, dyslipidemia, drugs/toxins (eg, steroids), genetic predisposition, iron overload, diet (eg, fatty foods, ultraprocessed foods), heavy alcohol use, overweight/obesity, pancreatic duct obstruction, tobacco use, viral infection (eg, hepatitis B, COVID-19), severe malnutrition, prediabetes, and dysglycemia.

Petrov described FPD as a “silent disease” that’s often asymptomatic, with its presence emerging as an incidental finding during abdominal ultrasonography for other reasons. However, patients may sometimes experience stomach pain or nausea if they have concurrent diseases of the pancreas, he said.

There are no currently available lab tests that can definitively detect the presence of FPD. Rather, the gold standard for a noninvasive diagnosis of FPD is MRI, with CT as the second-best choice, Petrov said.

In countries where advanced imaging is not available, a low-cost alternative might be a simple abdominal ultrasound, but it is not definitive, he said. “It’s operator-dependent and can be subjective.”

Some risk factors, such as derangements of glucose and lipid metabolism, especially in the presence of heavy alcohol use and a high-fat diet, can “be detected on lab tests,” Petrov said. “This, in combination with the abdominal ultrasound, might suggest the patients will benefit from deeper investigation, including MRI.”

Because the exocrine pancreas helps with digestion of fatty food, intralobular fatty deposits or replacement of pancreatic exocrine cells with adipose cells can lead to steatorrhea, Bilal said.

“Fat within the stool or oily diarrhea is a clue to the presence of FPD,” Bilal said.

Although this symptom isn’t unique to FPD and is found in other types of pancreatic conditions, its presence suggests that further investigation for FPD is warranted, he added.

 

Common-Sense Treatment Approaches

At present, there are no US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for FPD, Petrov said.

“What might be recommended is something along the lines of treatment of MASLD — appropriate diet and physical activity,” he said. Petrov hopes that as the disease entity garners more research attention, more clinical drug trials will be initiated, and new medications are found and approved.

Petrov suggested that there could be a “theoretical rationale” for the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a treatment, given their effectiveness in multiple conditions, including MASLD, but no human trials have robustly shown specific benefits of these drugs for FPD.

Petrov added that, to date, 12 classes of drugs have been investigated for reducing IPFD: biguanides, sulfonylureas, GLP-1 RAs, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, statins, fibrates, pancreatic lipase inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, somatostatin receptor agonists, and antioxidants.

Of these, most have shown promise in preclinical animal models. But only thiazolidinediones, GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4 inhibitors, and somatostatin receptor agonists have been investigated in randomized controlled trials in humans. The findings have been inconsistent, with the active treatment often not achieving statistically significant improvements.

“At this stage of our knowledge, we can’t recommend a specific pharmacotherapy,” Petrov said. But we can suggest dietary changes, such as saturated fat reduction, alcohol reduction, smoking cessation, reduction in consumption of ultraprocessed food, physical exercise, and addressing obesity and other drivers of metabolic disease.

Bilal, who is also a spokesperson for AGA, suggested that pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, often used to treat pancreatic EPI, may treat some symptoms of FPD such as diarrhea.

Bariatric surgery has shown promise for FPD, in that it can decrease the patient’s body mass and potentially reduce the fat in the pancreas as well as it can improve metabolic diseases and hyperlipidemia. One study showed that it significantly decreased IPFD, fatty acid uptake, and blood flow, and these improvements were associated with more favorable glucose homeostasis and beta-cell function.

However, bariatric surgery is only appropriate for certain patients; is associated with potentially adverse sequelae including malnutrition, anemia, and digestive tract stenosis; and is currently not indicated for FPD.

Bilal advises clinicians to “keep an eye on FPD” if it’s detected incidentally and to screen patients more carefully for MASLD, metabolic disease, and diabetes.

“Although there are no consensus guidelines and recommendations for managing FPD at present, these common-sense approaches will benefit the patient’s overall health and hopefully will have a beneficial impact on pancreatic health as well,” he said.

Petrov reported no relevant financial relationships. Bilal reported being a consultant for Boston Scientific, Steris Endoscopy, and Cook Medical.

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

The most common pathology affecting the pancreas is excess intra-pancreatic fat deposition (IPFD), often called fatty pancreas disease (FPD) — a disorder experienced by roughly one fifth of the world’s population. Although it is more common than type 2 diabetes, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer combined, it has remained relatively obscure.

By contrast, fatty liver — once called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and recently renamed metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) — is well-known.

“When it comes to diseases of the liver and pancreas, the liver is the big brother that has gotten all the attention, while the pancreas is the neglected little stepbrother that’s not sufficiently profiled in most medical textbooks and gets very little attention,” Max Petrov, MD, MPH, PhD, professor of pancreatology, University of Auckland, New Zealand, said in an interview. “The phenomenon of fatty pancreas has been observed for decades, but it is underappreciated and underrecognized.”

 

As early as 1926, fat depositions were identified during autopsies, but the condition remained relatively unknown, Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Fortunately, FPD has recently been receiving more focus.”

Generally, healthy individuals have small amounts of fat in their pancreas. IPFD is defined as “the diffuse presence of fat in the pancreas, measured on a continuous scale,” and FPD refers to IPFD above the upper limit of normal. While there is no clear consensus as to what the normal range is, studies suggest it’s a pancreatic fat content ranging from 1.8% to 10.4%.

FPD’s “most important implication is that it can be a precursor for more challenging and burdensome diseases of the pancreas,” Petrov said.

Fatty changes in the pancreas affect both its endocrine and exocrine systems. FPD is associated with type 2 diabetes, the most common disease of the endocrine pancreas, as well as pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, the most common diseases of the exocrine pancreas. It’s also implicated in the development of carotid atherosclerosis, pancreatic fistula following surgery, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI).

 

A ‘Pandora’s Box’

Up to half of people with fatty pancreas are lean. The condition isn’t merely caused by an overflow of fat from the liver into the pancreas in people who consume more calories than they burn, Petrov said. Neither robust postmortem nor biopsy studies have found a statistically significant association between fatty deposition in the pancreas and liver fat.

Compared with the way people accumulate liver fat, the development of FPD is more complex, Petrov said.

“Hepatic fat is a relatively simple process: Lipid droplets accumulate in the hepatocytes; but, in the pancreas, there are several ways by which fat may accumulate,” he said.

One relates to the location of the pancreas within visceral, retroperitoneal fat, Petrov said. That fat can migrate and build up between pancreatic lobules.

Fat also can accumulate inside the lobes. This process can involve a buildup of fat droplets in acinar and stellate cells on the exocrine side and in the islets of Langerhans on the endocrine side. Additionally, when functional pancreatic cells die, particularly acinar cells, adult stem cells may replace them with adipocytes. Transformation of acinar cells into fat cells — a process called acinar-to-adipocyte transdifferentiation — also may be a way fat accumulates inside the lobes, Petrov said.

The accumulation of fat is a response to a wide array of insults to the pancreas over time. For example, obesity and metabolic syndrome lead to the accumulation of adipocytes and fat infiltration, whereas alcohol abuse and viral infections may lead to the death of acinar cells, which produce digestive enzymes.

Ultimately, the negative changes produced by excess fat in the pancreas are the origin of all common noninherited pancreatic diseases, bringing them under one umbrella, Petrov maintained. He dubbed this hypothesis PANcreatic Diseases Originating from intRapancreatic fAt (PANDORA).

The type of cells involved has implications for which disease may arise. For example, fat infiltration in stellate cells may promote pancreatic cancer, whereas its accumulation in the islets of Langerhans, which produce insulin and glucagon, is associated with type 2 diabetes.

The PANDORA hypothesis has eight foundational principles:

• Fatty pancreas is a key driver of pancreatic diseases in most people.
• Inflammation within the pancreatic microenvironment results from overwhelming lipotoxicity fueled by fatty pancreas.
• Aberrant communication between acinar cells involving lipid droplets drives acute pancreatitis.
• The pancreas responds to lipotoxicity with fibrosis and calcification — the hallmarks of chronic pancreatitis.
• Fat deposition affects signaling between stellate cells and other components of the microenvironment in ways that raise the risk for pancreatic cancer.
• The development of diabetes of the exocrine pancreas and EPI is affected by the presence of fatty pancreas.
• The higher risk for pancreatic disease in older adults is influenced by fatty pancreas.
• The multipronged nature of intrapancreatic fat deposition accounts for the common development of one pancreatic disease after another.

The idea that all common pancreatic diseases are the result of pathways emanating from FPD could “explain the bidirectional relationship between diabetes and pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer,” Petrov said.

 

Risk Factors, Symptoms, and Diagnosis

A variety of risk factors are involved in the accumulation of fat that may lead to pancreatic diseases, including aging, cholelithiasis, dyslipidemia, drugs/toxins (eg, steroids), genetic predisposition, iron overload, diet (eg, fatty foods, ultraprocessed foods), heavy alcohol use, overweight/obesity, pancreatic duct obstruction, tobacco use, viral infection (eg, hepatitis B, COVID-19), severe malnutrition, prediabetes, and dysglycemia.

Petrov described FPD as a “silent disease” that’s often asymptomatic, with its presence emerging as an incidental finding during abdominal ultrasonography for other reasons. However, patients may sometimes experience stomach pain or nausea if they have concurrent diseases of the pancreas, he said.

There are no currently available lab tests that can definitively detect the presence of FPD. Rather, the gold standard for a noninvasive diagnosis of FPD is MRI, with CT as the second-best choice, Petrov said.

In countries where advanced imaging is not available, a low-cost alternative might be a simple abdominal ultrasound, but it is not definitive, he said. “It’s operator-dependent and can be subjective.”

Some risk factors, such as derangements of glucose and lipid metabolism, especially in the presence of heavy alcohol use and a high-fat diet, can “be detected on lab tests,” Petrov said. “This, in combination with the abdominal ultrasound, might suggest the patients will benefit from deeper investigation, including MRI.”

Because the exocrine pancreas helps with digestion of fatty food, intralobular fatty deposits or replacement of pancreatic exocrine cells with adipose cells can lead to steatorrhea, Bilal said.

“Fat within the stool or oily diarrhea is a clue to the presence of FPD,” Bilal said.

Although this symptom isn’t unique to FPD and is found in other types of pancreatic conditions, its presence suggests that further investigation for FPD is warranted, he added.

 

Common-Sense Treatment Approaches

At present, there are no US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for FPD, Petrov said.

“What might be recommended is something along the lines of treatment of MASLD — appropriate diet and physical activity,” he said. Petrov hopes that as the disease entity garners more research attention, more clinical drug trials will be initiated, and new medications are found and approved.

Petrov suggested that there could be a “theoretical rationale” for the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a treatment, given their effectiveness in multiple conditions, including MASLD, but no human trials have robustly shown specific benefits of these drugs for FPD.

Petrov added that, to date, 12 classes of drugs have been investigated for reducing IPFD: biguanides, sulfonylureas, GLP-1 RAs, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, statins, fibrates, pancreatic lipase inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, somatostatin receptor agonists, and antioxidants.

Of these, most have shown promise in preclinical animal models. But only thiazolidinediones, GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4 inhibitors, and somatostatin receptor agonists have been investigated in randomized controlled trials in humans. The findings have been inconsistent, with the active treatment often not achieving statistically significant improvements.

“At this stage of our knowledge, we can’t recommend a specific pharmacotherapy,” Petrov said. But we can suggest dietary changes, such as saturated fat reduction, alcohol reduction, smoking cessation, reduction in consumption of ultraprocessed food, physical exercise, and addressing obesity and other drivers of metabolic disease.

Bilal, who is also a spokesperson for AGA, suggested that pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, often used to treat pancreatic EPI, may treat some symptoms of FPD such as diarrhea.

Bariatric surgery has shown promise for FPD, in that it can decrease the patient’s body mass and potentially reduce the fat in the pancreas as well as it can improve metabolic diseases and hyperlipidemia. One study showed that it significantly decreased IPFD, fatty acid uptake, and blood flow, and these improvements were associated with more favorable glucose homeostasis and beta-cell function.

However, bariatric surgery is only appropriate for certain patients; is associated with potentially adverse sequelae including malnutrition, anemia, and digestive tract stenosis; and is currently not indicated for FPD.

Bilal advises clinicians to “keep an eye on FPD” if it’s detected incidentally and to screen patients more carefully for MASLD, metabolic disease, and diabetes.

“Although there are no consensus guidelines and recommendations for managing FPD at present, these common-sense approaches will benefit the patient’s overall health and hopefully will have a beneficial impact on pancreatic health as well,” he said.

Petrov reported no relevant financial relationships. Bilal reported being a consultant for Boston Scientific, Steris Endoscopy, and Cook Medical.

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

The most common pathology affecting the pancreas is excess intra-pancreatic fat deposition (IPFD), often called fatty pancreas disease (FPD) — a disorder experienced by roughly one fifth of the world’s population. Although it is more common than type 2 diabetes, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer combined, it has remained relatively obscure.

By contrast, fatty liver — once called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and recently renamed metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) — is well-known.

“When it comes to diseases of the liver and pancreas, the liver is the big brother that has gotten all the attention, while the pancreas is the neglected little stepbrother that’s not sufficiently profiled in most medical textbooks and gets very little attention,” Max Petrov, MD, MPH, PhD, professor of pancreatology, University of Auckland, New Zealand, said in an interview. “The phenomenon of fatty pancreas has been observed for decades, but it is underappreciated and underrecognized.”

 

As early as 1926, fat depositions were identified during autopsies, but the condition remained relatively unknown, Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Fortunately, FPD has recently been receiving more focus.”

Generally, healthy individuals have small amounts of fat in their pancreas. IPFD is defined as “the diffuse presence of fat in the pancreas, measured on a continuous scale,” and FPD refers to IPFD above the upper limit of normal. While there is no clear consensus as to what the normal range is, studies suggest it’s a pancreatic fat content ranging from 1.8% to 10.4%.

FPD’s “most important implication is that it can be a precursor for more challenging and burdensome diseases of the pancreas,” Petrov said.

Fatty changes in the pancreas affect both its endocrine and exocrine systems. FPD is associated with type 2 diabetes, the most common disease of the endocrine pancreas, as well as pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, the most common diseases of the exocrine pancreas. It’s also implicated in the development of carotid atherosclerosis, pancreatic fistula following surgery, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI).

 

A ‘Pandora’s Box’

Up to half of people with fatty pancreas are lean. The condition isn’t merely caused by an overflow of fat from the liver into the pancreas in people who consume more calories than they burn, Petrov said. Neither robust postmortem nor biopsy studies have found a statistically significant association between fatty deposition in the pancreas and liver fat.

Compared with the way people accumulate liver fat, the development of FPD is more complex, Petrov said.

“Hepatic fat is a relatively simple process: Lipid droplets accumulate in the hepatocytes; but, in the pancreas, there are several ways by which fat may accumulate,” he said.

One relates to the location of the pancreas within visceral, retroperitoneal fat, Petrov said. That fat can migrate and build up between pancreatic lobules.

Fat also can accumulate inside the lobes. This process can involve a buildup of fat droplets in acinar and stellate cells on the exocrine side and in the islets of Langerhans on the endocrine side. Additionally, when functional pancreatic cells die, particularly acinar cells, adult stem cells may replace them with adipocytes. Transformation of acinar cells into fat cells — a process called acinar-to-adipocyte transdifferentiation — also may be a way fat accumulates inside the lobes, Petrov said.

The accumulation of fat is a response to a wide array of insults to the pancreas over time. For example, obesity and metabolic syndrome lead to the accumulation of adipocytes and fat infiltration, whereas alcohol abuse and viral infections may lead to the death of acinar cells, which produce digestive enzymes.

Ultimately, the negative changes produced by excess fat in the pancreas are the origin of all common noninherited pancreatic diseases, bringing them under one umbrella, Petrov maintained. He dubbed this hypothesis PANcreatic Diseases Originating from intRapancreatic fAt (PANDORA).

The type of cells involved has implications for which disease may arise. For example, fat infiltration in stellate cells may promote pancreatic cancer, whereas its accumulation in the islets of Langerhans, which produce insulin and glucagon, is associated with type 2 diabetes.

The PANDORA hypothesis has eight foundational principles:

• Fatty pancreas is a key driver of pancreatic diseases in most people.
• Inflammation within the pancreatic microenvironment results from overwhelming lipotoxicity fueled by fatty pancreas.
• Aberrant communication between acinar cells involving lipid droplets drives acute pancreatitis.
• The pancreas responds to lipotoxicity with fibrosis and calcification — the hallmarks of chronic pancreatitis.
• Fat deposition affects signaling between stellate cells and other components of the microenvironment in ways that raise the risk for pancreatic cancer.
• The development of diabetes of the exocrine pancreas and EPI is affected by the presence of fatty pancreas.
• The higher risk for pancreatic disease in older adults is influenced by fatty pancreas.
• The multipronged nature of intrapancreatic fat deposition accounts for the common development of one pancreatic disease after another.

The idea that all common pancreatic diseases are the result of pathways emanating from FPD could “explain the bidirectional relationship between diabetes and pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer,” Petrov said.

 

Risk Factors, Symptoms, and Diagnosis

A variety of risk factors are involved in the accumulation of fat that may lead to pancreatic diseases, including aging, cholelithiasis, dyslipidemia, drugs/toxins (eg, steroids), genetic predisposition, iron overload, diet (eg, fatty foods, ultraprocessed foods), heavy alcohol use, overweight/obesity, pancreatic duct obstruction, tobacco use, viral infection (eg, hepatitis B, COVID-19), severe malnutrition, prediabetes, and dysglycemia.

Petrov described FPD as a “silent disease” that’s often asymptomatic, with its presence emerging as an incidental finding during abdominal ultrasonography for other reasons. However, patients may sometimes experience stomach pain or nausea if they have concurrent diseases of the pancreas, he said.

There are no currently available lab tests that can definitively detect the presence of FPD. Rather, the gold standard for a noninvasive diagnosis of FPD is MRI, with CT as the second-best choice, Petrov said.

In countries where advanced imaging is not available, a low-cost alternative might be a simple abdominal ultrasound, but it is not definitive, he said. “It’s operator-dependent and can be subjective.”

Some risk factors, such as derangements of glucose and lipid metabolism, especially in the presence of heavy alcohol use and a high-fat diet, can “be detected on lab tests,” Petrov said. “This, in combination with the abdominal ultrasound, might suggest the patients will benefit from deeper investigation, including MRI.”

Because the exocrine pancreas helps with digestion of fatty food, intralobular fatty deposits or replacement of pancreatic exocrine cells with adipose cells can lead to steatorrhea, Bilal said.

“Fat within the stool or oily diarrhea is a clue to the presence of FPD,” Bilal said.

Although this symptom isn’t unique to FPD and is found in other types of pancreatic conditions, its presence suggests that further investigation for FPD is warranted, he added.

 

Common-Sense Treatment Approaches

At present, there are no US Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for FPD, Petrov said.

“What might be recommended is something along the lines of treatment of MASLD — appropriate diet and physical activity,” he said. Petrov hopes that as the disease entity garners more research attention, more clinical drug trials will be initiated, and new medications are found and approved.

Petrov suggested that there could be a “theoretical rationale” for the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a treatment, given their effectiveness in multiple conditions, including MASLD, but no human trials have robustly shown specific benefits of these drugs for FPD.

Petrov added that, to date, 12 classes of drugs have been investigated for reducing IPFD: biguanides, sulfonylureas, GLP-1 RAs, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, statins, fibrates, pancreatic lipase inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, somatostatin receptor agonists, and antioxidants.

Of these, most have shown promise in preclinical animal models. But only thiazolidinediones, GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4 inhibitors, and somatostatin receptor agonists have been investigated in randomized controlled trials in humans. The findings have been inconsistent, with the active treatment often not achieving statistically significant improvements.

“At this stage of our knowledge, we can’t recommend a specific pharmacotherapy,” Petrov said. But we can suggest dietary changes, such as saturated fat reduction, alcohol reduction, smoking cessation, reduction in consumption of ultraprocessed food, physical exercise, and addressing obesity and other drivers of metabolic disease.

Bilal, who is also a spokesperson for AGA, suggested that pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, often used to treat pancreatic EPI, may treat some symptoms of FPD such as diarrhea.

Bariatric surgery has shown promise for FPD, in that it can decrease the patient’s body mass and potentially reduce the fat in the pancreas as well as it can improve metabolic diseases and hyperlipidemia. One study showed that it significantly decreased IPFD, fatty acid uptake, and blood flow, and these improvements were associated with more favorable glucose homeostasis and beta-cell function.

However, bariatric surgery is only appropriate for certain patients; is associated with potentially adverse sequelae including malnutrition, anemia, and digestive tract stenosis; and is currently not indicated for FPD.

Bilal advises clinicians to “keep an eye on FPD” if it’s detected incidentally and to screen patients more carefully for MASLD, metabolic disease, and diabetes.

“Although there are no consensus guidelines and recommendations for managing FPD at present, these common-sense approaches will benefit the patient’s overall health and hopefully will have a beneficial impact on pancreatic health as well,” he said.

Petrov reported no relevant financial relationships. Bilal reported being a consultant for Boston Scientific, Steris Endoscopy, and Cook Medical.

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

Despite universal hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening recommendations issued in 2020, HCV screening rates remain suboptimal among US women, a new analysis showed. 

“We found that screening rates were higher and rose more steeply in pregnant individuals compared to nonpregnant reproductive age females after this guidance.” However overall, HCV screening in women still remained low by the end of 2022, authors Roshni Singh, MD, and Rachel Epstein, MD, MSc, with the section of infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center, noted in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA.

The researchers leveraged TriNetX LIVE electronic health record data to compare HCV screening rates from 68 US healthcare organizations covering more than 115 million patients.

Using a multiple-group interrupted time series analysis, they compared HCV screening rates for pregnant and nonpregnant women for each 6-month period before (January 2014 to December 2019) and after (July 2020 to December 2022) the 2020 guidelines. January to June 2020 was considered a washout period to account for the COVID-19 pandemic peak and guideline dissemination.

For the entire 9-year study period (2014-2022), a total of 79,231 incident HCV tests occurred among pregnant women and 678,951 occurred among nonpregnant women. 

In the 6 months before the guidance, HCV screening per 1000 person-years increased from 52 to 117 tests among pregnant women and 16 to 24 tests among nonpregnant women.

In the 6 months after the guidance, screening per 1000 person-years increased from 141 to 253 among pregnant women and from 29 to 37 among nonpregnant women.

Yet by the end of 2022, only 38.7% of women with a pregnancy and 8.7% of nonpregnant women were ever tested for the HCV.

 

How to Boost HCV Screening

These results suggest that “innovative strategies are needed to improve HCV diagnosis and treatment,” the authors wrote. 

“Several interventions have been demonstrated to be effective in increasing screening in general, including electronic medical record alerts for opt-out testing, routine test offer by nonclinician office staff, offering testing in nontraditional spaces, including substance use treatment programs, harm reduction centers, STI clinics, and mobile health units,” Singh and Epstein told this news organization.

“A key step is educating primary care providers in addition to addiction medicine and emergency medicine clinicians about the updated guidelines as they interface with a large number of at-risk individuals,” they said. And the most important measure is creating clear work flows that respond to positive results to link people to treatment and cure. 

“Clinicians need to feel empowered that their work screening a patient can make a meaningful difference in both the patient’s life and in helping end this epidemic,” the two researchers explained. 

Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that the low HCV screening rates are not surprising. 

“We tend not to do well with screening. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, but patients don’t necessarily want to be screened. Sometimes physicians are very busy. Sometimes screening is not the most important thing for them to do. Sometimes there are processes in place that fall through,” said Glatt, chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, New York. 

“We tend to do a better job of screening in pregnant than nonpregnant women because pregnancy is a focus and there is 9 months that you can be following-up, so there is more opportunity. A healthy nonpregnant woman may not see her doctor for another year,” Glatt noted. 

“I think that many physicians are very good at screening for hepatitis C in patients that are clearly at risk,” he added. “We’re not so good at screening for people” that don’t have a clear risk but do “have risk factors.”

The study had no commercial funding. Singh, Epstein, and Glatt had no relevant disclosures.

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

Despite universal hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening recommendations issued in 2020, HCV screening rates remain suboptimal among US women, a new analysis showed. 

“We found that screening rates were higher and rose more steeply in pregnant individuals compared to nonpregnant reproductive age females after this guidance.” However overall, HCV screening in women still remained low by the end of 2022, authors Roshni Singh, MD, and Rachel Epstein, MD, MSc, with the section of infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center, noted in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA.

The researchers leveraged TriNetX LIVE electronic health record data to compare HCV screening rates from 68 US healthcare organizations covering more than 115 million patients.

Using a multiple-group interrupted time series analysis, they compared HCV screening rates for pregnant and nonpregnant women for each 6-month period before (January 2014 to December 2019) and after (July 2020 to December 2022) the 2020 guidelines. January to June 2020 was considered a washout period to account for the COVID-19 pandemic peak and guideline dissemination.

For the entire 9-year study period (2014-2022), a total of 79,231 incident HCV tests occurred among pregnant women and 678,951 occurred among nonpregnant women. 

In the 6 months before the guidance, HCV screening per 1000 person-years increased from 52 to 117 tests among pregnant women and 16 to 24 tests among nonpregnant women.

In the 6 months after the guidance, screening per 1000 person-years increased from 141 to 253 among pregnant women and from 29 to 37 among nonpregnant women.

Yet by the end of 2022, only 38.7% of women with a pregnancy and 8.7% of nonpregnant women were ever tested for the HCV.

 

How to Boost HCV Screening

These results suggest that “innovative strategies are needed to improve HCV diagnosis and treatment,” the authors wrote. 

“Several interventions have been demonstrated to be effective in increasing screening in general, including electronic medical record alerts for opt-out testing, routine test offer by nonclinician office staff, offering testing in nontraditional spaces, including substance use treatment programs, harm reduction centers, STI clinics, and mobile health units,” Singh and Epstein told this news organization.

“A key step is educating primary care providers in addition to addiction medicine and emergency medicine clinicians about the updated guidelines as they interface with a large number of at-risk individuals,” they said. And the most important measure is creating clear work flows that respond to positive results to link people to treatment and cure. 

“Clinicians need to feel empowered that their work screening a patient can make a meaningful difference in both the patient’s life and in helping end this epidemic,” the two researchers explained. 

Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that the low HCV screening rates are not surprising. 

“We tend not to do well with screening. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, but patients don’t necessarily want to be screened. Sometimes physicians are very busy. Sometimes screening is not the most important thing for them to do. Sometimes there are processes in place that fall through,” said Glatt, chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, New York. 

“We tend to do a better job of screening in pregnant than nonpregnant women because pregnancy is a focus and there is 9 months that you can be following-up, so there is more opportunity. A healthy nonpregnant woman may not see her doctor for another year,” Glatt noted. 

“I think that many physicians are very good at screening for hepatitis C in patients that are clearly at risk,” he added. “We’re not so good at screening for people” that don’t have a clear risk but do “have risk factors.”

The study had no commercial funding. Singh, Epstein, and Glatt had no relevant disclosures.

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

Despite universal hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening recommendations issued in 2020, HCV screening rates remain suboptimal among US women, a new analysis showed. 

“We found that screening rates were higher and rose more steeply in pregnant individuals compared to nonpregnant reproductive age females after this guidance.” However overall, HCV screening in women still remained low by the end of 2022, authors Roshni Singh, MD, and Rachel Epstein, MD, MSc, with the section of infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center, noted in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA.

The researchers leveraged TriNetX LIVE electronic health record data to compare HCV screening rates from 68 US healthcare organizations covering more than 115 million patients.

Using a multiple-group interrupted time series analysis, they compared HCV screening rates for pregnant and nonpregnant women for each 6-month period before (January 2014 to December 2019) and after (July 2020 to December 2022) the 2020 guidelines. January to June 2020 was considered a washout period to account for the COVID-19 pandemic peak and guideline dissemination.

For the entire 9-year study period (2014-2022), a total of 79,231 incident HCV tests occurred among pregnant women and 678,951 occurred among nonpregnant women. 

In the 6 months before the guidance, HCV screening per 1000 person-years increased from 52 to 117 tests among pregnant women and 16 to 24 tests among nonpregnant women.

In the 6 months after the guidance, screening per 1000 person-years increased from 141 to 253 among pregnant women and from 29 to 37 among nonpregnant women.

Yet by the end of 2022, only 38.7% of women with a pregnancy and 8.7% of nonpregnant women were ever tested for the HCV.

 

How to Boost HCV Screening

These results suggest that “innovative strategies are needed to improve HCV diagnosis and treatment,” the authors wrote. 

“Several interventions have been demonstrated to be effective in increasing screening in general, including electronic medical record alerts for opt-out testing, routine test offer by nonclinician office staff, offering testing in nontraditional spaces, including substance use treatment programs, harm reduction centers, STI clinics, and mobile health units,” Singh and Epstein told this news organization.

“A key step is educating primary care providers in addition to addiction medicine and emergency medicine clinicians about the updated guidelines as they interface with a large number of at-risk individuals,” they said. And the most important measure is creating clear work flows that respond to positive results to link people to treatment and cure. 

“Clinicians need to feel empowered that their work screening a patient can make a meaningful difference in both the patient’s life and in helping end this epidemic,” the two researchers explained. 

Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that the low HCV screening rates are not surprising. 

“We tend not to do well with screening. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, but patients don’t necessarily want to be screened. Sometimes physicians are very busy. Sometimes screening is not the most important thing for them to do. Sometimes there are processes in place that fall through,” said Glatt, chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, New York. 

“We tend to do a better job of screening in pregnant than nonpregnant women because pregnancy is a focus and there is 9 months that you can be following-up, so there is more opportunity. A healthy nonpregnant woman may not see her doctor for another year,” Glatt noted. 

“I think that many physicians are very good at screening for hepatitis C in patients that are clearly at risk,” he added. “We’re not so good at screening for people” that don’t have a clear risk but do “have risk factors.”

The study had no commercial funding. Singh, Epstein, and Glatt had no relevant disclosures.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic presented stressors for patients and health care professionals alike, and the prevalence of health care practitioner burnout and dissatisfaction has risen dramatically.^1,2 This, in combination with an increasingly virtual interface between patients and care teams, has the potential to lead to increased depersonalization, anxiety, distress, and diminished overall well-being among clinicians.^1,3 Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), women’s health primary care practitioners (PCPs) are specially trained clinicians thatprovide comprehensive care to women veterans. Data suggest that women’s health PCPs may experience higher rates of burnout and attrition (14% per year) compared to general PCPs in VHA.⁴ Burnout among PCPs, especially those working at VHA, is well known and likely related to poor interdisciplinary team structure, limited administrative time, high patient complexity, and isolation from additional resources (eg, rural settings).^4-7 Increased clinician burnout is associated with poorer quality of care and worsening quality of the doctor-patient relationship.⁸

The medical humanities can act as a countermeasure to clinician burnout.^9,10 Studies have demonstrated that physicians who participate in the medical humanities are more empathic and experience less burnout.^11,12 Engaging with patient stories through listening and writing has been a source of fulfillment for clinicians.¹³ Despite the benefits of narrative medicine, programs are often limited in scope in small face-to-face group settings during elective time or outside work hours.¹⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic presented significant challenges to implementing such programming. The VHA is a large health care system with many rural locations, which further limits the availability of traditional small-group and face-to-face trainings. Few studies describe large-scale medical humanities training in virtual learning environments.

NARRATIVE MEDICINE EVENT

To improve satisfaction and engagement among PCPs who care for women veterans, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a large-scale, virtual, interprofessional narrative medicine event aimed at achieving the following: (1) gain a deeper appreciation of the impact of deployments on women veterans; (2) describe the social and emotional challenges faced by women veterans returning from deployment (reintegration); (3) identify strategies to support veterans during reintegration; (4) apply narrative medicine techniques on a large-scale, virtual platform; and (5) assess clinician engagement and satisfaction following participation. We hypothesized that clinician satisfaction and appreciation would improve with a better understanding of the unique complexities of deployment and reintegration faced by women veterans. Utilizing a novel, humanities-based intervention would lead to strong engagement and interaction from participants.

Setting

A 3-hour virtual session was conducted on November 15, 2022, for an interdisciplinary audience. This included physicians and trainees in medicine and behavioral health, nurse practitioners, social workers, dieticians, nurses, and clinical support staff. The training was advertised via emails through established mailing lists and newsletters, reaching a large interdisciplinary VHA audience 90 days prior to the event. This allowed potential participants to dedicate time to attend the session. The training was open to all VHA employees, with no inclusion or exclusion criteria for either the training or the evaluation. The training was delivered within existing space utilized for continuing medical education in women’s health.

For the session, the 93-minute documentary Journey to Normal (jtninc.org) was chosen because it focused on the impact of deployment on women veterans and their experiences when returning home. The film follows the stories of several women veterans through combat and reintegration. The screening was split into 2 segments given the emotional impact and length of the documentary.

A facilitator opened the session by reading a series of reflective prompts centered on women veteran deployment, reintegration, and the stressors surrounding these transitions. The initial prompt served to familiarize participants with the session’s interactive components. Additional prompts were interspersed and discussed in real time and were chosen to mirror the major themes of the documentary: the emotional and psychological impact of deployment and reintegration for women veterans. Short responses and word cloud generation were used and debriefed synchronously to encourage ongoing engagement. Participants responded to prompts through anonymous polling and the chat function of the virtual platform.

During intermission, we introduced My Life, My Story (MLMS). MLMS is a VHA initiative started in 2013 that, with the veteran’s permission, shares a piece of a veteran’s life story with their health care practitioner in their medical chart.¹⁵ Evaluation of MLMS has demonstrated positive impacts on assessments of patient-clinician connection.¹⁶ The MLMS goal to improve patient-centered care competencies by learning stories of veterans aligned with the overarching goals of this program. Following the film, participants were given 10 minutes to respond to a final reflective prompt. The session ended with a review of existing VHA resources to support returning veterans, followed by a question-and-answer session conducted via chat.

We used the Brightcove virtual platform to stream this program, which facilitated significant interaction between participants and facilitators, as well as between participants themselves. In addition to posing questions to the session leaders, participants could directly respond to each other’s comments within the chat function and also upvote/downvote or emphasize others’ comments.

Evaluation

The evaluation schema was 2-fold. Because this session was presented as a part of the national VA Women’s Health webinar series, a standard evaluation was dictated by the VHA Employee Education System. This survey was electronically disseminated and included questions on occupational category and overall satisfaction, plus 9 standard evaluation questions and 4 program-specific questions tied to the workshop objectives. The standard evaluation questions assessed participant satisfaction with the training, satisfaction with the training environment, and appropriateness of the content. The programspecific questions asked the participants whether the session met the stated learning objectives. All questions used a 5-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree). Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Individual chat messages and spontaneous replies were analyzed as a surrogate measures of audience engagement. A qualitative analysis of participants’ final reflections to assess for attitudes related to patient care, empathy, and burnout following participation in this curriculum is forthcoming.

A total of 876 participants attended the virtual setting and 525 (59.9%) completed the immediate postevaluation survey. Respondents represented a variety of disciplines, including 179 nurses (34.1%), 100 social workers (19.0%), 65 physicians (12.4%), and 10 physician assistants (1.9%), with < 10% comprising counselors, dentists, dietitians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and psychologists. Nearly all participants reported satisfaction with the learning activity, would recommend it to others, and felt it advanced their knowledge, attitudes, and skills to better contribute to their VHA interprofessional team for patient care (Table 1). Similarly, participants reported a highlevel of agreement that the program satisfied the session-specific objectives. In response to an open-ended question on the standard VA evaluation regarding overall perceptions of the training, free-text responses included such statements as, “I think this should be mandatory training for all VA [clinicians]”; and “This webinar [opened] my mind to the various struggles women veterans may encounter when [they] return to civilian life and [increased] my understanding of how I could support.”

More than 1700 individual chat messages and > 80 spontaneous replies between participants were recorded during the interactive session (Table 2). Spontaneous quotes written in the chat included: “This is the best film representing the female veteran I have ever seen;” “Powerful and perspective changing;” “Thank you for sharing this incredible film;” and “I needed this to remind me to focus on woman veterans. Although our female veteran population is small it will remind me daily of their dedication, recognizing that there are so many facets of making the ultimate sacrifice.” Several participants said such programming should be a mandatory component of VA new employee orientation.

DISCUSSION

Clinician burnout diminishes empathetic patient-physician engagement. Patients’ stories are a known, powerful way to evoke empathy. This session provides one of the first examples of a straightforward approach to delivering a medical humanities intervention to a large audience via virtual platform. As measured by its high engagement, participant satisfaction, and narrative evaluations, this model was successful in evoking empathy and reinforcing the core VHA values for patient care: integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence.

Rates of burnout and disengagement among PCPs are high and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.² This curriculum used a synchronous, narrative-based approach during work hours to address burnout. Lack of empathy is a cause and consequence of burnout and disengagement. Narrative approaches, especially those evoking patients’ stories can evoke empathy and help counteract such burnout. This curriculum demonstrates one of the first large-scale, narrative-based, virtual-platform approaches to utilizing patients’ stories for positive clinician impact, as evidenced by the extensive participation, engagement, and satisfaction of participants.

Individuals interested in implementing a similar program should consider common barriers, including time constraints, advertising, and clinician buy-in. Several key factors led to the successful implementation of this program. First, partnering with established educational efforts related to improving care for veterans provided time to implement the program and establish mechanisms for advertising. The VHA is a mission-driven organization; directly tying this intervention to the mission likely contributed to participant buy-in and programmatic success. Further, by partnering with established educational efforts, this session was conducted during business hours, allowing for widespread participation.

A diverse group of VHA clinicians were actively engaged throughout the session. Chat data demonstrated not only numerous responses to directed prompts, but also a larger extemporaneous conversation among participants. Additionally, it is clear participants were deeply engaged with the material. The quality of participant responses demonstrates the impact of narrative stories and included a new respect for our shared patients, a sense of humbleness as it relates to the women veteran experience, and a sense of pride in both the VHA mission and their roles as a part of the organization.

This session did not end with traditional take-home skills or reference handout resources typical of continuing education. This was intentional; the intended take-home message was the evoked emotional response and resultant perspective shift. The impact of this session on patient care will be examined in a forthcoming qualitative analysis of participants written reflections.

Limitations

Some participants noted that the chat could be distracting from the film. Others described that virtually attending the session allowed increased opportunity for interruption by ongoing patient care responsibilities, resulting in diverted attention. Many participants were granted protected time to attend this continuing education session; however, this was not always the case. Additionally, this evaluation is limited, as 40% of participants elected to not complete the postevent survey. The individuals who choose to respond may have been more engaged with the content or felt more strongly about the impact of the session. However, the volume of chat engagement during the session suggests strong participant involvement. The analysis was also limited by an electronic survey which did not allow more granular assessment of the data.

This session also raised an ethical consideration. The film evoked very strong emotional responses which, for some, were challenging to attend to personally in a large-scale virtual environment. Established clinician resources were highlighted during the session that were available for any participant who needed additional support. Participants were also encouraged to step away and process their emotions, if needed. Future interactions of this session might consider improved interparticipant chat management and upfront warnings about the emotional impact of the film accompanied by proactive dissemination of resources for participant support. One example of such resources includes breakout rooms facilitated by trained counselors. Prompts might also be adjusted to allow for more guided interparticipant engagement; facilitation can be brief as participants’ responses often carry the conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a large-scale, virtual medical humanities intervention is not only possible but well received, as evidenced by both quantity and quality of participant responses and engagement. The narrative approach of hearing patients’ stories, as portrayed in Journey to Normal, was found to be satisfying and appreciated by participants. Such an intervention has the potential to evoke empathy and help counteract burnout and disengagement among clinicians. This study directly aligned to the greater mission of the VHA: to improve quality medical care for all veterans, including women veterans, a subset population that is often overlooked. Organizations beyond the VHA may wish to leverage virtual learning as a mechanism to offer medical humanities to a wider audience. To optimize success, future programs should be tied to organizational missions, highlight patient voices and stories, and utilize platforms that allow for participant interactivity. Through virtual platforms, the medical humanities can reach a broader audience without detracting from its impact.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented stressors for patients and health care professionals alike, and the prevalence of health care practitioner burnout and dissatisfaction has risen dramatically.^1,2 This, in combination with an increasingly virtual interface between patients and care teams, has the potential to lead to increased depersonalization, anxiety, distress, and diminished overall well-being among clinicians.^1,3 Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), women’s health primary care practitioners (PCPs) are specially trained clinicians thatprovide comprehensive care to women veterans. Data suggest that women’s health PCPs may experience higher rates of burnout and attrition (14% per year) compared to general PCPs in VHA.⁴ Burnout among PCPs, especially those working at VHA, is well known and likely related to poor interdisciplinary team structure, limited administrative time, high patient complexity, and isolation from additional resources (eg, rural settings).^4-7 Increased clinician burnout is associated with poorer quality of care and worsening quality of the doctor-patient relationship.⁸

The medical humanities can act as a countermeasure to clinician burnout.^9,10 Studies have demonstrated that physicians who participate in the medical humanities are more empathic and experience less burnout.^11,12 Engaging with patient stories through listening and writing has been a source of fulfillment for clinicians.¹³ Despite the benefits of narrative medicine, programs are often limited in scope in small face-to-face group settings during elective time or outside work hours.¹⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic presented significant challenges to implementing such programming. The VHA is a large health care system with many rural locations, which further limits the availability of traditional small-group and face-to-face trainings. Few studies describe large-scale medical humanities training in virtual learning environments.

NARRATIVE MEDICINE EVENT

To improve satisfaction and engagement among PCPs who care for women veterans, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a large-scale, virtual, interprofessional narrative medicine event aimed at achieving the following: (1) gain a deeper appreciation of the impact of deployments on women veterans; (2) describe the social and emotional challenges faced by women veterans returning from deployment (reintegration); (3) identify strategies to support veterans during reintegration; (4) apply narrative medicine techniques on a large-scale, virtual platform; and (5) assess clinician engagement and satisfaction following participation. We hypothesized that clinician satisfaction and appreciation would improve with a better understanding of the unique complexities of deployment and reintegration faced by women veterans. Utilizing a novel, humanities-based intervention would lead to strong engagement and interaction from participants.

Setting

A 3-hour virtual session was conducted on November 15, 2022, for an interdisciplinary audience. This included physicians and trainees in medicine and behavioral health, nurse practitioners, social workers, dieticians, nurses, and clinical support staff. The training was advertised via emails through established mailing lists and newsletters, reaching a large interdisciplinary VHA audience 90 days prior to the event. This allowed potential participants to dedicate time to attend the session. The training was open to all VHA employees, with no inclusion or exclusion criteria for either the training or the evaluation. The training was delivered within existing space utilized for continuing medical education in women’s health.

For the session, the 93-minute documentary Journey to Normal (jtninc.org) was chosen because it focused on the impact of deployment on women veterans and their experiences when returning home. The film follows the stories of several women veterans through combat and reintegration. The screening was split into 2 segments given the emotional impact and length of the documentary.

A facilitator opened the session by reading a series of reflective prompts centered on women veteran deployment, reintegration, and the stressors surrounding these transitions. The initial prompt served to familiarize participants with the session’s interactive components. Additional prompts were interspersed and discussed in real time and were chosen to mirror the major themes of the documentary: the emotional and psychological impact of deployment and reintegration for women veterans. Short responses and word cloud generation were used and debriefed synchronously to encourage ongoing engagement. Participants responded to prompts through anonymous polling and the chat function of the virtual platform.

During intermission, we introduced My Life, My Story (MLMS). MLMS is a VHA initiative started in 2013 that, with the veteran’s permission, shares a piece of a veteran’s life story with their health care practitioner in their medical chart.¹⁵ Evaluation of MLMS has demonstrated positive impacts on assessments of patient-clinician connection.¹⁶ The MLMS goal to improve patient-centered care competencies by learning stories of veterans aligned with the overarching goals of this program. Following the film, participants were given 10 minutes to respond to a final reflective prompt. The session ended with a review of existing VHA resources to support returning veterans, followed by a question-and-answer session conducted via chat.

We used the Brightcove virtual platform to stream this program, which facilitated significant interaction between participants and facilitators, as well as between participants themselves. In addition to posing questions to the session leaders, participants could directly respond to each other’s comments within the chat function and also upvote/downvote or emphasize others’ comments.

Evaluation

The evaluation schema was 2-fold. Because this session was presented as a part of the national VA Women’s Health webinar series, a standard evaluation was dictated by the VHA Employee Education System. This survey was electronically disseminated and included questions on occupational category and overall satisfaction, plus 9 standard evaluation questions and 4 program-specific questions tied to the workshop objectives. The standard evaluation questions assessed participant satisfaction with the training, satisfaction with the training environment, and appropriateness of the content. The programspecific questions asked the participants whether the session met the stated learning objectives. All questions used a 5-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree). Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Individual chat messages and spontaneous replies were analyzed as a surrogate measures of audience engagement. A qualitative analysis of participants’ final reflections to assess for attitudes related to patient care, empathy, and burnout following participation in this curriculum is forthcoming.

A total of 876 participants attended the virtual setting and 525 (59.9%) completed the immediate postevaluation survey. Respondents represented a variety of disciplines, including 179 nurses (34.1%), 100 social workers (19.0%), 65 physicians (12.4%), and 10 physician assistants (1.9%), with < 10% comprising counselors, dentists, dietitians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and psychologists. Nearly all participants reported satisfaction with the learning activity, would recommend it to others, and felt it advanced their knowledge, attitudes, and skills to better contribute to their VHA interprofessional team for patient care (Table 1). Similarly, participants reported a highlevel of agreement that the program satisfied the session-specific objectives. In response to an open-ended question on the standard VA evaluation regarding overall perceptions of the training, free-text responses included such statements as, “I think this should be mandatory training for all VA [clinicians]”; and “This webinar [opened] my mind to the various struggles women veterans may encounter when [they] return to civilian life and [increased] my understanding of how I could support.”

More than 1700 individual chat messages and > 80 spontaneous replies between participants were recorded during the interactive session (Table 2). Spontaneous quotes written in the chat included: “This is the best film representing the female veteran I have ever seen;” “Powerful and perspective changing;” “Thank you for sharing this incredible film;” and “I needed this to remind me to focus on woman veterans. Although our female veteran population is small it will remind me daily of their dedication, recognizing that there are so many facets of making the ultimate sacrifice.” Several participants said such programming should be a mandatory component of VA new employee orientation.

DISCUSSION

Clinician burnout diminishes empathetic patient-physician engagement. Patients’ stories are a known, powerful way to evoke empathy. This session provides one of the first examples of a straightforward approach to delivering a medical humanities intervention to a large audience via virtual platform. As measured by its high engagement, participant satisfaction, and narrative evaluations, this model was successful in evoking empathy and reinforcing the core VHA values for patient care: integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence.

Rates of burnout and disengagement among PCPs are high and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.² This curriculum used a synchronous, narrative-based approach during work hours to address burnout. Lack of empathy is a cause and consequence of burnout and disengagement. Narrative approaches, especially those evoking patients’ stories can evoke empathy and help counteract such burnout. This curriculum demonstrates one of the first large-scale, narrative-based, virtual-platform approaches to utilizing patients’ stories for positive clinician impact, as evidenced by the extensive participation, engagement, and satisfaction of participants.

Individuals interested in implementing a similar program should consider common barriers, including time constraints, advertising, and clinician buy-in. Several key factors led to the successful implementation of this program. First, partnering with established educational efforts related to improving care for veterans provided time to implement the program and establish mechanisms for advertising. The VHA is a mission-driven organization; directly tying this intervention to the mission likely contributed to participant buy-in and programmatic success. Further, by partnering with established educational efforts, this session was conducted during business hours, allowing for widespread participation.

A diverse group of VHA clinicians were actively engaged throughout the session. Chat data demonstrated not only numerous responses to directed prompts, but also a larger extemporaneous conversation among participants. Additionally, it is clear participants were deeply engaged with the material. The quality of participant responses demonstrates the impact of narrative stories and included a new respect for our shared patients, a sense of humbleness as it relates to the women veteran experience, and a sense of pride in both the VHA mission and their roles as a part of the organization.

This session did not end with traditional take-home skills or reference handout resources typical of continuing education. This was intentional; the intended take-home message was the evoked emotional response and resultant perspective shift. The impact of this session on patient care will be examined in a forthcoming qualitative analysis of participants written reflections.

Limitations

Some participants noted that the chat could be distracting from the film. Others described that virtually attending the session allowed increased opportunity for interruption by ongoing patient care responsibilities, resulting in diverted attention. Many participants were granted protected time to attend this continuing education session; however, this was not always the case. Additionally, this evaluation is limited, as 40% of participants elected to not complete the postevent survey. The individuals who choose to respond may have been more engaged with the content or felt more strongly about the impact of the session. However, the volume of chat engagement during the session suggests strong participant involvement. The analysis was also limited by an electronic survey which did not allow more granular assessment of the data.

This session also raised an ethical consideration. The film evoked very strong emotional responses which, for some, were challenging to attend to personally in a large-scale virtual environment. Established clinician resources were highlighted during the session that were available for any participant who needed additional support. Participants were also encouraged to step away and process their emotions, if needed. Future interactions of this session might consider improved interparticipant chat management and upfront warnings about the emotional impact of the film accompanied by proactive dissemination of resources for participant support. One example of such resources includes breakout rooms facilitated by trained counselors. Prompts might also be adjusted to allow for more guided interparticipant engagement; facilitation can be brief as participants’ responses often carry the conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a large-scale, virtual medical humanities intervention is not only possible but well received, as evidenced by both quantity and quality of participant responses and engagement. The narrative approach of hearing patients’ stories, as portrayed in Journey to Normal, was found to be satisfying and appreciated by participants. Such an intervention has the potential to evoke empathy and help counteract burnout and disengagement among clinicians. This study directly aligned to the greater mission of the VHA: to improve quality medical care for all veterans, including women veterans, a subset population that is often overlooked. Organizations beyond the VHA may wish to leverage virtual learning as a mechanism to offer medical humanities to a wider audience. To optimize success, future programs should be tied to organizational missions, highlight patient voices and stories, and utilize platforms that allow for participant interactivity. Through virtual platforms, the medical humanities can reach a broader audience without detracting from its impact.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented stressors for patients and health care professionals alike, and the prevalence of health care practitioner burnout and dissatisfaction has risen dramatically.^1,2 This, in combination with an increasingly virtual interface between patients and care teams, has the potential to lead to increased depersonalization, anxiety, distress, and diminished overall well-being among clinicians.^1,3 Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), women’s health primary care practitioners (PCPs) are specially trained clinicians thatprovide comprehensive care to women veterans. Data suggest that women’s health PCPs may experience higher rates of burnout and attrition (14% per year) compared to general PCPs in VHA.⁴ Burnout among PCPs, especially those working at VHA, is well known and likely related to poor interdisciplinary team structure, limited administrative time, high patient complexity, and isolation from additional resources (eg, rural settings).^4-7 Increased clinician burnout is associated with poorer quality of care and worsening quality of the doctor-patient relationship.⁸

The medical humanities can act as a countermeasure to clinician burnout.^9,10 Studies have demonstrated that physicians who participate in the medical humanities are more empathic and experience less burnout.^11,12 Engaging with patient stories through listening and writing has been a source of fulfillment for clinicians.¹³ Despite the benefits of narrative medicine, programs are often limited in scope in small face-to-face group settings during elective time or outside work hours.¹⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic presented significant challenges to implementing such programming. The VHA is a large health care system with many rural locations, which further limits the availability of traditional small-group and face-to-face trainings. Few studies describe large-scale medical humanities training in virtual learning environments.

NARRATIVE MEDICINE EVENT

To improve satisfaction and engagement among PCPs who care for women veterans, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a large-scale, virtual, interprofessional narrative medicine event aimed at achieving the following: (1) gain a deeper appreciation of the impact of deployments on women veterans; (2) describe the social and emotional challenges faced by women veterans returning from deployment (reintegration); (3) identify strategies to support veterans during reintegration; (4) apply narrative medicine techniques on a large-scale, virtual platform; and (5) assess clinician engagement and satisfaction following participation. We hypothesized that clinician satisfaction and appreciation would improve with a better understanding of the unique complexities of deployment and reintegration faced by women veterans. Utilizing a novel, humanities-based intervention would lead to strong engagement and interaction from participants.

Setting

A 3-hour virtual session was conducted on November 15, 2022, for an interdisciplinary audience. This included physicians and trainees in medicine and behavioral health, nurse practitioners, social workers, dieticians, nurses, and clinical support staff. The training was advertised via emails through established mailing lists and newsletters, reaching a large interdisciplinary VHA audience 90 days prior to the event. This allowed potential participants to dedicate time to attend the session. The training was open to all VHA employees, with no inclusion or exclusion criteria for either the training or the evaluation. The training was delivered within existing space utilized for continuing medical education in women’s health.

For the session, the 93-minute documentary Journey to Normal (jtninc.org) was chosen because it focused on the impact of deployment on women veterans and their experiences when returning home. The film follows the stories of several women veterans through combat and reintegration. The screening was split into 2 segments given the emotional impact and length of the documentary.

A facilitator opened the session by reading a series of reflective prompts centered on women veteran deployment, reintegration, and the stressors surrounding these transitions. The initial prompt served to familiarize participants with the session’s interactive components. Additional prompts were interspersed and discussed in real time and were chosen to mirror the major themes of the documentary: the emotional and psychological impact of deployment and reintegration for women veterans. Short responses and word cloud generation were used and debriefed synchronously to encourage ongoing engagement. Participants responded to prompts through anonymous polling and the chat function of the virtual platform.

During intermission, we introduced My Life, My Story (MLMS). MLMS is a VHA initiative started in 2013 that, with the veteran’s permission, shares a piece of a veteran’s life story with their health care practitioner in their medical chart.¹⁵ Evaluation of MLMS has demonstrated positive impacts on assessments of patient-clinician connection.¹⁶ The MLMS goal to improve patient-centered care competencies by learning stories of veterans aligned with the overarching goals of this program. Following the film, participants were given 10 minutes to respond to a final reflective prompt. The session ended with a review of existing VHA resources to support returning veterans, followed by a question-and-answer session conducted via chat.

We used the Brightcove virtual platform to stream this program, which facilitated significant interaction between participants and facilitators, as well as between participants themselves. In addition to posing questions to the session leaders, participants could directly respond to each other’s comments within the chat function and also upvote/downvote or emphasize others’ comments.

Evaluation

The evaluation schema was 2-fold. Because this session was presented as a part of the national VA Women’s Health webinar series, a standard evaluation was dictated by the VHA Employee Education System. This survey was electronically disseminated and included questions on occupational category and overall satisfaction, plus 9 standard evaluation questions and 4 program-specific questions tied to the workshop objectives. The standard evaluation questions assessed participant satisfaction with the training, satisfaction with the training environment, and appropriateness of the content. The programspecific questions asked the participants whether the session met the stated learning objectives. All questions used a 5-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree). Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Individual chat messages and spontaneous replies were analyzed as a surrogate measures of audience engagement. A qualitative analysis of participants’ final reflections to assess for attitudes related to patient care, empathy, and burnout following participation in this curriculum is forthcoming.

A total of 876 participants attended the virtual setting and 525 (59.9%) completed the immediate postevaluation survey. Respondents represented a variety of disciplines, including 179 nurses (34.1%), 100 social workers (19.0%), 65 physicians (12.4%), and 10 physician assistants (1.9%), with < 10% comprising counselors, dentists, dietitians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and psychologists. Nearly all participants reported satisfaction with the learning activity, would recommend it to others, and felt it advanced their knowledge, attitudes, and skills to better contribute to their VHA interprofessional team for patient care (Table 1). Similarly, participants reported a highlevel of agreement that the program satisfied the session-specific objectives. In response to an open-ended question on the standard VA evaluation regarding overall perceptions of the training, free-text responses included such statements as, “I think this should be mandatory training for all VA [clinicians]”; and “This webinar [opened] my mind to the various struggles women veterans may encounter when [they] return to civilian life and [increased] my understanding of how I could support.”

More than 1700 individual chat messages and > 80 spontaneous replies between participants were recorded during the interactive session (Table 2). Spontaneous quotes written in the chat included: “This is the best film representing the female veteran I have ever seen;” “Powerful and perspective changing;” “Thank you for sharing this incredible film;” and “I needed this to remind me to focus on woman veterans. Although our female veteran population is small it will remind me daily of their dedication, recognizing that there are so many facets of making the ultimate sacrifice.” Several participants said such programming should be a mandatory component of VA new employee orientation.

DISCUSSION

Clinician burnout diminishes empathetic patient-physician engagement. Patients’ stories are a known, powerful way to evoke empathy. This session provides one of the first examples of a straightforward approach to delivering a medical humanities intervention to a large audience via virtual platform. As measured by its high engagement, participant satisfaction, and narrative evaluations, this model was successful in evoking empathy and reinforcing the core VHA values for patient care: integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence.

Rates of burnout and disengagement among PCPs are high and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.² This curriculum used a synchronous, narrative-based approach during work hours to address burnout. Lack of empathy is a cause and consequence of burnout and disengagement. Narrative approaches, especially those evoking patients’ stories can evoke empathy and help counteract such burnout. This curriculum demonstrates one of the first large-scale, narrative-based, virtual-platform approaches to utilizing patients’ stories for positive clinician impact, as evidenced by the extensive participation, engagement, and satisfaction of participants.

Individuals interested in implementing a similar program should consider common barriers, including time constraints, advertising, and clinician buy-in. Several key factors led to the successful implementation of this program. First, partnering with established educational efforts related to improving care for veterans provided time to implement the program and establish mechanisms for advertising. The VHA is a mission-driven organization; directly tying this intervention to the mission likely contributed to participant buy-in and programmatic success. Further, by partnering with established educational efforts, this session was conducted during business hours, allowing for widespread participation.

A diverse group of VHA clinicians were actively engaged throughout the session. Chat data demonstrated not only numerous responses to directed prompts, but also a larger extemporaneous conversation among participants. Additionally, it is clear participants were deeply engaged with the material. The quality of participant responses demonstrates the impact of narrative stories and included a new respect for our shared patients, a sense of humbleness as it relates to the women veteran experience, and a sense of pride in both the VHA mission and their roles as a part of the organization.

This session did not end with traditional take-home skills or reference handout resources typical of continuing education. This was intentional; the intended take-home message was the evoked emotional response and resultant perspective shift. The impact of this session on patient care will be examined in a forthcoming qualitative analysis of participants written reflections.

Limitations

Some participants noted that the chat could be distracting from the film. Others described that virtually attending the session allowed increased opportunity for interruption by ongoing patient care responsibilities, resulting in diverted attention. Many participants were granted protected time to attend this continuing education session; however, this was not always the case. Additionally, this evaluation is limited, as 40% of participants elected to not complete the postevent survey. The individuals who choose to respond may have been more engaged with the content or felt more strongly about the impact of the session. However, the volume of chat engagement during the session suggests strong participant involvement. The analysis was also limited by an electronic survey which did not allow more granular assessment of the data.

This session also raised an ethical consideration. The film evoked very strong emotional responses which, for some, were challenging to attend to personally in a large-scale virtual environment. Established clinician resources were highlighted during the session that were available for any participant who needed additional support. Participants were also encouraged to step away and process their emotions, if needed. Future interactions of this session might consider improved interparticipant chat management and upfront warnings about the emotional impact of the film accompanied by proactive dissemination of resources for participant support. One example of such resources includes breakout rooms facilitated by trained counselors. Prompts might also be adjusted to allow for more guided interparticipant engagement; facilitation can be brief as participants’ responses often carry the conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a large-scale, virtual medical humanities intervention is not only possible but well received, as evidenced by both quantity and quality of participant responses and engagement. The narrative approach of hearing patients’ stories, as portrayed in Journey to Normal, was found to be satisfying and appreciated by participants. Such an intervention has the potential to evoke empathy and help counteract burnout and disengagement among clinicians. This study directly aligned to the greater mission of the VHA: to improve quality medical care for all veterans, including women veterans, a subset population that is often overlooked. Organizations beyond the VHA may wish to leverage virtual learning as a mechanism to offer medical humanities to a wider audience. To optimize success, future programs should be tied to organizational missions, highlight patient voices and stories, and utilize platforms that allow for participant interactivity. Through virtual platforms, the medical humanities can reach a broader audience without detracting from its impact.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with retained gastric contents and aborted procedures among patients undergoing upper endoscopy, according to a meta-analysis of more than 80,000 patients.

Safety profiles, however, were comparable across groups, suggesting that prolonged fasting may be a sufficient management strategy, instead of withholding GLP-1RAs, lead author Antonio Facciorusso, MD, PhD, of the University of Foggia, Italy, and colleagues reported.

“The impact of GLP-1RAs on slowing gastric motility has raised concerns in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, particularly upper endoscopies,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “This is due to the perceived risk of aspiration of retained gastric contents in sedated patients and the decreased visibility of the gastric mucosa, which can reduce the diagnostic yield of the examination.”

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends withholding GLP-1RAs before procedures or surgery, whereas AGA suggests an individualized approach, citing limited supporting data. 

A previous meta-analysis reported that GLP-1RAs mildly delayed gastric emptying, but clinical relevance remained unclear. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to clarify this uncertainty by analyzing 13 retrospective studies that involved 84,065 patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Outcomes were compared among GLP-1RA users vs non-users, including rates of retained gastric contents, aborted procedures, and adverse events. 

Patients on GLP-1RAs had significantly higher rates of retained gastric contents than non-users (odds ratio [OR], 5.56), a finding that held steady (OR, 4.20) after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, and other therapies. 

GLP-1RAs were also associated with an increased likelihood of aborted procedures (OR, 5.13; 1% vs. 0.3%) and a higher need for repeat endoscopies (OR, 2.19; 1% vs 2%); however, Facciorusso and colleagues noted that these events, in absolute terms, were relatively uncommon.

“The rate of aborted and repeat procedures in the included studies was low,” the investigators wrote. “This meant that only for every 110 patients undergoing upper endoscopy while in GLP-1RA therapy would we observe an aborted procedure and only for every 120 patients would we need to repeat the procedure.”

The overall safety profile of GLP-1RAs in the context of upper endoscopy remained largely reassuring, they added. Specifically, rates of bronchial aspiration were not significantly different between users and non-users. What’s more, no single study reported a statistically significant increase in major complications, including pulmonary adverse events, among GLP-1RA users. 

According to Facciorusso and colleagues, these findings suggest that retained gastric contents do not appear to substantially heighten the risk of serious harm, though further prospective studies are needed.

“Our comprehensive analysis indicates that, while the use of GLP-1RA results in higher rates of [retained gastric contents], the actual clinical impact appears to be limited,” they wrote. “Therefore, there is no strong evidence to support the routine discontinuation of the drug before upper endoscopy procedures.”

Instead, they supported the AGA task force’s recommendation for an individualized approach, and not withholding GLP-1RAs unnecessarily, calling this “the best compromise.”

“Prolonging the duration of fasting for solids could represent the optimal approach in these patients, although this strategy requires further evaluation,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.







 

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with retained gastric contents and aborted procedures among patients undergoing upper endoscopy, according to a meta-analysis of more than 80,000 patients.

Safety profiles, however, were comparable across groups, suggesting that prolonged fasting may be a sufficient management strategy, instead of withholding GLP-1RAs, lead author Antonio Facciorusso, MD, PhD, of the University of Foggia, Italy, and colleagues reported.

“The impact of GLP-1RAs on slowing gastric motility has raised concerns in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, particularly upper endoscopies,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “This is due to the perceived risk of aspiration of retained gastric contents in sedated patients and the decreased visibility of the gastric mucosa, which can reduce the diagnostic yield of the examination.”

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends withholding GLP-1RAs before procedures or surgery, whereas AGA suggests an individualized approach, citing limited supporting data. 

A previous meta-analysis reported that GLP-1RAs mildly delayed gastric emptying, but clinical relevance remained unclear. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to clarify this uncertainty by analyzing 13 retrospective studies that involved 84,065 patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Outcomes were compared among GLP-1RA users vs non-users, including rates of retained gastric contents, aborted procedures, and adverse events. 

Patients on GLP-1RAs had significantly higher rates of retained gastric contents than non-users (odds ratio [OR], 5.56), a finding that held steady (OR, 4.20) after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, and other therapies. 

GLP-1RAs were also associated with an increased likelihood of aborted procedures (OR, 5.13; 1% vs. 0.3%) and a higher need for repeat endoscopies (OR, 2.19; 1% vs 2%); however, Facciorusso and colleagues noted that these events, in absolute terms, were relatively uncommon.

“The rate of aborted and repeat procedures in the included studies was low,” the investigators wrote. “This meant that only for every 110 patients undergoing upper endoscopy while in GLP-1RA therapy would we observe an aborted procedure and only for every 120 patients would we need to repeat the procedure.”

The overall safety profile of GLP-1RAs in the context of upper endoscopy remained largely reassuring, they added. Specifically, rates of bronchial aspiration were not significantly different between users and non-users. What’s more, no single study reported a statistically significant increase in major complications, including pulmonary adverse events, among GLP-1RA users. 

According to Facciorusso and colleagues, these findings suggest that retained gastric contents do not appear to substantially heighten the risk of serious harm, though further prospective studies are needed.

“Our comprehensive analysis indicates that, while the use of GLP-1RA results in higher rates of [retained gastric contents], the actual clinical impact appears to be limited,” they wrote. “Therefore, there is no strong evidence to support the routine discontinuation of the drug before upper endoscopy procedures.”

Instead, they supported the AGA task force’s recommendation for an individualized approach, and not withholding GLP-1RAs unnecessarily, calling this “the best compromise.”

“Prolonging the duration of fasting for solids could represent the optimal approach in these patients, although this strategy requires further evaluation,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.







 

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with retained gastric contents and aborted procedures among patients undergoing upper endoscopy, according to a meta-analysis of more than 80,000 patients.

Safety profiles, however, were comparable across groups, suggesting that prolonged fasting may be a sufficient management strategy, instead of withholding GLP-1RAs, lead author Antonio Facciorusso, MD, PhD, of the University of Foggia, Italy, and colleagues reported.

“The impact of GLP-1RAs on slowing gastric motility has raised concerns in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, particularly upper endoscopies,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “This is due to the perceived risk of aspiration of retained gastric contents in sedated patients and the decreased visibility of the gastric mucosa, which can reduce the diagnostic yield of the examination.”

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends withholding GLP-1RAs before procedures or surgery, whereas AGA suggests an individualized approach, citing limited supporting data. 

A previous meta-analysis reported that GLP-1RAs mildly delayed gastric emptying, but clinical relevance remained unclear. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to clarify this uncertainty by analyzing 13 retrospective studies that involved 84,065 patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Outcomes were compared among GLP-1RA users vs non-users, including rates of retained gastric contents, aborted procedures, and adverse events. 

Patients on GLP-1RAs had significantly higher rates of retained gastric contents than non-users (odds ratio [OR], 5.56), a finding that held steady (OR, 4.20) after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, and other therapies. 

GLP-1RAs were also associated with an increased likelihood of aborted procedures (OR, 5.13; 1% vs. 0.3%) and a higher need for repeat endoscopies (OR, 2.19; 1% vs 2%); however, Facciorusso and colleagues noted that these events, in absolute terms, were relatively uncommon.

“The rate of aborted and repeat procedures in the included studies was low,” the investigators wrote. “This meant that only for every 110 patients undergoing upper endoscopy while in GLP-1RA therapy would we observe an aborted procedure and only for every 120 patients would we need to repeat the procedure.”

The overall safety profile of GLP-1RAs in the context of upper endoscopy remained largely reassuring, they added. Specifically, rates of bronchial aspiration were not significantly different between users and non-users. What’s more, no single study reported a statistically significant increase in major complications, including pulmonary adverse events, among GLP-1RA users. 

According to Facciorusso and colleagues, these findings suggest that retained gastric contents do not appear to substantially heighten the risk of serious harm, though further prospective studies are needed.

“Our comprehensive analysis indicates that, while the use of GLP-1RA results in higher rates of [retained gastric contents], the actual clinical impact appears to be limited,” they wrote. “Therefore, there is no strong evidence to support the routine discontinuation of the drug before upper endoscopy procedures.”

Instead, they supported the AGA task force’s recommendation for an individualized approach, and not withholding GLP-1RAs unnecessarily, calling this “the best compromise.”

“Prolonging the duration of fasting for solids could represent the optimal approach in these patients, although this strategy requires further evaluation,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.







 

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID- 19 as a pandemic.¹ Pandemics have historically impacted physical and mental health across all populations, but especially health care workers (HCWs).² Nurses and other HCWs were profoundly impacted by the pandemic.^3-8

Throughout the pandemic, nurses continued to provide care while working in short-staffed workplaces, facing increased exposure to COVID-19, and witnessing COVID—19–related morbidity and mortality.⁹ Many nurses were mandated to cross-train in unfamiliar clinical settings and adjust to new and prolonged shift schedules. Physical and emotional exhaustion associated with managing care for individuals with COVID-19, shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), risk of infection, fear of secondary transmission to family members, feelings of being rejected by others, and social isolation, led to HCWs’ increased vulnerability to psychological impacts of the pandemic.^8,10

A meta-analysis of 65 studies with > 79,000 participants found HCWs experienced significant levels of anxiety, depression, stress, insomnia, and other mental health issues, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Female HCWs, nurses, and frontline responders experienced a higher incidence of psychological impact.¹¹ Other meta-analyses revealed that nurses’ compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, and burnout levels were significantly impacted with increased levels of burnout among nurses who had a friend or family member diagnosed with COVID- 19 or experienced prolonged threat of exposure to the virus.^12,13 A study of 350 nurses found high rates of perceived transgressions by others, and betrayal.⁸ Nurse leaders and staff nurses had to persevere as moral distress became pervasive among nursing staff, which led to complex and often unsustainable circumstances. ¹⁴ The themes identified in the literature about the pandemic’s impact as well as witnessing nurse colleagues’ distress with patient mortality and death of coworkers during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic compelled a group of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) nurses to form a research team to understand the scope of impact and identify possible solutions.

Since published studies on the impact of pandemics on HCWs, including nurses, primarily focused on inpatient settings, the investigators of this study sought to capture the experiences of outpatient and inpatient nurses providing care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Sierra Pacific Network (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 21), which has facilities in northern California, Hawaii, and Nevada.^15-19 The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of COVID-19 on nurses caring for veterans in both outpatient and inpatient settings at VISN 21 facilities from March 2020 to September 2022, to inform leadership about the extent the virus affected nurses, and identify strategies that address current and future impacts of pandemics.

METHODS

This retrospective descriptive survey adapted the Pandemic Impact Survey by Purcell et al, which included the Moral Injury Events Scale, Primary Care PTSD Screener, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, and a modified burnout scale.^20-24 The survey of 70 Likert-scale questions was intended to measure nurses’ needs, burnout, moral distress, depression and stress symptoms, work-related factors, and intent to remain working in their current position. A nurse was defined broadly and included those employed as licensed vocational nurses (LVN), licensed practical nurses (LPN), registered nurses (RN), nurses with advanced degrees, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and nurses with other certifications or licenses.

The VA Pacific Islands Research and Development Committee reviewed and approved the institutional review board-exempted study. The VISN 21 union was notified; only limited demographic information and broad VA tenure categories were collected to protect privacy. The principal investigator redacted facility identifier data after each facility had participated.

The survey was placed in REDCAP and a confidential link was emailed to all VISN 21 inpatient and outpatient nurses during March 2023. Because a comprehensive VISN 21 list of nurse email addresses was unavailable, the email was distributed by nursing leadership at each facility. Nurses received an email reminder at the 2-week halfway point, prompting them to complete the survey. The email indicated the purpose and voluntary nature of the study and cautioned nurses that they might experience stress while answering survey questions. Stress management resources were provided.

Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. Data were aggregated for analyzing and reporting purposes.

RESULTS

In March 2023, 860 of 5586 nurses (15%) responded to the survey. Respondents included 344 clinical inpatient nurses (40%) and 516 clinical outpatient nurses (60%); 688 (80%) were RNs, 129 (15%) were LPNs/LVNs, and 43 (5%) were APRNs. Of 849 respondents to provide their age, 15 (2%) were < 30 years, 163 (19%) were 30 to 39 years, 232 (27%) were 40 to 49 years, 259 (30%) were 50 to 59 years, and 180 (21%) were ≥ 60 years.

The survey found that 688 nurses reported job satisfaction (80%) and 75% of all respondents (66% among inpatient nurses) reported feeling happy with the care they delivered. Both inpatient and outpatient nurses indicated they could rely on staff. Sixty percent (n = 516) of the nurses indicated that facility management considered workplace health and safety and supervisors showed concern for subordinates, although inpatient nurses reported a lower percentage (Table 1).

Two hundred fifty-eight nurses (30%) reported having nurse colleagues who died and 52 (6%) had ≥ 3 colleagues who died. Among respondents, 292 had ≥ 3 patients who died after contracting COVID-19 and 232 (27%) had a significant person in their life die. More than one-half (54%; n = 464) of nurses had to limit contact with a family member who had COVID-19. Most nurses reported concerns about their colleagues (91%), were concerned about bringing COVID-19 home (82%), and stayed away from family during the pandemic (56%) (Table 2).

A total of 593 nurses (69%) reported feeling overwhelmed from the workload associated with the pandemic, 490 (57%) felt frustrated with role changes, 447 (52%) were stressed because of short staffing, and 327 (38%) felt stressed because of being assigned or floated to different patient care areas. Among inpatient nurses, 158 (46%) reported stress related to being floated. Coworker absenteeism caused challenges for 697 nurses (81%) (Table 3).

Nurses suggested a number of changes that could improve working conditions, including flexible scheduling (54%) and more hours of leave, which was requested by 43% of outpatient/inpatient nurses and 53% of inpatient alone nurses. Access to COVID-19 testing and PPE was endorsed as a workplace need by 439 nurses; the need for access to PPE was reported by 43% of inpatient-only nurses vs 29% of outpatient/inpatient nurses. The need for adequate staffing was reported by 54% of nurses although the rate was higher among those working inpatient settings (66%) (Table 4).

Four hundred sixty-four nurses (54%) felt tense and irritable at home because of work and 447 had ≥ 1 symptoms of burnout (Table 5). In terms of moral distress, > 30% of nurses witnessed morally incongruent situations, 10% felt their own moral code was violated, and > 30% felt betrayed by others (Table 6). Among respondents, 16% to 21% of nurses reported depressive symptoms (eAppendix). About 50% of nurses intended to stay in their current position while 20% indicated an intention to leave for another VA position.

DISCUSSION

This study identified the impact of COVID-19 on nurses who work in VISN 21. The survey included a significant number of nurses who work in outpatient settings, which differed from most other published studies to date.^15-19 This study found that inpatient and outpatient nurses were similarly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, although there were differences. A high percentage of nurses reported job satisfaction despite the personal and professional impact of the pandemic.

Caring for veterans can result in a therapeutic relationship with a deep appreciation of veterans’ service and sensitivity to their needs.²⁵ Some nurses reported that they feel it is a privilege to care for veterans.

Most nurses who participated in this study felt they could rely on their colleagues and were concerned about their health and wellbeing. Kissel et al explored protective factors for nurses during the pandemic and found participants often reported that their coworkers were positive safeguards.¹⁷ At least 50% of respondents reported that management considered workplace safety and was concerned about their welfare. Previous research has found that a positive working organization that promoted safety and concern for staff were protective factors against stress among HCWs.²⁶ A literature review of 3 coronavirus outbreaks illustrated the support from supervisors and colleagues promoted resiliency and reduced stress disorders.³

Similar to other studies, study respondents experienced profound losses, including the deaths of colleagues, patients, and family. In 2021 Howell reported that HCWs experienced increased stress, fear, anxiety, and other negative emotions following news of colleagues’ deaths from COVID-19.²⁷ Kissel et al reported that nurses frequently described pandemic-related physical and psychological harm and witnessing distress that they had not been previously exposed to.¹⁷

Our findings illustrate the tightrope nurses walked while caring for patients and concerns about the health of their colleagues and family. Consistent with our findings, Howell found that HCWs were afraid of contracting the infection at work and then unknowingly giving it to others such as patients, coworkers, and household members. ²⁷ Murat et al reported that some nurses chose to live separately during the pandemic to avoid spreading COVID-19 to relatives.¹⁹ Several researchers found that concerns about family and children were prevalent and led to fear, anxiety, and burnout among nurses.^18,28,29 Shah et al suggested that nurses experiencing death in the workplace and within their family may have resulted in fear and anxiety about returning to work.²⁹ Garcia and Calvo argued that nurses may have been stigmatized as carriers of COVID-19.¹⁶ In addition, the loss of prepandemic workplace rituals may have impacted performance, team connection, and functioning, and led to increased turnover and decreased attachment to the organization.³⁰

This study described the significant workplace issues nurses endured during the pandemic, including being overwhelmed with additional and/or multiple roles and frustrated and stressed with role changes and short staffing. Nurses endorsed workplace challenges in the context of coworker absenteeism and reassignments to different areas, such as intensive care units (ICUs).¹⁷ Researchers also reported that displaced team members experienced loneliness and isolation when they were removed from their usual place of work and experienced distress caring for patients beyond their perceived competency or comfort.^17,31 Nurses also experienced rapid organizational changes, resource scarcity, high patient-to-nurse ratios, inconsistent or limited communications, and the absence of protocols for prolonged mass casualty events.¹⁷ These challenges, such as significant uncertainty and rapidly changing working conditions, were shared experiences suggested to be similar to “tumbling into chaos,” and likened to the overwhelming situations faced during patient surges to a medical “war zone.”¹⁷

Study respondents indicated that nurses wanted better access to critical supplies, PPE, and COVID-19 testing; more flexible scheduling; longer leave times; and staffing that was appropriate to the patient volumes. These findings aligned with previous research. Howell found that HCWs, especially nurses, worried about childcare because of school closures and increased work hours.²⁷ Nurses felt that hospital support was inaccessible or inadequate and worried about access to essential resources.^17-19,27 Studies also found excessive workloads, and many nurses needed mental or financial assistance from the hospital in addition to more rest and less work.^18,28 An editorial highlighted the potential adverse effects that a lack of PPE could have on staff ’s mental health because of perceptions of institutional betrayal, which occurs when trusted and powerful organizations seemingly act in ways that can harm those dependent on them for safety and well-being.³²

Consistent with other research, this study found that a majority of nurses experienced significant burnout symptoms. The number of nurses reporting symptoms of burnout increased during the pandemic with ICU nurses reporting the highest levels.^17,33 Soto-Rubio et al emphasized that working conditions experienced by nurses, such as interpersonal conflict, lack of trust in administration, workload, and role conflict, contributed to burnout during COVID-19.³⁴ Other studies found that nurses experienced burnout caused by uncertainty, intense work, and extra duties contributed to higher burnout scores.^18,19 It is not surprising that researchers have indicated that nurses experiencing burnout might display depressive and stress-related symptoms, insomnia, and concentration and memory problems.¹⁹

The results of this study indicate that one-third of participating nurses were experiencing moral distress. Burton et al described COVID-19 as an environment in which nurses witnessed, experienced, and at times had to participate in acts that involved ethical violations in care, institutional betrayal, and traumatic strain.⁹ Of note, our findings revealed that both inpatient and outpatient nurses experienced moral distress. Interestingly, Mantri et al found that COVID-19 increased moral injury but not burnout among health professionals, which differed from the results of this study.³⁵

The findings of this study indicate that many nurses experienced depressive symptoms. A systematic review found a similar percentage of HCWs experienced depression while caring for patients with COVID- 19, though a Chinese study found a higher percentage.^36,37 Previous research also found that the most difficult aspect of the COVID- 19 pandemic for nurses was coping with mental disorders such as depression, and that many experienced difficulty sleeping/ had poor sleep quality, believed a similar disaster would occur in the future, were irritated or angered easily, and experienced emotional exhaustion.^15,19 The long-term mental and physical ramifications of caring for individuals with COVID-19 remain unknown. However, previous research suggests a high prevalence of depression, insomnia, anxiety, and distress, which could impair nurses’ professional performance.²⁹

This study reported that a majority of nurses intended to stay in their current position and about 20% intended to leave for another position within the VA. Similar findings conducted early in the pandemic indicated that most participants did not intend to quit nursing.¹⁹

This study’s findings suggest the COVID-19 pandemic had an adverse impact on VISN 21 nurses. It is critical to develop, implement, and adopt adequate measures as early as possible to support the health care system, especially nurses.¹⁸

Implications

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, discussing burnout and moral anguish was common, primarily in critical care.¹⁴ However, these experiences became more widespread throughout nursing settings during the pandemic. Nurse leaders have been identified as responsible for ensuring the environmental safety and personal well-being of their colleagues during and after pandemics.¹⁴

Studies of HCW experiences during COVID-19 provide many insights into future preparedness, strategies to best handle another pandemic during its acute stage, and techniques to address issues that might persist. This study and others suggest that comprehensive interventions in preparation for, during, and after a pandemic are needed. We break down strategies into pandemic and postpandemic interventions based on a synthesis of the literature and the research team’s knowledge and expertise.^{3,14-16,27,29,36,38-44}

Pandemic interventions. During a pandemic, it is important that nurses are adequately cared for to ensure they can continue to provide quality care for others. Resources supporting emotional well-being and addressing moral distress offered during a pandemic are essential. Implementing meaningful strategies could enhance nurses’ health and wellbeing. It is essential that leaders provide nurses a safe work environment/experience during a pandemic by instituting meaningful resources. In addition, developing best practices for leadership are critical.

Postpandemic interventions. Personal experiences of depression, burnout, and moral distress have not spontaneously resolved as the pandemic receded. Providing postpandemic interventions to lessen ongoing and lingering depressive, burnout, and moral distress symptoms experienced by frontline workers are critical. These interventions might prevent long-term health issues and the exodus of nurses.

Postpandemic interventions should include the integration of pandemic planning into new or existing educational or training programs for staff. Promotion and support of mental health services by health system leadership for nursing personnel implemented as a usual service will play an important role in preparing for future pandemics. A key role in preparation is developing and maintaining cooperation and ongoing mutual understanding, respect, and communication between leadership and nursing staff.

Future Research

This study’s findings inform VHA leadership and society about how a large group of nurses were impacted by COVID-19 while caring for patients in inpatient and outpatient settings and could provide a basis for extending this research to other groups of nurses or health care personnel. Future research might be helpful in identifying the impact of COVID-19 on nursing leadership. During conversations with nursing leadership, a common theme identified was that nurses did not feel that leadership was fully prepared for the level of emergency the pandemic created both personally and professionally; leadership expressed experiences similar to nurses providing direct care and felt powerless to help their nursing staff. Other areas of research could include identifying underlying factors contributing to burnout and moral distress and describing nurses’ expectations of or needs from leadership to best manage burnout and moral distress.

Limitations

Experiences of nurses who stopped working were not captured and information about their experiences might have different results. The survey distribution was limited to 2 emails (an initial email and a second at midpoint) sent at the discretion of the nurse executive of each facility. The study timeline was long because of complex regulatory protective processes inherent in the VHA system for researchers to include initial institutional review board review process, union notifications, and each facility’s response to the survey. Although 860 nurses participated, this was 15% of the 5586 VISN 21 nurses at the time of the study. Many clinical inpatient nurses do not have regular access to email, which might have impacted participation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the impact COVID-19 had on nurses who worked in a large hospital system. The research team outlined strategies to be employed during and after the pandemic, such as preplanning for future pandemics to provide a framework for a comprehensive pandemic response protocol.

This study adds to generalized knowledge because it captured voices of inpatient and outpatient nurses, the latter had not been previously studied. As nurses and health care organizations move beyond the pandemic with a significant number of nurses continuing to experience effects, there is a need to institute interventions to assist nurses in healing and begin preparations for future pandemics.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID- 19 as a pandemic.¹ Pandemics have historically impacted physical and mental health across all populations, but especially health care workers (HCWs).² Nurses and other HCWs were profoundly impacted by the pandemic.^3-8

Throughout the pandemic, nurses continued to provide care while working in short-staffed workplaces, facing increased exposure to COVID-19, and witnessing COVID—19–related morbidity and mortality.⁹ Many nurses were mandated to cross-train in unfamiliar clinical settings and adjust to new and prolonged shift schedules. Physical and emotional exhaustion associated with managing care for individuals with COVID-19, shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), risk of infection, fear of secondary transmission to family members, feelings of being rejected by others, and social isolation, led to HCWs’ increased vulnerability to psychological impacts of the pandemic.^8,10

A meta-analysis of 65 studies with > 79,000 participants found HCWs experienced significant levels of anxiety, depression, stress, insomnia, and other mental health issues, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Female HCWs, nurses, and frontline responders experienced a higher incidence of psychological impact.¹¹ Other meta-analyses revealed that nurses’ compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, and burnout levels were significantly impacted with increased levels of burnout among nurses who had a friend or family member diagnosed with COVID- 19 or experienced prolonged threat of exposure to the virus.^12,13 A study of 350 nurses found high rates of perceived transgressions by others, and betrayal.⁸ Nurse leaders and staff nurses had to persevere as moral distress became pervasive among nursing staff, which led to complex and often unsustainable circumstances. ¹⁴ The themes identified in the literature about the pandemic’s impact as well as witnessing nurse colleagues’ distress with patient mortality and death of coworkers during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic compelled a group of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) nurses to form a research team to understand the scope of impact and identify possible solutions.

Since published studies on the impact of pandemics on HCWs, including nurses, primarily focused on inpatient settings, the investigators of this study sought to capture the experiences of outpatient and inpatient nurses providing care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Sierra Pacific Network (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 21), which has facilities in northern California, Hawaii, and Nevada.^15-19 The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of COVID-19 on nurses caring for veterans in both outpatient and inpatient settings at VISN 21 facilities from March 2020 to September 2022, to inform leadership about the extent the virus affected nurses, and identify strategies that address current and future impacts of pandemics.

METHODS

This retrospective descriptive survey adapted the Pandemic Impact Survey by Purcell et al, which included the Moral Injury Events Scale, Primary Care PTSD Screener, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, and a modified burnout scale.^20-24 The survey of 70 Likert-scale questions was intended to measure nurses’ needs, burnout, moral distress, depression and stress symptoms, work-related factors, and intent to remain working in their current position. A nurse was defined broadly and included those employed as licensed vocational nurses (LVN), licensed practical nurses (LPN), registered nurses (RN), nurses with advanced degrees, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and nurses with other certifications or licenses.

The VA Pacific Islands Research and Development Committee reviewed and approved the institutional review board-exempted study. The VISN 21 union was notified; only limited demographic information and broad VA tenure categories were collected to protect privacy. The principal investigator redacted facility identifier data after each facility had participated.

The survey was placed in REDCAP and a confidential link was emailed to all VISN 21 inpatient and outpatient nurses during March 2023. Because a comprehensive VISN 21 list of nurse email addresses was unavailable, the email was distributed by nursing leadership at each facility. Nurses received an email reminder at the 2-week halfway point, prompting them to complete the survey. The email indicated the purpose and voluntary nature of the study and cautioned nurses that they might experience stress while answering survey questions. Stress management resources were provided.

Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. Data were aggregated for analyzing and reporting purposes.

RESULTS

In March 2023, 860 of 5586 nurses (15%) responded to the survey. Respondents included 344 clinical inpatient nurses (40%) and 516 clinical outpatient nurses (60%); 688 (80%) were RNs, 129 (15%) were LPNs/LVNs, and 43 (5%) were APRNs. Of 849 respondents to provide their age, 15 (2%) were < 30 years, 163 (19%) were 30 to 39 years, 232 (27%) were 40 to 49 years, 259 (30%) were 50 to 59 years, and 180 (21%) were ≥ 60 years.

The survey found that 688 nurses reported job satisfaction (80%) and 75% of all respondents (66% among inpatient nurses) reported feeling happy with the care they delivered. Both inpatient and outpatient nurses indicated they could rely on staff. Sixty percent (n = 516) of the nurses indicated that facility management considered workplace health and safety and supervisors showed concern for subordinates, although inpatient nurses reported a lower percentage (Table 1).

Two hundred fifty-eight nurses (30%) reported having nurse colleagues who died and 52 (6%) had ≥ 3 colleagues who died. Among respondents, 292 had ≥ 3 patients who died after contracting COVID-19 and 232 (27%) had a significant person in their life die. More than one-half (54%; n = 464) of nurses had to limit contact with a family member who had COVID-19. Most nurses reported concerns about their colleagues (91%), were concerned about bringing COVID-19 home (82%), and stayed away from family during the pandemic (56%) (Table 2).

A total of 593 nurses (69%) reported feeling overwhelmed from the workload associated with the pandemic, 490 (57%) felt frustrated with role changes, 447 (52%) were stressed because of short staffing, and 327 (38%) felt stressed because of being assigned or floated to different patient care areas. Among inpatient nurses, 158 (46%) reported stress related to being floated. Coworker absenteeism caused challenges for 697 nurses (81%) (Table 3).

Nurses suggested a number of changes that could improve working conditions, including flexible scheduling (54%) and more hours of leave, which was requested by 43% of outpatient/inpatient nurses and 53% of inpatient alone nurses. Access to COVID-19 testing and PPE was endorsed as a workplace need by 439 nurses; the need for access to PPE was reported by 43% of inpatient-only nurses vs 29% of outpatient/inpatient nurses. The need for adequate staffing was reported by 54% of nurses although the rate was higher among those working inpatient settings (66%) (Table 4).

Four hundred sixty-four nurses (54%) felt tense and irritable at home because of work and 447 had ≥ 1 symptoms of burnout (Table 5). In terms of moral distress, > 30% of nurses witnessed morally incongruent situations, 10% felt their own moral code was violated, and > 30% felt betrayed by others (Table 6). Among respondents, 16% to 21% of nurses reported depressive symptoms (eAppendix). About 50% of nurses intended to stay in their current position while 20% indicated an intention to leave for another VA position.

DISCUSSION

This study identified the impact of COVID-19 on nurses who work in VISN 21. The survey included a significant number of nurses who work in outpatient settings, which differed from most other published studies to date.^15-19 This study found that inpatient and outpatient nurses were similarly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, although there were differences. A high percentage of nurses reported job satisfaction despite the personal and professional impact of the pandemic.

Caring for veterans can result in a therapeutic relationship with a deep appreciation of veterans’ service and sensitivity to their needs.²⁵ Some nurses reported that they feel it is a privilege to care for veterans.

Most nurses who participated in this study felt they could rely on their colleagues and were concerned about their health and wellbeing. Kissel et al explored protective factors for nurses during the pandemic and found participants often reported that their coworkers were positive safeguards.¹⁷ At least 50% of respondents reported that management considered workplace safety and was concerned about their welfare. Previous research has found that a positive working organization that promoted safety and concern for staff were protective factors against stress among HCWs.²⁶ A literature review of 3 coronavirus outbreaks illustrated the support from supervisors and colleagues promoted resiliency and reduced stress disorders.³

Similar to other studies, study respondents experienced profound losses, including the deaths of colleagues, patients, and family. In 2021 Howell reported that HCWs experienced increased stress, fear, anxiety, and other negative emotions following news of colleagues’ deaths from COVID-19.²⁷ Kissel et al reported that nurses frequently described pandemic-related physical and psychological harm and witnessing distress that they had not been previously exposed to.¹⁷

Our findings illustrate the tightrope nurses walked while caring for patients and concerns about the health of their colleagues and family. Consistent with our findings, Howell found that HCWs were afraid of contracting the infection at work and then unknowingly giving it to others such as patients, coworkers, and household members. ²⁷ Murat et al reported that some nurses chose to live separately during the pandemic to avoid spreading COVID-19 to relatives.¹⁹ Several researchers found that concerns about family and children were prevalent and led to fear, anxiety, and burnout among nurses.^18,28,29 Shah et al suggested that nurses experiencing death in the workplace and within their family may have resulted in fear and anxiety about returning to work.²⁹ Garcia and Calvo argued that nurses may have been stigmatized as carriers of COVID-19.¹⁶ In addition, the loss of prepandemic workplace rituals may have impacted performance, team connection, and functioning, and led to increased turnover and decreased attachment to the organization.³⁰

This study described the significant workplace issues nurses endured during the pandemic, including being overwhelmed with additional and/or multiple roles and frustrated and stressed with role changes and short staffing. Nurses endorsed workplace challenges in the context of coworker absenteeism and reassignments to different areas, such as intensive care units (ICUs).¹⁷ Researchers also reported that displaced team members experienced loneliness and isolation when they were removed from their usual place of work and experienced distress caring for patients beyond their perceived competency or comfort.^17,31 Nurses also experienced rapid organizational changes, resource scarcity, high patient-to-nurse ratios, inconsistent or limited communications, and the absence of protocols for prolonged mass casualty events.¹⁷ These challenges, such as significant uncertainty and rapidly changing working conditions, were shared experiences suggested to be similar to “tumbling into chaos,” and likened to the overwhelming situations faced during patient surges to a medical “war zone.”¹⁷

Study respondents indicated that nurses wanted better access to critical supplies, PPE, and COVID-19 testing; more flexible scheduling; longer leave times; and staffing that was appropriate to the patient volumes. These findings aligned with previous research. Howell found that HCWs, especially nurses, worried about childcare because of school closures and increased work hours.²⁷ Nurses felt that hospital support was inaccessible or inadequate and worried about access to essential resources.^17-19,27 Studies also found excessive workloads, and many nurses needed mental or financial assistance from the hospital in addition to more rest and less work.^18,28 An editorial highlighted the potential adverse effects that a lack of PPE could have on staff ’s mental health because of perceptions of institutional betrayal, which occurs when trusted and powerful organizations seemingly act in ways that can harm those dependent on them for safety and well-being.³²

Consistent with other research, this study found that a majority of nurses experienced significant burnout symptoms. The number of nurses reporting symptoms of burnout increased during the pandemic with ICU nurses reporting the highest levels.^17,33 Soto-Rubio et al emphasized that working conditions experienced by nurses, such as interpersonal conflict, lack of trust in administration, workload, and role conflict, contributed to burnout during COVID-19.³⁴ Other studies found that nurses experienced burnout caused by uncertainty, intense work, and extra duties contributed to higher burnout scores.^18,19 It is not surprising that researchers have indicated that nurses experiencing burnout might display depressive and stress-related symptoms, insomnia, and concentration and memory problems.¹⁹

The results of this study indicate that one-third of participating nurses were experiencing moral distress. Burton et al described COVID-19 as an environment in which nurses witnessed, experienced, and at times had to participate in acts that involved ethical violations in care, institutional betrayal, and traumatic strain.⁹ Of note, our findings revealed that both inpatient and outpatient nurses experienced moral distress. Interestingly, Mantri et al found that COVID-19 increased moral injury but not burnout among health professionals, which differed from the results of this study.³⁵

The findings of this study indicate that many nurses experienced depressive symptoms. A systematic review found a similar percentage of HCWs experienced depression while caring for patients with COVID- 19, though a Chinese study found a higher percentage.^36,37 Previous research also found that the most difficult aspect of the COVID- 19 pandemic for nurses was coping with mental disorders such as depression, and that many experienced difficulty sleeping/ had poor sleep quality, believed a similar disaster would occur in the future, were irritated or angered easily, and experienced emotional exhaustion.^15,19 The long-term mental and physical ramifications of caring for individuals with COVID-19 remain unknown. However, previous research suggests a high prevalence of depression, insomnia, anxiety, and distress, which could impair nurses’ professional performance.²⁹

This study reported that a majority of nurses intended to stay in their current position and about 20% intended to leave for another position within the VA. Similar findings conducted early in the pandemic indicated that most participants did not intend to quit nursing.¹⁹

This study’s findings suggest the COVID-19 pandemic had an adverse impact on VISN 21 nurses. It is critical to develop, implement, and adopt adequate measures as early as possible to support the health care system, especially nurses.¹⁸

Implications

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, discussing burnout and moral anguish was common, primarily in critical care.¹⁴ However, these experiences became more widespread throughout nursing settings during the pandemic. Nurse leaders have been identified as responsible for ensuring the environmental safety and personal well-being of their colleagues during and after pandemics.¹⁴

Studies of HCW experiences during COVID-19 provide many insights into future preparedness, strategies to best handle another pandemic during its acute stage, and techniques to address issues that might persist. This study and others suggest that comprehensive interventions in preparation for, during, and after a pandemic are needed. We break down strategies into pandemic and postpandemic interventions based on a synthesis of the literature and the research team’s knowledge and expertise.^{3,14-16,27,29,36,38-44}

Pandemic interventions. During a pandemic, it is important that nurses are adequately cared for to ensure they can continue to provide quality care for others. Resources supporting emotional well-being and addressing moral distress offered during a pandemic are essential. Implementing meaningful strategies could enhance nurses’ health and wellbeing. It is essential that leaders provide nurses a safe work environment/experience during a pandemic by instituting meaningful resources. In addition, developing best practices for leadership are critical.

Postpandemic interventions. Personal experiences of depression, burnout, and moral distress have not spontaneously resolved as the pandemic receded. Providing postpandemic interventions to lessen ongoing and lingering depressive, burnout, and moral distress symptoms experienced by frontline workers are critical. These interventions might prevent long-term health issues and the exodus of nurses.

Postpandemic interventions should include the integration of pandemic planning into new or existing educational or training programs for staff. Promotion and support of mental health services by health system leadership for nursing personnel implemented as a usual service will play an important role in preparing for future pandemics. A key role in preparation is developing and maintaining cooperation and ongoing mutual understanding, respect, and communication between leadership and nursing staff.

Future Research

This study’s findings inform VHA leadership and society about how a large group of nurses were impacted by COVID-19 while caring for patients in inpatient and outpatient settings and could provide a basis for extending this research to other groups of nurses or health care personnel. Future research might be helpful in identifying the impact of COVID-19 on nursing leadership. During conversations with nursing leadership, a common theme identified was that nurses did not feel that leadership was fully prepared for the level of emergency the pandemic created both personally and professionally; leadership expressed experiences similar to nurses providing direct care and felt powerless to help their nursing staff. Other areas of research could include identifying underlying factors contributing to burnout and moral distress and describing nurses’ expectations of or needs from leadership to best manage burnout and moral distress.

Limitations

Experiences of nurses who stopped working were not captured and information about their experiences might have different results. The survey distribution was limited to 2 emails (an initial email and a second at midpoint) sent at the discretion of the nurse executive of each facility. The study timeline was long because of complex regulatory protective processes inherent in the VHA system for researchers to include initial institutional review board review process, union notifications, and each facility’s response to the survey. Although 860 nurses participated, this was 15% of the 5586 VISN 21 nurses at the time of the study. Many clinical inpatient nurses do not have regular access to email, which might have impacted participation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the impact COVID-19 had on nurses who worked in a large hospital system. The research team outlined strategies to be employed during and after the pandemic, such as preplanning for future pandemics to provide a framework for a comprehensive pandemic response protocol.

This study adds to generalized knowledge because it captured voices of inpatient and outpatient nurses, the latter had not been previously studied. As nurses and health care organizations move beyond the pandemic with a significant number of nurses continuing to experience effects, there is a need to institute interventions to assist nurses in healing and begin preparations for future pandemics.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID- 19 as a pandemic.¹ Pandemics have historically impacted physical and mental health across all populations, but especially health care workers (HCWs).² Nurses and other HCWs were profoundly impacted by the pandemic.^3-8

Throughout the pandemic, nurses continued to provide care while working in short-staffed workplaces, facing increased exposure to COVID-19, and witnessing COVID—19–related morbidity and mortality.⁹ Many nurses were mandated to cross-train in unfamiliar clinical settings and adjust to new and prolonged shift schedules. Physical and emotional exhaustion associated with managing care for individuals with COVID-19, shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), risk of infection, fear of secondary transmission to family members, feelings of being rejected by others, and social isolation, led to HCWs’ increased vulnerability to psychological impacts of the pandemic.^8,10

A meta-analysis of 65 studies with > 79,000 participants found HCWs experienced significant levels of anxiety, depression, stress, insomnia, and other mental health issues, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Female HCWs, nurses, and frontline responders experienced a higher incidence of psychological impact.¹¹ Other meta-analyses revealed that nurses’ compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, and burnout levels were significantly impacted with increased levels of burnout among nurses who had a friend or family member diagnosed with COVID- 19 or experienced prolonged threat of exposure to the virus.^12,13 A study of 350 nurses found high rates of perceived transgressions by others, and betrayal.⁸ Nurse leaders and staff nurses had to persevere as moral distress became pervasive among nursing staff, which led to complex and often unsustainable circumstances. ¹⁴ The themes identified in the literature about the pandemic’s impact as well as witnessing nurse colleagues’ distress with patient mortality and death of coworkers during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic compelled a group of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) nurses to form a research team to understand the scope of impact and identify possible solutions.

Since published studies on the impact of pandemics on HCWs, including nurses, primarily focused on inpatient settings, the investigators of this study sought to capture the experiences of outpatient and inpatient nurses providing care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Sierra Pacific Network (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 21), which has facilities in northern California, Hawaii, and Nevada.^15-19 The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of COVID-19 on nurses caring for veterans in both outpatient and inpatient settings at VISN 21 facilities from March 2020 to September 2022, to inform leadership about the extent the virus affected nurses, and identify strategies that address current and future impacts of pandemics.

METHODS

This retrospective descriptive survey adapted the Pandemic Impact Survey by Purcell et al, which included the Moral Injury Events Scale, Primary Care PTSD Screener, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, and a modified burnout scale.^20-24 The survey of 70 Likert-scale questions was intended to measure nurses’ needs, burnout, moral distress, depression and stress symptoms, work-related factors, and intent to remain working in their current position. A nurse was defined broadly and included those employed as licensed vocational nurses (LVN), licensed practical nurses (LPN), registered nurses (RN), nurses with advanced degrees, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and nurses with other certifications or licenses.

The VA Pacific Islands Research and Development Committee reviewed and approved the institutional review board-exempted study. The VISN 21 union was notified; only limited demographic information and broad VA tenure categories were collected to protect privacy. The principal investigator redacted facility identifier data after each facility had participated.

The survey was placed in REDCAP and a confidential link was emailed to all VISN 21 inpatient and outpatient nurses during March 2023. Because a comprehensive VISN 21 list of nurse email addresses was unavailable, the email was distributed by nursing leadership at each facility. Nurses received an email reminder at the 2-week halfway point, prompting them to complete the survey. The email indicated the purpose and voluntary nature of the study and cautioned nurses that they might experience stress while answering survey questions. Stress management resources were provided.

Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. Data were aggregated for analyzing and reporting purposes.

RESULTS

In March 2023, 860 of 5586 nurses (15%) responded to the survey. Respondents included 344 clinical inpatient nurses (40%) and 516 clinical outpatient nurses (60%); 688 (80%) were RNs, 129 (15%) were LPNs/LVNs, and 43 (5%) were APRNs. Of 849 respondents to provide their age, 15 (2%) were < 30 years, 163 (19%) were 30 to 39 years, 232 (27%) were 40 to 49 years, 259 (30%) were 50 to 59 years, and 180 (21%) were ≥ 60 years.

The survey found that 688 nurses reported job satisfaction (80%) and 75% of all respondents (66% among inpatient nurses) reported feeling happy with the care they delivered. Both inpatient and outpatient nurses indicated they could rely on staff. Sixty percent (n = 516) of the nurses indicated that facility management considered workplace health and safety and supervisors showed concern for subordinates, although inpatient nurses reported a lower percentage (Table 1).

Two hundred fifty-eight nurses (30%) reported having nurse colleagues who died and 52 (6%) had ≥ 3 colleagues who died. Among respondents, 292 had ≥ 3 patients who died after contracting COVID-19 and 232 (27%) had a significant person in their life die. More than one-half (54%; n = 464) of nurses had to limit contact with a family member who had COVID-19. Most nurses reported concerns about their colleagues (91%), were concerned about bringing COVID-19 home (82%), and stayed away from family during the pandemic (56%) (Table 2).

A total of 593 nurses (69%) reported feeling overwhelmed from the workload associated with the pandemic, 490 (57%) felt frustrated with role changes, 447 (52%) were stressed because of short staffing, and 327 (38%) felt stressed because of being assigned or floated to different patient care areas. Among inpatient nurses, 158 (46%) reported stress related to being floated. Coworker absenteeism caused challenges for 697 nurses (81%) (Table 3).

Nurses suggested a number of changes that could improve working conditions, including flexible scheduling (54%) and more hours of leave, which was requested by 43% of outpatient/inpatient nurses and 53% of inpatient alone nurses. Access to COVID-19 testing and PPE was endorsed as a workplace need by 439 nurses; the need for access to PPE was reported by 43% of inpatient-only nurses vs 29% of outpatient/inpatient nurses. The need for adequate staffing was reported by 54% of nurses although the rate was higher among those working inpatient settings (66%) (Table 4).

Four hundred sixty-four nurses (54%) felt tense and irritable at home because of work and 447 had ≥ 1 symptoms of burnout (Table 5). In terms of moral distress, > 30% of nurses witnessed morally incongruent situations, 10% felt their own moral code was violated, and > 30% felt betrayed by others (Table 6). Among respondents, 16% to 21% of nurses reported depressive symptoms (eAppendix). About 50% of nurses intended to stay in their current position while 20% indicated an intention to leave for another VA position.

DISCUSSION

This study identified the impact of COVID-19 on nurses who work in VISN 21. The survey included a significant number of nurses who work in outpatient settings, which differed from most other published studies to date.^15-19 This study found that inpatient and outpatient nurses were similarly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, although there were differences. A high percentage of nurses reported job satisfaction despite the personal and professional impact of the pandemic.

Caring for veterans can result in a therapeutic relationship with a deep appreciation of veterans’ service and sensitivity to their needs.²⁵ Some nurses reported that they feel it is a privilege to care for veterans.

Most nurses who participated in this study felt they could rely on their colleagues and were concerned about their health and wellbeing. Kissel et al explored protective factors for nurses during the pandemic and found participants often reported that their coworkers were positive safeguards.¹⁷ At least 50% of respondents reported that management considered workplace safety and was concerned about their welfare. Previous research has found that a positive working organization that promoted safety and concern for staff were protective factors against stress among HCWs.²⁶ A literature review of 3 coronavirus outbreaks illustrated the support from supervisors and colleagues promoted resiliency and reduced stress disorders.³

Similar to other studies, study respondents experienced profound losses, including the deaths of colleagues, patients, and family. In 2021 Howell reported that HCWs experienced increased stress, fear, anxiety, and other negative emotions following news of colleagues’ deaths from COVID-19.²⁷ Kissel et al reported that nurses frequently described pandemic-related physical and psychological harm and witnessing distress that they had not been previously exposed to.¹⁷

Our findings illustrate the tightrope nurses walked while caring for patients and concerns about the health of their colleagues and family. Consistent with our findings, Howell found that HCWs were afraid of contracting the infection at work and then unknowingly giving it to others such as patients, coworkers, and household members. ²⁷ Murat et al reported that some nurses chose to live separately during the pandemic to avoid spreading COVID-19 to relatives.¹⁹ Several researchers found that concerns about family and children were prevalent and led to fear, anxiety, and burnout among nurses.^18,28,29 Shah et al suggested that nurses experiencing death in the workplace and within their family may have resulted in fear and anxiety about returning to work.²⁹ Garcia and Calvo argued that nurses may have been stigmatized as carriers of COVID-19.¹⁶ In addition, the loss of prepandemic workplace rituals may have impacted performance, team connection, and functioning, and led to increased turnover and decreased attachment to the organization.³⁰

This study described the significant workplace issues nurses endured during the pandemic, including being overwhelmed with additional and/or multiple roles and frustrated and stressed with role changes and short staffing. Nurses endorsed workplace challenges in the context of coworker absenteeism and reassignments to different areas, such as intensive care units (ICUs).¹⁷ Researchers also reported that displaced team members experienced loneliness and isolation when they were removed from their usual place of work and experienced distress caring for patients beyond their perceived competency or comfort.^17,31 Nurses also experienced rapid organizational changes, resource scarcity, high patient-to-nurse ratios, inconsistent or limited communications, and the absence of protocols for prolonged mass casualty events.¹⁷ These challenges, such as significant uncertainty and rapidly changing working conditions, were shared experiences suggested to be similar to “tumbling into chaos,” and likened to the overwhelming situations faced during patient surges to a medical “war zone.”¹⁷

Study respondents indicated that nurses wanted better access to critical supplies, PPE, and COVID-19 testing; more flexible scheduling; longer leave times; and staffing that was appropriate to the patient volumes. These findings aligned with previous research. Howell found that HCWs, especially nurses, worried about childcare because of school closures and increased work hours.²⁷ Nurses felt that hospital support was inaccessible or inadequate and worried about access to essential resources.^17-19,27 Studies also found excessive workloads, and many nurses needed mental or financial assistance from the hospital in addition to more rest and less work.^18,28 An editorial highlighted the potential adverse effects that a lack of PPE could have on staff ’s mental health because of perceptions of institutional betrayal, which occurs when trusted and powerful organizations seemingly act in ways that can harm those dependent on them for safety and well-being.³²

Consistent with other research, this study found that a majority of nurses experienced significant burnout symptoms. The number of nurses reporting symptoms of burnout increased during the pandemic with ICU nurses reporting the highest levels.^17,33 Soto-Rubio et al emphasized that working conditions experienced by nurses, such as interpersonal conflict, lack of trust in administration, workload, and role conflict, contributed to burnout during COVID-19.³⁴ Other studies found that nurses experienced burnout caused by uncertainty, intense work, and extra duties contributed to higher burnout scores.^18,19 It is not surprising that researchers have indicated that nurses experiencing burnout might display depressive and stress-related symptoms, insomnia, and concentration and memory problems.¹⁹

The results of this study indicate that one-third of participating nurses were experiencing moral distress. Burton et al described COVID-19 as an environment in which nurses witnessed, experienced, and at times had to participate in acts that involved ethical violations in care, institutional betrayal, and traumatic strain.⁹ Of note, our findings revealed that both inpatient and outpatient nurses experienced moral distress. Interestingly, Mantri et al found that COVID-19 increased moral injury but not burnout among health professionals, which differed from the results of this study.³⁵

The findings of this study indicate that many nurses experienced depressive symptoms. A systematic review found a similar percentage of HCWs experienced depression while caring for patients with COVID- 19, though a Chinese study found a higher percentage.^36,37 Previous research also found that the most difficult aspect of the COVID- 19 pandemic for nurses was coping with mental disorders such as depression, and that many experienced difficulty sleeping/ had poor sleep quality, believed a similar disaster would occur in the future, were irritated or angered easily, and experienced emotional exhaustion.^15,19 The long-term mental and physical ramifications of caring for individuals with COVID-19 remain unknown. However, previous research suggests a high prevalence of depression, insomnia, anxiety, and distress, which could impair nurses’ professional performance.²⁹

This study reported that a majority of nurses intended to stay in their current position and about 20% intended to leave for another position within the VA. Similar findings conducted early in the pandemic indicated that most participants did not intend to quit nursing.¹⁹

This study’s findings suggest the COVID-19 pandemic had an adverse impact on VISN 21 nurses. It is critical to develop, implement, and adopt adequate measures as early as possible to support the health care system, especially nurses.¹⁸

Implications

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, discussing burnout and moral anguish was common, primarily in critical care.¹⁴ However, these experiences became more widespread throughout nursing settings during the pandemic. Nurse leaders have been identified as responsible for ensuring the environmental safety and personal well-being of their colleagues during and after pandemics.¹⁴

Studies of HCW experiences during COVID-19 provide many insights into future preparedness, strategies to best handle another pandemic during its acute stage, and techniques to address issues that might persist. This study and others suggest that comprehensive interventions in preparation for, during, and after a pandemic are needed. We break down strategies into pandemic and postpandemic interventions based on a synthesis of the literature and the research team’s knowledge and expertise.^{3,14-16,27,29,36,38-44}

Pandemic interventions. During a pandemic, it is important that nurses are adequately cared for to ensure they can continue to provide quality care for others. Resources supporting emotional well-being and addressing moral distress offered during a pandemic are essential. Implementing meaningful strategies could enhance nurses’ health and wellbeing. It is essential that leaders provide nurses a safe work environment/experience during a pandemic by instituting meaningful resources. In addition, developing best practices for leadership are critical.

Postpandemic interventions. Personal experiences of depression, burnout, and moral distress have not spontaneously resolved as the pandemic receded. Providing postpandemic interventions to lessen ongoing and lingering depressive, burnout, and moral distress symptoms experienced by frontline workers are critical. These interventions might prevent long-term health issues and the exodus of nurses.

Postpandemic interventions should include the integration of pandemic planning into new or existing educational or training programs for staff. Promotion and support of mental health services by health system leadership for nursing personnel implemented as a usual service will play an important role in preparing for future pandemics. A key role in preparation is developing and maintaining cooperation and ongoing mutual understanding, respect, and communication between leadership and nursing staff.

Future Research

This study’s findings inform VHA leadership and society about how a large group of nurses were impacted by COVID-19 while caring for patients in inpatient and outpatient settings and could provide a basis for extending this research to other groups of nurses or health care personnel. Future research might be helpful in identifying the impact of COVID-19 on nursing leadership. During conversations with nursing leadership, a common theme identified was that nurses did not feel that leadership was fully prepared for the level of emergency the pandemic created both personally and professionally; leadership expressed experiences similar to nurses providing direct care and felt powerless to help their nursing staff. Other areas of research could include identifying underlying factors contributing to burnout and moral distress and describing nurses’ expectations of or needs from leadership to best manage burnout and moral distress.

Limitations

Experiences of nurses who stopped working were not captured and information about their experiences might have different results. The survey distribution was limited to 2 emails (an initial email and a second at midpoint) sent at the discretion of the nurse executive of each facility. The study timeline was long because of complex regulatory protective processes inherent in the VHA system for researchers to include initial institutional review board review process, union notifications, and each facility’s response to the survey. Although 860 nurses participated, this was 15% of the 5586 VISN 21 nurses at the time of the study. Many clinical inpatient nurses do not have regular access to email, which might have impacted participation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the impact COVID-19 had on nurses who worked in a large hospital system. The research team outlined strategies to be employed during and after the pandemic, such as preplanning for future pandemics to provide a framework for a comprehensive pandemic response protocol.

This study adds to generalized knowledge because it captured voices of inpatient and outpatient nurses, the latter had not been previously studied. As nurses and health care organizations move beyond the pandemic with a significant number of nurses continuing to experience effects, there is a need to institute interventions to assist nurses in healing and begin preparations for future pandemics.

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

Discussion

The patient’s violaceous papule on the nose with an apple jelly appearance is consistent with lupus pernio—a cutaneous form of sarcoidosis associated with respiratory involvement. Lupus pernio disproportionately affects African Americans, which further supports this diagnosis.¹ Lupus pernio is characterized by violaceous, indurated plaques predominantly on the face. It has a strong association with systemic sarcoidosis and often involves the lungs and other organs, as seen in this case. The laboratory results support this diagnosis. Hypercalcemia is a common systemic manifestation of sarcoidosis due to increased production of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D by activated macrophages with granulomas.² Elevated chitotriosidase, an enzyme produced by macrophages, is another biomarker of sarcoidosis reflecting granuloma burden.³

The differential diagnoses included Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), discoid lupus erythematosus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and granuloma annulare. However, these diagnoses did not fully align with the entirety of the patient’s clinical presentation and laboratory findings. LCH is a rare neoplastic disorder characterized by the abnormal proliferation and accumulation of Langerhans cells, a type of dendritic cell involved in immune response, in various tissues such as the skin and bone. Dermatologic findings in LCH include brown/purple papules and an erythematous papular rash rather than the violaceous plaques/papules in lupus pernio. LCH can have lung involvement; it typically presents with nodular or cystic changes in the upper lobes as opposed to the bibasilar opacities seen in this case.

Discoid lupus erythematosus presents with characteristic round, erythematous, scaly plaques on the cheeks, scalp, and ears. This is different from the apple jelly appearance seen in this case and does not present with systemic granulomatous involvement.

Typical manifestations of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, formerly known as Wegener’s granulomatosis, include renal disease, upper and lower respiratory tract involvement, or necrotizing vasculitis. Cutaneous manifestions of granulomatosis with polyangiitis typically include purpura or ulcers rather than the violaceous plaques seen in lupus pernio. Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis would also present with nonspecific systemic symptoms such as fever, weight loss, and malaise, which are not depicted in this case.⁴

Granuloma annulare is a benign condition that often presents with annular plaques that are skin-colored rather than violaceous. These plaques are often found on the hands and feet rather than the face. This condition also lacks the systemic manifestations seen in this case.

In primary care, encountering violaceous papule and plaques on the face, especially on the nasal alae or ear, should be concerning for possible lupus pernio, particularly in high-risk populations such as young African Americans. These lesions generally have a more indurated “deep” and “doughy” appearance and can result in scarring, distinguishing them from other types of cutaneous sarcoidosis. An apple jelly appearance seen on diascopy with a glass slide can further support the diagnosis. While the lesions are typically asymptomatic, patients may be concerned about potential cosmetic disfigurement. Given the potential for scarring and the association with systemic sarcoidosis, a dermatology referral is recommended for further evaluation and management.

A detailed patient history, physical examination, and laboratory exams are essential to accurately diagnose lupus pernio. Biopsy of a skin lesion, serum markers, and imaging studies were utilized to help assess systemic involvement and further confirm diagnosis in this patient. Following the diagnosis, the patient was started on his current regimen of prednisone, methotrexate, and hydroxychloroquine, which are standard therapies for managing both cutaneous and systemic sarcoidosis.

This case shows the importance of recognizing lupus pernio, a distinct form of cutaneous sarcoidosis, in patients presenting with characteristic skin lesions and systemic involvement. It is essential to differentiate it from other granulomatous and inflammatory skin conditions to ensure appropriate management and prevent complications.

Federal Practitioner thanks the Association of Military Dermatologists (militaryderm.org) for their assistance in developing the Image Challenge. Submissions based on photographs, radiography, or any other visual medium are welcomed.

Discussion

The patient’s violaceous papule on the nose with an apple jelly appearance is consistent with lupus pernio—a cutaneous form of sarcoidosis associated with respiratory involvement. Lupus pernio disproportionately affects African Americans, which further supports this diagnosis.¹ Lupus pernio is characterized by violaceous, indurated plaques predominantly on the face. It has a strong association with systemic sarcoidosis and often involves the lungs and other organs, as seen in this case. The laboratory results support this diagnosis. Hypercalcemia is a common systemic manifestation of sarcoidosis due to increased production of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D by activated macrophages with granulomas.² Elevated chitotriosidase, an enzyme produced by macrophages, is another biomarker of sarcoidosis reflecting granuloma burden.³

The differential diagnoses included Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), discoid lupus erythematosus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and granuloma annulare. However, these diagnoses did not fully align with the entirety of the patient’s clinical presentation and laboratory findings. LCH is a rare neoplastic disorder characterized by the abnormal proliferation and accumulation of Langerhans cells, a type of dendritic cell involved in immune response, in various tissues such as the skin and bone. Dermatologic findings in LCH include brown/purple papules and an erythematous papular rash rather than the violaceous plaques/papules in lupus pernio. LCH can have lung involvement; it typically presents with nodular or cystic changes in the upper lobes as opposed to the bibasilar opacities seen in this case.

Discoid lupus erythematosus presents with characteristic round, erythematous, scaly plaques on the cheeks, scalp, and ears. This is different from the apple jelly appearance seen in this case and does not present with systemic granulomatous involvement.

Typical manifestations of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, formerly known as Wegener’s granulomatosis, include renal disease, upper and lower respiratory tract involvement, or necrotizing vasculitis. Cutaneous manifestions of granulomatosis with polyangiitis typically include purpura or ulcers rather than the violaceous plaques seen in lupus pernio. Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis would also present with nonspecific systemic symptoms such as fever, weight loss, and malaise, which are not depicted in this case.⁴

Granuloma annulare is a benign condition that often presents with annular plaques that are skin-colored rather than violaceous. These plaques are often found on the hands and feet rather than the face. This condition also lacks the systemic manifestations seen in this case.

In primary care, encountering violaceous papule and plaques on the face, especially on the nasal alae or ear, should be concerning for possible lupus pernio, particularly in high-risk populations such as young African Americans. These lesions generally have a more indurated “deep” and “doughy” appearance and can result in scarring, distinguishing them from other types of cutaneous sarcoidosis. An apple jelly appearance seen on diascopy with a glass slide can further support the diagnosis. While the lesions are typically asymptomatic, patients may be concerned about potential cosmetic disfigurement. Given the potential for scarring and the association with systemic sarcoidosis, a dermatology referral is recommended for further evaluation and management.

A detailed patient history, physical examination, and laboratory exams are essential to accurately diagnose lupus pernio. Biopsy of a skin lesion, serum markers, and imaging studies were utilized to help assess systemic involvement and further confirm diagnosis in this patient. Following the diagnosis, the patient was started on his current regimen of prednisone, methotrexate, and hydroxychloroquine, which are standard therapies for managing both cutaneous and systemic sarcoidosis.

This case shows the importance of recognizing lupus pernio, a distinct form of cutaneous sarcoidosis, in patients presenting with characteristic skin lesions and systemic involvement. It is essential to differentiate it from other granulomatous and inflammatory skin conditions to ensure appropriate management and prevent complications.

Federal Practitioner thanks the Association of Military Dermatologists (militaryderm.org) for their assistance in developing the Image Challenge. Submissions based on photographs, radiography, or any other visual medium are welcomed.

Discussion

The patient’s violaceous papule on the nose with an apple jelly appearance is consistent with lupus pernio—a cutaneous form of sarcoidosis associated with respiratory involvement. Lupus pernio disproportionately affects African Americans, which further supports this diagnosis.¹ Lupus pernio is characterized by violaceous, indurated plaques predominantly on the face. It has a strong association with systemic sarcoidosis and often involves the lungs and other organs, as seen in this case. The laboratory results support this diagnosis. Hypercalcemia is a common systemic manifestation of sarcoidosis due to increased production of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D by activated macrophages with granulomas.² Elevated chitotriosidase, an enzyme produced by macrophages, is another biomarker of sarcoidosis reflecting granuloma burden.³

The differential diagnoses included Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), discoid lupus erythematosus, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and granuloma annulare. However, these diagnoses did not fully align with the entirety of the patient’s clinical presentation and laboratory findings. LCH is a rare neoplastic disorder characterized by the abnormal proliferation and accumulation of Langerhans cells, a type of dendritic cell involved in immune response, in various tissues such as the skin and bone. Dermatologic findings in LCH include brown/purple papules and an erythematous papular rash rather than the violaceous plaques/papules in lupus pernio. LCH can have lung involvement; it typically presents with nodular or cystic changes in the upper lobes as opposed to the bibasilar opacities seen in this case.

Discoid lupus erythematosus presents with characteristic round, erythematous, scaly plaques on the cheeks, scalp, and ears. This is different from the apple jelly appearance seen in this case and does not present with systemic granulomatous involvement.

Typical manifestations of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, formerly known as Wegener’s granulomatosis, include renal disease, upper and lower respiratory tract involvement, or necrotizing vasculitis. Cutaneous manifestions of granulomatosis with polyangiitis typically include purpura or ulcers rather than the violaceous plaques seen in lupus pernio. Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis would also present with nonspecific systemic symptoms such as fever, weight loss, and malaise, which are not depicted in this case.⁴

Granuloma annulare is a benign condition that often presents with annular plaques that are skin-colored rather than violaceous. These plaques are often found on the hands and feet rather than the face. This condition also lacks the systemic manifestations seen in this case.

In primary care, encountering violaceous papule and plaques on the face, especially on the nasal alae or ear, should be concerning for possible lupus pernio, particularly in high-risk populations such as young African Americans. These lesions generally have a more indurated “deep” and “doughy” appearance and can result in scarring, distinguishing them from other types of cutaneous sarcoidosis. An apple jelly appearance seen on diascopy with a glass slide can further support the diagnosis. While the lesions are typically asymptomatic, patients may be concerned about potential cosmetic disfigurement. Given the potential for scarring and the association with systemic sarcoidosis, a dermatology referral is recommended for further evaluation and management.

A detailed patient history, physical examination, and laboratory exams are essential to accurately diagnose lupus pernio. Biopsy of a skin lesion, serum markers, and imaging studies were utilized to help assess systemic involvement and further confirm diagnosis in this patient. Following the diagnosis, the patient was started on his current regimen of prednisone, methotrexate, and hydroxychloroquine, which are standard therapies for managing both cutaneous and systemic sarcoidosis.

This case shows the importance of recognizing lupus pernio, a distinct form of cutaneous sarcoidosis, in patients presenting with characteristic skin lesions and systemic involvement. It is essential to differentiate it from other granulomatous and inflammatory skin conditions to ensure appropriate management and prevent complications.

Federal Practitioner thanks the Association of Military Dermatologists (militaryderm.org) for their assistance in developing the Image Challenge. Submissions based on photographs, radiography, or any other visual medium are welcomed.

Circulating blood proteins could enable early identification of Crohn’s disease (CD) years before clinical signs, according to investigators.

The 29-protein biosignature, which was validated across multiple independent cohorts, could potentially open doors to new preclinical interventions, lead author Olle Grännö, MD, of Örebro University in Sweden, and colleagues reported. 

“Predictive biomarkers of future clinical onset of active inflammatory bowel disease could detect the disease during ‘a window of opportunity’ when the immune dysregulation is potentially reversible,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Preclinical biomarker screening has proven effective in other immune-mediated diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, where risk stratification using autoantibodies enabled early intervention that delayed disease onset, they noted. 

Previous studies suggested similar potential for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) via predictive autoantibodies and serum proteins, although the accuracy of these markers was not validated in external cohorts. The present study aimed to fill this validation gap.

First, the investigators measured 178 plasma proteins in blood samples taken from 312 individuals before they were diagnosed with IBD. Using machine learning, Dr. Grännö and colleagues compared these findings with blood-matched controls who remained free of IBD through follow-up. This process revealed the 29-protein signature. 

In the same discovery cohort, the panel of 29 proteins differentiated preclinical CD cases from controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85. The signature was then validated in an independent preclinical cohort of CD patients, with an AUC of 0.87. 

While accuracy increased in proximity to clinical disease onset, the model was still highly predictive up to 16 years before CD diagnosis, at which time the AUC was 0.82. The panel showed perfect performance among newly diagnosed CD patients, with an AUC of 1.0, supporting clinical relevance.

Predictive power was statistically significant but less compelling among individuals with preclinical ulcerative colitis (UC). In this IBD subgroup, AUC for identification and validation cohorts was 0.77 and 0.67, respectively, while newly diagnosed patients had an AUC of 0.95.

“In preclinical samples, downregulated (but not upregulated) proteins related to gut barrier integrity and macrophage functionality correlated with time to diagnosis of CD,” Dr. Grännö and colleagues wrote. “Contrarily, all proteins associated with preclinical UC were upregulated, and only one protein marker correlated with the time to diagnosis.”

These findings suggest that disruptions in gut barrier integrity and macrophage function precede clinical CD onset, they explained, potentially serving as an early signal of inflammation-driven intestinal damage. In contrast, the preclinical UC signature primarily involved upregulated inflammatory markers.

Dr. Grännö and colleagues also examined the influence of genetic and environmental factors by comparing preclinical IBD signatures in unrelated and related twin pairs. 

The CD biosignature had an AUC of 0.89 when comparing individuals with preclinical CD to matched external (unrelated) healthy twins. Predictive ability dropped significantly (AUC = 0.58) when comparing CD cases to their own healthy twin siblings, suggesting that genetic and shared environmental factors have a “predominant influence” on protein dysregulation. 

In contrast, AUC among unrelated vs related twin controls was more similar for UC, at 0.76 and 0.64, respectively, indicating “a limited impact” of genetic and environmental factors on the protein signature.

Altogether, this study reinforces the concept of a long preclinical phase in CD, and highlights the potential for early detection and intervention, according to the investigators.

“The long preclinical period in CD endorses the adoption of early preventive strategies (e.g., diet alterations and medication) to potentially attenuate disease progression and improve the natural history of CD,” they concluded.

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Örebro University Hospital Research Foundation, and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Janssen, AbbVie, and others.

Circulating blood proteins could enable early identification of Crohn’s disease (CD) years before clinical signs, according to investigators.

The 29-protein biosignature, which was validated across multiple independent cohorts, could potentially open doors to new preclinical interventions, lead author Olle Grännö, MD, of Örebro University in Sweden, and colleagues reported. 

“Predictive biomarkers of future clinical onset of active inflammatory bowel disease could detect the disease during ‘a window of opportunity’ when the immune dysregulation is potentially reversible,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Preclinical biomarker screening has proven effective in other immune-mediated diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, where risk stratification using autoantibodies enabled early intervention that delayed disease onset, they noted. 

Previous studies suggested similar potential for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) via predictive autoantibodies and serum proteins, although the accuracy of these markers was not validated in external cohorts. The present study aimed to fill this validation gap.

First, the investigators measured 178 plasma proteins in blood samples taken from 312 individuals before they were diagnosed with IBD. Using machine learning, Dr. Grännö and colleagues compared these findings with blood-matched controls who remained free of IBD through follow-up. This process revealed the 29-protein signature. 

In the same discovery cohort, the panel of 29 proteins differentiated preclinical CD cases from controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85. The signature was then validated in an independent preclinical cohort of CD patients, with an AUC of 0.87. 

While accuracy increased in proximity to clinical disease onset, the model was still highly predictive up to 16 years before CD diagnosis, at which time the AUC was 0.82. The panel showed perfect performance among newly diagnosed CD patients, with an AUC of 1.0, supporting clinical relevance.

Predictive power was statistically significant but less compelling among individuals with preclinical ulcerative colitis (UC). In this IBD subgroup, AUC for identification and validation cohorts was 0.77 and 0.67, respectively, while newly diagnosed patients had an AUC of 0.95.

“In preclinical samples, downregulated (but not upregulated) proteins related to gut barrier integrity and macrophage functionality correlated with time to diagnosis of CD,” Dr. Grännö and colleagues wrote. “Contrarily, all proteins associated with preclinical UC were upregulated, and only one protein marker correlated with the time to diagnosis.”

These findings suggest that disruptions in gut barrier integrity and macrophage function precede clinical CD onset, they explained, potentially serving as an early signal of inflammation-driven intestinal damage. In contrast, the preclinical UC signature primarily involved upregulated inflammatory markers.

Dr. Grännö and colleagues also examined the influence of genetic and environmental factors by comparing preclinical IBD signatures in unrelated and related twin pairs. 

The CD biosignature had an AUC of 0.89 when comparing individuals with preclinical CD to matched external (unrelated) healthy twins. Predictive ability dropped significantly (AUC = 0.58) when comparing CD cases to their own healthy twin siblings, suggesting that genetic and shared environmental factors have a “predominant influence” on protein dysregulation. 

In contrast, AUC among unrelated vs related twin controls was more similar for UC, at 0.76 and 0.64, respectively, indicating “a limited impact” of genetic and environmental factors on the protein signature.

Altogether, this study reinforces the concept of a long preclinical phase in CD, and highlights the potential for early detection and intervention, according to the investigators.

“The long preclinical period in CD endorses the adoption of early preventive strategies (e.g., diet alterations and medication) to potentially attenuate disease progression and improve the natural history of CD,” they concluded.

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Örebro University Hospital Research Foundation, and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Janssen, AbbVie, and others.

Circulating blood proteins could enable early identification of Crohn’s disease (CD) years before clinical signs, according to investigators.

The 29-protein biosignature, which was validated across multiple independent cohorts, could potentially open doors to new preclinical interventions, lead author Olle Grännö, MD, of Örebro University in Sweden, and colleagues reported. 

“Predictive biomarkers of future clinical onset of active inflammatory bowel disease could detect the disease during ‘a window of opportunity’ when the immune dysregulation is potentially reversible,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Preclinical biomarker screening has proven effective in other immune-mediated diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, where risk stratification using autoantibodies enabled early intervention that delayed disease onset, they noted. 

Previous studies suggested similar potential for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) via predictive autoantibodies and serum proteins, although the accuracy of these markers was not validated in external cohorts. The present study aimed to fill this validation gap.

First, the investigators measured 178 plasma proteins in blood samples taken from 312 individuals before they were diagnosed with IBD. Using machine learning, Dr. Grännö and colleagues compared these findings with blood-matched controls who remained free of IBD through follow-up. This process revealed the 29-protein signature. 

In the same discovery cohort, the panel of 29 proteins differentiated preclinical CD cases from controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85. The signature was then validated in an independent preclinical cohort of CD patients, with an AUC of 0.87. 

While accuracy increased in proximity to clinical disease onset, the model was still highly predictive up to 16 years before CD diagnosis, at which time the AUC was 0.82. The panel showed perfect performance among newly diagnosed CD patients, with an AUC of 1.0, supporting clinical relevance.

Predictive power was statistically significant but less compelling among individuals with preclinical ulcerative colitis (UC). In this IBD subgroup, AUC for identification and validation cohorts was 0.77 and 0.67, respectively, while newly diagnosed patients had an AUC of 0.95.

“In preclinical samples, downregulated (but not upregulated) proteins related to gut barrier integrity and macrophage functionality correlated with time to diagnosis of CD,” Dr. Grännö and colleagues wrote. “Contrarily, all proteins associated with preclinical UC were upregulated, and only one protein marker correlated with the time to diagnosis.”

These findings suggest that disruptions in gut barrier integrity and macrophage function precede clinical CD onset, they explained, potentially serving as an early signal of inflammation-driven intestinal damage. In contrast, the preclinical UC signature primarily involved upregulated inflammatory markers.

Dr. Grännö and colleagues also examined the influence of genetic and environmental factors by comparing preclinical IBD signatures in unrelated and related twin pairs. 

The CD biosignature had an AUC of 0.89 when comparing individuals with preclinical CD to matched external (unrelated) healthy twins. Predictive ability dropped significantly (AUC = 0.58) when comparing CD cases to their own healthy twin siblings, suggesting that genetic and shared environmental factors have a “predominant influence” on protein dysregulation. 

In contrast, AUC among unrelated vs related twin controls was more similar for UC, at 0.76 and 0.64, respectively, indicating “a limited impact” of genetic and environmental factors on the protein signature.

Altogether, this study reinforces the concept of a long preclinical phase in CD, and highlights the potential for early detection and intervention, according to the investigators.

“The long preclinical period in CD endorses the adoption of early preventive strategies (e.g., diet alterations and medication) to potentially attenuate disease progression and improve the natural history of CD,” they concluded.

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Örebro University Hospital Research Foundation, and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Janssen, AbbVie, and others.

Express Scripts, the contractor that manages the pharmacy benefit for Tricare, the military health insurance program, announced in 2021 that after a 5-year absence, CVS Pharmacy was once more in the network. In 2023, CVS had the largest profits of any pharmacy chain in the United States, about $159 billion, and generated a quarter of the overall revenue of the US pharmacy industry.¹ Tricare officials heralded the return of CVS as a move that would offer US Department of Defense (DoD) beneficiaries more competitive prices, convenient access, and overall quality.²

DOJ Files Lawsuit Against CVS

In December 2024, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a lawsuit alleging that CVS violated both the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the False Claims Act (FCA).^3,4 The United States ex rel. Estright v Health Corporation, et al, filed in Rhode Island, charged that CVS “routinely” and “knowingly” filled invalid prescriptions for controlled substances violating the CSA and then billed federal health care programs for payment for these prescriptions, a breach of the FCA.⁵ The DoJ alleged that CVS pharmacies and pharmacists filled prescriptions for controlled substances that (1) lacked a legitimate medical purpose; (2) were not legally valid; and/or (3) were not issued in the usual course of medical practice. ⁶ CVS contests the charges and issued an official response, stating that it disputes the allegations as false, plans to disprove them in litigation, and has nonetheless fully cooperated with the investigation.⁷

The allegations involved prescriptions for drugs like opioids and benzodiazepines, primary culprits in the American overdose epidemic.⁸ The complaint notes that the prescriptions were early refills in excessive quantities and included what has been called the “holy trinity” of dangerous medications: opioids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants. ^5,8 Even worse (if that is possible), as the complaint outlines, CVS had access to data from both inside and outside the company that these prescriptions came from notorious pill mills and were hence unlawful and yet continued to fill them, leading the DoJ to file the more serious charge that the corporation “knowingly” violated the CSA and “prioritized profits over safety in dispensing controlled substances.”^5,6

The Unholy Trinity

The infamous members of what I prefer to call the “unholy trinity” are a benzodiazepine, often alprazolam, an opioid, and the muscle relaxant carisoprodol. The combination amplifies each agent’s independent risk of respiratory depression. The latter is a schedule IV medication with an active metabolite, meprobamate, that also has this adverse effect. All 3 drugs have high abuse potential and, when combined, increase the risk of fatal overdose. The colloquial name holy trinity derives from the synergistic euphoria experienced when taking this triple cocktail of sedative agents.⁹ This pharmacological recipe for disaster is the house specialty of pill mills: infamous storefront practices that generate high profits and exploit persons with chronic pain and addiction by handing out controlled substances with little clinical assessment and even less oversight.¹⁰

When the Means Become the End

The DoJ allegations suggest that the violations resulted from “corporate-mandated performance metrics, incentive compensation, and staffing policies that prioritized corporate profits over patient safety.”⁶ If the allegations are true, why would a company reinvited by Tricare to serve the nation’s heroes seemingly engage in illegal practices? While CVS has not responded in court, their statement argued that “too often, we have seen government agencies and trial lawyers question the good-faith decisions made by pharmacists while a patient waits at the pharmacy counter, often in pain.”⁶

The DoJ complaint offers a cautionary warning for the US health care system, which is increasingly being micromanaged in the pursuit of efficiency. Like many practitioners in and out of the federal system, I get a cold chill when I read the word productivity. “CVS pharmacists described working at CVS as ‘soul crushing’ because it was impossible to meet the company’s expectations,” the complaint alleges, because “CVS set staffing levels so low that it was impossible for pharmacists to comply with their legal obligations and meet CVS’s demanding metrics.”⁵ Did top-down mandates drive the alleged activities by imposing unattainable performance metrics on pharmacists, offering incentives that encouraged and rewarded corner-cutting, and refusing to fund sufficient staffing to ensure patient safety? This may be what happens when the means (efficiency) become the end rather than a mechanism to achieve the goal of more accessible, affordable, high-quality health care.

Ethically, what is most concerning is that leadership intentionally “deprived its pharmacists of crucial information” about specific practitioners known to engage in illegal prescribing practices.⁶ CVS did not provide pharmacists with “information about prescribers’ prescribing habits that CVS routinely collected and reviewed at the corporate level,” and even removed prescriber blocks that were implemented at Target pharmacies before it was acquired by CVS.⁵ The first element of informed consent is providing patients with adequate information upon which to decide whether to accept or decline treatment. ¹¹ In this situation, however, CVS allegedly prevented “pharmacists from warning one another about certain prescribers.”⁶

If true, the company deprived frontline pharmacists of the information they needed to safely and responsibly dispense medications: “The practices alleged contributed to the opioid crisis and opioid-related deaths, and today’s complaint seeks to hold CVS accountable for its misconduct.”⁶ Though the cost in human life that may have resulted from CSA violations must absolutely and always outweigh financial considerations, the economic damage to Tricare from fraudulent billing and the betrayal of its fiduciary responsinility cannot be underestimated.

A Corporate Morality Play

CVS is not the only company, nor is pharmacy the only industry in health care, that has been the subject of watchdog agency lawsuits or variegated forms of wrongdoing, including violations of the CSA and FCA.^10,12 As of this writing, the DoJ case against CVS has not been heard, much less adjudicated in a court of law. It is ironic that both the DoJ claims and the CVS rebuttal describe the manifest conflict of obligation that pharmacists confront between protecting their livelihood and safeguarding patients’ lives as suggested in the epigraph that has been attributed to the 19th-century British physician and medical educator Peter Mere Latham. It is a dilemma that a growing number of health care practitioners face daily in a vocation becoming increasingly commercialized. It is all too easy for an individual physician, nurse, or pharmacist to feel hopeless and helpless before the behemoth might of a large and looming entity. Yet, it was a whistleblower whose moral courage led to the DoJ investigation and subsequent charges.¹³ We must all never doubt the power of a committed person of conscience to withstand the pressure to mutate medications into poison and stand up for the principles of our professions and inspire a community of colleagues to follow their example.

Express Scripts, the contractor that manages the pharmacy benefit for Tricare, the military health insurance program, announced in 2021 that after a 5-year absence, CVS Pharmacy was once more in the network. In 2023, CVS had the largest profits of any pharmacy chain in the United States, about $159 billion, and generated a quarter of the overall revenue of the US pharmacy industry.¹ Tricare officials heralded the return of CVS as a move that would offer US Department of Defense (DoD) beneficiaries more competitive prices, convenient access, and overall quality.²

DOJ Files Lawsuit Against CVS

In December 2024, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a lawsuit alleging that CVS violated both the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the False Claims Act (FCA).^3,4 The United States ex rel. Estright v Health Corporation, et al, filed in Rhode Island, charged that CVS “routinely” and “knowingly” filled invalid prescriptions for controlled substances violating the CSA and then billed federal health care programs for payment for these prescriptions, a breach of the FCA.⁵ The DoJ alleged that CVS pharmacies and pharmacists filled prescriptions for controlled substances that (1) lacked a legitimate medical purpose; (2) were not legally valid; and/or (3) were not issued in the usual course of medical practice. ⁶ CVS contests the charges and issued an official response, stating that it disputes the allegations as false, plans to disprove them in litigation, and has nonetheless fully cooperated with the investigation.⁷

The allegations involved prescriptions for drugs like opioids and benzodiazepines, primary culprits in the American overdose epidemic.⁸ The complaint notes that the prescriptions were early refills in excessive quantities and included what has been called the “holy trinity” of dangerous medications: opioids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants. ^5,8 Even worse (if that is possible), as the complaint outlines, CVS had access to data from both inside and outside the company that these prescriptions came from notorious pill mills and were hence unlawful and yet continued to fill them, leading the DoJ to file the more serious charge that the corporation “knowingly” violated the CSA and “prioritized profits over safety in dispensing controlled substances.”^5,6

The Unholy Trinity

The infamous members of what I prefer to call the “unholy trinity” are a benzodiazepine, often alprazolam, an opioid, and the muscle relaxant carisoprodol. The combination amplifies each agent’s independent risk of respiratory depression. The latter is a schedule IV medication with an active metabolite, meprobamate, that also has this adverse effect. All 3 drugs have high abuse potential and, when combined, increase the risk of fatal overdose. The colloquial name holy trinity derives from the synergistic euphoria experienced when taking this triple cocktail of sedative agents.⁹ This pharmacological recipe for disaster is the house specialty of pill mills: infamous storefront practices that generate high profits and exploit persons with chronic pain and addiction by handing out controlled substances with little clinical assessment and even less oversight.¹⁰

When the Means Become the End

The DoJ allegations suggest that the violations resulted from “corporate-mandated performance metrics, incentive compensation, and staffing policies that prioritized corporate profits over patient safety.”⁶ If the allegations are true, why would a company reinvited by Tricare to serve the nation’s heroes seemingly engage in illegal practices? While CVS has not responded in court, their statement argued that “too often, we have seen government agencies and trial lawyers question the good-faith decisions made by pharmacists while a patient waits at the pharmacy counter, often in pain.”⁶

The DoJ complaint offers a cautionary warning for the US health care system, which is increasingly being micromanaged in the pursuit of efficiency. Like many practitioners in and out of the federal system, I get a cold chill when I read the word productivity. “CVS pharmacists described working at CVS as ‘soul crushing’ because it was impossible to meet the company’s expectations,” the complaint alleges, because “CVS set staffing levels so low that it was impossible for pharmacists to comply with their legal obligations and meet CVS’s demanding metrics.”⁵ Did top-down mandates drive the alleged activities by imposing unattainable performance metrics on pharmacists, offering incentives that encouraged and rewarded corner-cutting, and refusing to fund sufficient staffing to ensure patient safety? This may be what happens when the means (efficiency) become the end rather than a mechanism to achieve the goal of more accessible, affordable, high-quality health care.

Ethically, what is most concerning is that leadership intentionally “deprived its pharmacists of crucial information” about specific practitioners known to engage in illegal prescribing practices.⁶ CVS did not provide pharmacists with “information about prescribers’ prescribing habits that CVS routinely collected and reviewed at the corporate level,” and even removed prescriber blocks that were implemented at Target pharmacies before it was acquired by CVS.⁵ The first element of informed consent is providing patients with adequate information upon which to decide whether to accept or decline treatment. ¹¹ In this situation, however, CVS allegedly prevented “pharmacists from warning one another about certain prescribers.”⁶

If true, the company deprived frontline pharmacists of the information they needed to safely and responsibly dispense medications: “The practices alleged contributed to the opioid crisis and opioid-related deaths, and today’s complaint seeks to hold CVS accountable for its misconduct.”⁶ Though the cost in human life that may have resulted from CSA violations must absolutely and always outweigh financial considerations, the economic damage to Tricare from fraudulent billing and the betrayal of its fiduciary responsinility cannot be underestimated.

A Corporate Morality Play

CVS is not the only company, nor is pharmacy the only industry in health care, that has been the subject of watchdog agency lawsuits or variegated forms of wrongdoing, including violations of the CSA and FCA.^10,12 As of this writing, the DoJ case against CVS has not been heard, much less adjudicated in a court of law. It is ironic that both the DoJ claims and the CVS rebuttal describe the manifest conflict of obligation that pharmacists confront between protecting their livelihood and safeguarding patients’ lives as suggested in the epigraph that has been attributed to the 19th-century British physician and medical educator Peter Mere Latham. It is a dilemma that a growing number of health care practitioners face daily in a vocation becoming increasingly commercialized. It is all too easy for an individual physician, nurse, or pharmacist to feel hopeless and helpless before the behemoth might of a large and looming entity. Yet, it was a whistleblower whose moral courage led to the DoJ investigation and subsequent charges.¹³ We must all never doubt the power of a committed person of conscience to withstand the pressure to mutate medications into poison and stand up for the principles of our professions and inspire a community of colleagues to follow their example.

Express Scripts, the contractor that manages the pharmacy benefit for Tricare, the military health insurance program, announced in 2021 that after a 5-year absence, CVS Pharmacy was once more in the network. In 2023, CVS had the largest profits of any pharmacy chain in the United States, about $159 billion, and generated a quarter of the overall revenue of the US pharmacy industry.¹ Tricare officials heralded the return of CVS as a move that would offer US Department of Defense (DoD) beneficiaries more competitive prices, convenient access, and overall quality.²

DOJ Files Lawsuit Against CVS

In December 2024, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a lawsuit alleging that CVS violated both the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the False Claims Act (FCA).^3,4 The United States ex rel. Estright v Health Corporation, et al, filed in Rhode Island, charged that CVS “routinely” and “knowingly” filled invalid prescriptions for controlled substances violating the CSA and then billed federal health care programs for payment for these prescriptions, a breach of the FCA.⁵ The DoJ alleged that CVS pharmacies and pharmacists filled prescriptions for controlled substances that (1) lacked a legitimate medical purpose; (2) were not legally valid; and/or (3) were not issued in the usual course of medical practice. ⁶ CVS contests the charges and issued an official response, stating that it disputes the allegations as false, plans to disprove them in litigation, and has nonetheless fully cooperated with the investigation.⁷

The allegations involved prescriptions for drugs like opioids and benzodiazepines, primary culprits in the American overdose epidemic.⁸ The complaint notes that the prescriptions were early refills in excessive quantities and included what has been called the “holy trinity” of dangerous medications: opioids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants. ^5,8 Even worse (if that is possible), as the complaint outlines, CVS had access to data from both inside and outside the company that these prescriptions came from notorious pill mills and were hence unlawful and yet continued to fill them, leading the DoJ to file the more serious charge that the corporation “knowingly” violated the CSA and “prioritized profits over safety in dispensing controlled substances.”^5,6

The Unholy Trinity

The infamous members of what I prefer to call the “unholy trinity” are a benzodiazepine, often alprazolam, an opioid, and the muscle relaxant carisoprodol. The combination amplifies each agent’s independent risk of respiratory depression. The latter is a schedule IV medication with an active metabolite, meprobamate, that also has this adverse effect. All 3 drugs have high abuse potential and, when combined, increase the risk of fatal overdose. The colloquial name holy trinity derives from the synergistic euphoria experienced when taking this triple cocktail of sedative agents.⁹ This pharmacological recipe for disaster is the house specialty of pill mills: infamous storefront practices that generate high profits and exploit persons with chronic pain and addiction by handing out controlled substances with little clinical assessment and even less oversight.¹⁰

When the Means Become the End

The DoJ allegations suggest that the violations resulted from “corporate-mandated performance metrics, incentive compensation, and staffing policies that prioritized corporate profits over patient safety.”⁶ If the allegations are true, why would a company reinvited by Tricare to serve the nation’s heroes seemingly engage in illegal practices? While CVS has not responded in court, their statement argued that “too often, we have seen government agencies and trial lawyers question the good-faith decisions made by pharmacists while a patient waits at the pharmacy counter, often in pain.”⁶

The DoJ complaint offers a cautionary warning for the US health care system, which is increasingly being micromanaged in the pursuit of efficiency. Like many practitioners in and out of the federal system, I get a cold chill when I read the word productivity. “CVS pharmacists described working at CVS as ‘soul crushing’ because it was impossible to meet the company’s expectations,” the complaint alleges, because “CVS set staffing levels so low that it was impossible for pharmacists to comply with their legal obligations and meet CVS’s demanding metrics.”⁵ Did top-down mandates drive the alleged activities by imposing unattainable performance metrics on pharmacists, offering incentives that encouraged and rewarded corner-cutting, and refusing to fund sufficient staffing to ensure patient safety? This may be what happens when the means (efficiency) become the end rather than a mechanism to achieve the goal of more accessible, affordable, high-quality health care.

Ethically, what is most concerning is that leadership intentionally “deprived its pharmacists of crucial information” about specific practitioners known to engage in illegal prescribing practices.⁶ CVS did not provide pharmacists with “information about prescribers’ prescribing habits that CVS routinely collected and reviewed at the corporate level,” and even removed prescriber blocks that were implemented at Target pharmacies before it was acquired by CVS.⁵ The first element of informed consent is providing patients with adequate information upon which to decide whether to accept or decline treatment. ¹¹ In this situation, however, CVS allegedly prevented “pharmacists from warning one another about certain prescribers.”⁶

If true, the company deprived frontline pharmacists of the information they needed to safely and responsibly dispense medications: “The practices alleged contributed to the opioid crisis and opioid-related deaths, and today’s complaint seeks to hold CVS accountable for its misconduct.”⁶ Though the cost in human life that may have resulted from CSA violations must absolutely and always outweigh financial considerations, the economic damage to Tricare from fraudulent billing and the betrayal of its fiduciary responsinility cannot be underestimated.

A Corporate Morality Play

CVS is not the only company, nor is pharmacy the only industry in health care, that has been the subject of watchdog agency lawsuits or variegated forms of wrongdoing, including violations of the CSA and FCA.^10,12 As of this writing, the DoJ case against CVS has not been heard, much less adjudicated in a court of law. It is ironic that both the DoJ claims and the CVS rebuttal describe the manifest conflict of obligation that pharmacists confront between protecting their livelihood and safeguarding patients’ lives as suggested in the epigraph that has been attributed to the 19th-century British physician and medical educator Peter Mere Latham. It is a dilemma that a growing number of health care practitioners face daily in a vocation becoming increasingly commercialized. It is all too easy for an individual physician, nurse, or pharmacist to feel hopeless and helpless before the behemoth might of a large and looming entity. Yet, it was a whistleblower whose moral courage led to the DoJ investigation and subsequent charges.¹³ We must all never doubt the power of a committed person of conscience to withstand the pressure to mutate medications into poison and stand up for the principles of our professions and inspire a community of colleagues to follow their example.