Throughout history, physicians have formed communities to aid in the dissemination of knowledge, skills, and professional norms. From local physician groups to international societies and conferences, this drive to connect with members of our profession across the globe is timeless. We do so to learn from each other and continue to move the field of medicine forward. 

Yet, these communities are being strained by necessary physical distancing required during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many physicians accustomed to a sense of community are now finding themselves surprisingly isolated and alone. Into this distanced landscape, however, new digital groups—specifically social media (SoMe), online learning communities, and virtual conferences—have emerged. We are all active members in virtual communities; all of the authors are team members of The Clinical Problem Solvers podcast and one author of this paper, A.P., has previously served as the medical education lead for the Human Diagnosis Project. Both entities are described later in this article. Here, we provide an overview of these virtual communities and discuss how they have the potential to more equitably and effectively disseminate medical knowledge and education both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Table).

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, SoMe—especially Twitter—had become a virtual gathering place where digital colleagues exchange Twitter handles like business cards.^1,2 They celebrate each other’s achievements and provide support during difficult times.

Importantly, the format of Twitter tends toward a flattened hierarchy. It is this egalitarian nature that has served SoMe well in its position as a modern learning community. Users from across the experience spectrum engage with and create novel educational content. This often occurs in the form of Tweetorials, or short lessons conveyed over a series of linked tweets. These have gained immense popularity on the platform and are becoming increasingly recognized forms of scholarship.³ Further, case-based lessons have become ubiquitous and are valuable opportunities for users to learn from other members of their digital communities. During the current pandemic, SoMe has become extremely important in the early dissemination and critique of the slew of research on the COVID-19 crisis.⁴

Beyond its role as an educational platform, SoMe functions as a virtual gathering place for members of the medical community to discuss topics relevant to the field. Subspecialists and researchers have gathered in digital journal clubs (eg, #NephJC, #IDJClub, #BloodandBone) and a number of journals have hosted live Twitter chats covering topics like controversies in clinical practice or professional development (eg, #JHMChat). More recently, social issues affecting the medical field, such as gender equity and the growing antiracism movement, have led to robust discussion on this medium.

Beyond Twitter, many medical professionals gather and exchange ideas on other platforms. Virtual networking and educational groups have arisen using Slack and Facebook.^5-7 Trainees and faculty members alike consume and produce content on YouTube, which often serve to teach technical skills.⁸ Given widespread use of SoMe, we anticipate that the range of platforms utilized by medical professionals will continue to expand in the future.

There have long existed multiple print and online forums dedicated to the development of clinical skills. These include clinical challenges in medical journals, interactive online cases, and more formal diagnostic education curricula at academic centers.^9-11 With the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become more difficult to ensure that trainees have an in-person learning community to discuss and receive feedback. This has led to a wider adoption of application-based clinical exercises, educational podcasts, and curricular innovations to support these virtual efforts.

The Human Diagnosis Project (Human Dx) is a smart-phone application that provides a platform for individuals to submit clinical cases that can be rapidly peer-reviewed and disseminated to the larger user pool. Human Dx is notable for fostering a strong sense of community amongst its users.^12,13 Case consumers and case creators are able to engage in further discussion after solving a case, and opportunities for feedback and growth are ample.

Medical education podcasts have taken on greater importance during the pandemic.^14,15 Many educators have begun referring their learners towards certain podcasts as in-person learning communities have been put on hold. Medical professionals may appreciate the up-to-date and candid conversations held on many podcasts, which can provide both educationally useful and emotionally sympathetic connections to their distanced peers. Similarly, while academic clinicians previously benefitted from invited grand rounds speakers, they may now find that such expert discussants are most easily accessible through their appearances on podcasts.

As institutions suspended clerkships during the pandemic, many created virtual communities for trainees to engage in diagnostic reasoning and education. They built novel curricula that meld asynchronous learning with online community-based learning.¹⁴ Gamified learning tools and quizzes have also been incorporated into these hybrid curricula to help ensure participation of learners within their virtual communities.^16,17 

Perhaps the most notable advance in digital communities catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic has been the increasing reliance on and comfort with video-based software. While many of our clinical, administrative, and social activities have migrated toward these virtual environments, they have also been used for a variety of activities related to education and professional development. 

As institutions struggled to adapt to physical distancing, many medical schools and residency programs have moved their regular meetings and conferences to virtual platforms. Similar free and open-access conferences have also emerged, including the “Virtual Morning Report” (VMR) series from The Clinical Problem Solvers podcast, wherein a few individuals are invited to discuss a case on the video conference, with the remainder of the audience contributing via the chat feature.

Beyond the growing popularity of video conferencing for education, these virtual sessions have become their own community. On The Clinical Problem Solvers VMR, many participants, ranging from preclinical students to seasoned attendings, show up on a daily basis and interact with each other as close friends, as do members of more insular institutional sessions (eg, residency run reports). In these strangely isolating times, many of us have experienced comfort in seeing the faces of our friends and colleagues joining us to listen and discuss cases. 

Separately, many professional societies have struggled with how to replace their large yearly in-person conferences, which would pose substantial infectious risks were they to be held in person. While many of those scheduled to occur during the early days of the pandemic were canceled or held limited online sessions, the trend towards virtual conference platforms seems to be accelerating. Organizers of the 2020 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (March 8-11, 2020) decided to convert from an in-person to entirely virtual conference 48 hours before it started. With the benefit of more forewarning, other conferences are planning and exploring best practices to promote networking and advancement of research goals at future academic meetings.^18,19

The growing importance of these new digital communities could be viewed as a necessary evolution in the way that we gather and learn from each other. Traditional physician communities were inherently restricted by location, specialty, and hierarchy, thereby limiting the dissemination of knowledge and changes to professional norms. These restrictions could conceivably insulate and promote elite institutions in a fashion that perpetuates the inequalities within global medical systems. Unrestricted and open-access virtual communities, in contrast, have the potential to remove historical barriers and connect first-class mentors with trainees they would never have met otherwise.

Beyond promoting a more equitable distribution of knowledge and resources, these virtual communities are well suited to harness the benefits of group learning. The concept of communities of practice (CoP) refers to groupings of individuals involved in a personal or professional endeavor, with the community facilitating advancement of their own knowledge and skill set. Members of the CoP learn from each other, with more established members passing down essential knowledge and cultural norms. The three main components of CoP are maintaining a social network, a mutual enterprise (eg, a common goal), and a shared repertoire (eg, experiences, languages, etc).

Designing virtual learning spaces with these aspects in mind may allow these communities to function as CoPs. Some strategies include use of chat functions in videoconferences (to promote further dialogue) and development of dedicated sessions for specific subgroups or aims (eg, professional mentorship). The anticipated benefits of integrating virtual CoPs into medical education are notable, as a number of studies have already suggested that they are effective for disseminating knowledge, enhancing social learning, and aiding with professional development.^7,20-23 These virtual CoPs continue to evolve, however, and further research is warranted to clarify how best to utilize them in medical education and professional societies.

Amidst the tragic loss of lives and financial calamity, the COVID-19 pandemic has also spurred innovation and change in the way health professionals learn and communicate. Going forward, the medical establishment should capitalize on these recent innovations and work to further build, recognize, and foster such digital gathering spaces in order to more equitably and effectively disseminate knowledge and educational resources.

Despite physical distancing, health professionals have grown closer during these past few months. Innovations spurred by the pandemic have made us stronger and more united. Our experience with social media, online learning communities, and virtual conferences suggests the opportunity to grow and evolve from this experience. As Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in March 2020, “...life is not going to be how it used to be [after the pandemic]…” Let’s hope he’s right.

We thank Reza Manesh, MD, Rabih Geha, MD, and Jack Penner, MD, for their careful review of the manuscript.

Throughout history, physicians have formed communities to aid in the dissemination of knowledge, skills, and professional norms. From local physician groups to international societies and conferences, this drive to connect with members of our profession across the globe is timeless. We do so to learn from each other and continue to move the field of medicine forward. 

Yet, these communities are being strained by necessary physical distancing required during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many physicians accustomed to a sense of community are now finding themselves surprisingly isolated and alone. Into this distanced landscape, however, new digital groups—specifically social media (SoMe), online learning communities, and virtual conferences—have emerged. We are all active members in virtual communities; all of the authors are team members of The Clinical Problem Solvers podcast and one author of this paper, A.P., has previously served as the medical education lead for the Human Diagnosis Project. Both entities are described later in this article. Here, we provide an overview of these virtual communities and discuss how they have the potential to more equitably and effectively disseminate medical knowledge and education both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Table).

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, SoMe—especially Twitter—had become a virtual gathering place where digital colleagues exchange Twitter handles like business cards.^1,2 They celebrate each other’s achievements and provide support during difficult times.

Importantly, the format of Twitter tends toward a flattened hierarchy. It is this egalitarian nature that has served SoMe well in its position as a modern learning community. Users from across the experience spectrum engage with and create novel educational content. This often occurs in the form of Tweetorials, or short lessons conveyed over a series of linked tweets. These have gained immense popularity on the platform and are becoming increasingly recognized forms of scholarship.³ Further, case-based lessons have become ubiquitous and are valuable opportunities for users to learn from other members of their digital communities. During the current pandemic, SoMe has become extremely important in the early dissemination and critique of the slew of research on the COVID-19 crisis.⁴

Beyond its role as an educational platform, SoMe functions as a virtual gathering place for members of the medical community to discuss topics relevant to the field. Subspecialists and researchers have gathered in digital journal clubs (eg, #NephJC, #IDJClub, #BloodandBone) and a number of journals have hosted live Twitter chats covering topics like controversies in clinical practice or professional development (eg, #JHMChat). More recently, social issues affecting the medical field, such as gender equity and the growing antiracism movement, have led to robust discussion on this medium.

Beyond Twitter, many medical professionals gather and exchange ideas on other platforms. Virtual networking and educational groups have arisen using Slack and Facebook.^5-7 Trainees and faculty members alike consume and produce content on YouTube, which often serve to teach technical skills.⁸ Given widespread use of SoMe, we anticipate that the range of platforms utilized by medical professionals will continue to expand in the future.

There have long existed multiple print and online forums dedicated to the development of clinical skills. These include clinical challenges in medical journals, interactive online cases, and more formal diagnostic education curricula at academic centers.^9-11 With the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become more difficult to ensure that trainees have an in-person learning community to discuss and receive feedback. This has led to a wider adoption of application-based clinical exercises, educational podcasts, and curricular innovations to support these virtual efforts.

The Human Diagnosis Project (Human Dx) is a smart-phone application that provides a platform for individuals to submit clinical cases that can be rapidly peer-reviewed and disseminated to the larger user pool. Human Dx is notable for fostering a strong sense of community amongst its users.^12,13 Case consumers and case creators are able to engage in further discussion after solving a case, and opportunities for feedback and growth are ample.

Medical education podcasts have taken on greater importance during the pandemic.^14,15 Many educators have begun referring their learners towards certain podcasts as in-person learning communities have been put on hold. Medical professionals may appreciate the up-to-date and candid conversations held on many podcasts, which can provide both educationally useful and emotionally sympathetic connections to their distanced peers. Similarly, while academic clinicians previously benefitted from invited grand rounds speakers, they may now find that such expert discussants are most easily accessible through their appearances on podcasts.

As institutions suspended clerkships during the pandemic, many created virtual communities for trainees to engage in diagnostic reasoning and education. They built novel curricula that meld asynchronous learning with online community-based learning.¹⁴ Gamified learning tools and quizzes have also been incorporated into these hybrid curricula to help ensure participation of learners within their virtual communities.^16,17 

Perhaps the most notable advance in digital communities catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic has been the increasing reliance on and comfort with video-based software. While many of our clinical, administrative, and social activities have migrated toward these virtual environments, they have also been used for a variety of activities related to education and professional development. 

As institutions struggled to adapt to physical distancing, many medical schools and residency programs have moved their regular meetings and conferences to virtual platforms. Similar free and open-access conferences have also emerged, including the “Virtual Morning Report” (VMR) series from The Clinical Problem Solvers podcast, wherein a few individuals are invited to discuss a case on the video conference, with the remainder of the audience contributing via the chat feature.

Beyond the growing popularity of video conferencing for education, these virtual sessions have become their own community. On The Clinical Problem Solvers VMR, many participants, ranging from preclinical students to seasoned attendings, show up on a daily basis and interact with each other as close friends, as do members of more insular institutional sessions (eg, residency run reports). In these strangely isolating times, many of us have experienced comfort in seeing the faces of our friends and colleagues joining us to listen and discuss cases. 

Separately, many professional societies have struggled with how to replace their large yearly in-person conferences, which would pose substantial infectious risks were they to be held in person. While many of those scheduled to occur during the early days of the pandemic were canceled or held limited online sessions, the trend towards virtual conference platforms seems to be accelerating. Organizers of the 2020 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (March 8-11, 2020) decided to convert from an in-person to entirely virtual conference 48 hours before it started. With the benefit of more forewarning, other conferences are planning and exploring best practices to promote networking and advancement of research goals at future academic meetings.^18,19

The growing importance of these new digital communities could be viewed as a necessary evolution in the way that we gather and learn from each other. Traditional physician communities were inherently restricted by location, specialty, and hierarchy, thereby limiting the dissemination of knowledge and changes to professional norms. These restrictions could conceivably insulate and promote elite institutions in a fashion that perpetuates the inequalities within global medical systems. Unrestricted and open-access virtual communities, in contrast, have the potential to remove historical barriers and connect first-class mentors with trainees they would never have met otherwise.

Beyond promoting a more equitable distribution of knowledge and resources, these virtual communities are well suited to harness the benefits of group learning. The concept of communities of practice (CoP) refers to groupings of individuals involved in a personal or professional endeavor, with the community facilitating advancement of their own knowledge and skill set. Members of the CoP learn from each other, with more established members passing down essential knowledge and cultural norms. The three main components of CoP are maintaining a social network, a mutual enterprise (eg, a common goal), and a shared repertoire (eg, experiences, languages, etc).

Designing virtual learning spaces with these aspects in mind may allow these communities to function as CoPs. Some strategies include use of chat functions in videoconferences (to promote further dialogue) and development of dedicated sessions for specific subgroups or aims (eg, professional mentorship). The anticipated benefits of integrating virtual CoPs into medical education are notable, as a number of studies have already suggested that they are effective for disseminating knowledge, enhancing social learning, and aiding with professional development.^7,20-23 These virtual CoPs continue to evolve, however, and further research is warranted to clarify how best to utilize them in medical education and professional societies.

Amidst the tragic loss of lives and financial calamity, the COVID-19 pandemic has also spurred innovation and change in the way health professionals learn and communicate. Going forward, the medical establishment should capitalize on these recent innovations and work to further build, recognize, and foster such digital gathering spaces in order to more equitably and effectively disseminate knowledge and educational resources.

Despite physical distancing, health professionals have grown closer during these past few months. Innovations spurred by the pandemic have made us stronger and more united. Our experience with social media, online learning communities, and virtual conferences suggests the opportunity to grow and evolve from this experience. As Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in March 2020, “...life is not going to be how it used to be [after the pandemic]…” Let’s hope he’s right.

We thank Reza Manesh, MD, Rabih Geha, MD, and Jack Penner, MD, for their careful review of the manuscript.

Throughout history, physicians have formed communities to aid in the dissemination of knowledge, skills, and professional norms. From local physician groups to international societies and conferences, this drive to connect with members of our profession across the globe is timeless. We do so to learn from each other and continue to move the field of medicine forward. 

Yet, these communities are being strained by necessary physical distancing required during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many physicians accustomed to a sense of community are now finding themselves surprisingly isolated and alone. Into this distanced landscape, however, new digital groups—specifically social media (SoMe), online learning communities, and virtual conferences—have emerged. We are all active members in virtual communities; all of the authors are team members of The Clinical Problem Solvers podcast and one author of this paper, A.P., has previously served as the medical education lead for the Human Diagnosis Project. Both entities are described later in this article. Here, we provide an overview of these virtual communities and discuss how they have the potential to more equitably and effectively disseminate medical knowledge and education both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Table).

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, SoMe—especially Twitter—had become a virtual gathering place where digital colleagues exchange Twitter handles like business cards.^1,2 They celebrate each other’s achievements and provide support during difficult times.

Importantly, the format of Twitter tends toward a flattened hierarchy. It is this egalitarian nature that has served SoMe well in its position as a modern learning community. Users from across the experience spectrum engage with and create novel educational content. This often occurs in the form of Tweetorials, or short lessons conveyed over a series of linked tweets. These have gained immense popularity on the platform and are becoming increasingly recognized forms of scholarship.³ Further, case-based lessons have become ubiquitous and are valuable opportunities for users to learn from other members of their digital communities. During the current pandemic, SoMe has become extremely important in the early dissemination and critique of the slew of research on the COVID-19 crisis.⁴

Beyond its role as an educational platform, SoMe functions as a virtual gathering place for members of the medical community to discuss topics relevant to the field. Subspecialists and researchers have gathered in digital journal clubs (eg, #NephJC, #IDJClub, #BloodandBone) and a number of journals have hosted live Twitter chats covering topics like controversies in clinical practice or professional development (eg, #JHMChat). More recently, social issues affecting the medical field, such as gender equity and the growing antiracism movement, have led to robust discussion on this medium.

Beyond Twitter, many medical professionals gather and exchange ideas on other platforms. Virtual networking and educational groups have arisen using Slack and Facebook.^5-7 Trainees and faculty members alike consume and produce content on YouTube, which often serve to teach technical skills.⁸ Given widespread use of SoMe, we anticipate that the range of platforms utilized by medical professionals will continue to expand in the future.

There have long existed multiple print and online forums dedicated to the development of clinical skills. These include clinical challenges in medical journals, interactive online cases, and more formal diagnostic education curricula at academic centers.^9-11 With the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become more difficult to ensure that trainees have an in-person learning community to discuss and receive feedback. This has led to a wider adoption of application-based clinical exercises, educational podcasts, and curricular innovations to support these virtual efforts.

The Human Diagnosis Project (Human Dx) is a smart-phone application that provides a platform for individuals to submit clinical cases that can be rapidly peer-reviewed and disseminated to the larger user pool. Human Dx is notable for fostering a strong sense of community amongst its users.^12,13 Case consumers and case creators are able to engage in further discussion after solving a case, and opportunities for feedback and growth are ample.

Medical education podcasts have taken on greater importance during the pandemic.^14,15 Many educators have begun referring their learners towards certain podcasts as in-person learning communities have been put on hold. Medical professionals may appreciate the up-to-date and candid conversations held on many podcasts, which can provide both educationally useful and emotionally sympathetic connections to their distanced peers. Similarly, while academic clinicians previously benefitted from invited grand rounds speakers, they may now find that such expert discussants are most easily accessible through their appearances on podcasts.

As institutions suspended clerkships during the pandemic, many created virtual communities for trainees to engage in diagnostic reasoning and education. They built novel curricula that meld asynchronous learning with online community-based learning.¹⁴ Gamified learning tools and quizzes have also been incorporated into these hybrid curricula to help ensure participation of learners within their virtual communities.^16,17 

Perhaps the most notable advance in digital communities catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic has been the increasing reliance on and comfort with video-based software. While many of our clinical, administrative, and social activities have migrated toward these virtual environments, they have also been used for a variety of activities related to education and professional development. 

As institutions struggled to adapt to physical distancing, many medical schools and residency programs have moved their regular meetings and conferences to virtual platforms. Similar free and open-access conferences have also emerged, including the “Virtual Morning Report” (VMR) series from The Clinical Problem Solvers podcast, wherein a few individuals are invited to discuss a case on the video conference, with the remainder of the audience contributing via the chat feature.

Beyond the growing popularity of video conferencing for education, these virtual sessions have become their own community. On The Clinical Problem Solvers VMR, many participants, ranging from preclinical students to seasoned attendings, show up on a daily basis and interact with each other as close friends, as do members of more insular institutional sessions (eg, residency run reports). In these strangely isolating times, many of us have experienced comfort in seeing the faces of our friends and colleagues joining us to listen and discuss cases. 

Separately, many professional societies have struggled with how to replace their large yearly in-person conferences, which would pose substantial infectious risks were they to be held in person. While many of those scheduled to occur during the early days of the pandemic were canceled or held limited online sessions, the trend towards virtual conference platforms seems to be accelerating. Organizers of the 2020 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (March 8-11, 2020) decided to convert from an in-person to entirely virtual conference 48 hours before it started. With the benefit of more forewarning, other conferences are planning and exploring best practices to promote networking and advancement of research goals at future academic meetings.^18,19

The growing importance of these new digital communities could be viewed as a necessary evolution in the way that we gather and learn from each other. Traditional physician communities were inherently restricted by location, specialty, and hierarchy, thereby limiting the dissemination of knowledge and changes to professional norms. These restrictions could conceivably insulate and promote elite institutions in a fashion that perpetuates the inequalities within global medical systems. Unrestricted and open-access virtual communities, in contrast, have the potential to remove historical barriers and connect first-class mentors with trainees they would never have met otherwise.

Beyond promoting a more equitable distribution of knowledge and resources, these virtual communities are well suited to harness the benefits of group learning. The concept of communities of practice (CoP) refers to groupings of individuals involved in a personal or professional endeavor, with the community facilitating advancement of their own knowledge and skill set. Members of the CoP learn from each other, with more established members passing down essential knowledge and cultural norms. The three main components of CoP are maintaining a social network, a mutual enterprise (eg, a common goal), and a shared repertoire (eg, experiences, languages, etc).

Designing virtual learning spaces with these aspects in mind may allow these communities to function as CoPs. Some strategies include use of chat functions in videoconferences (to promote further dialogue) and development of dedicated sessions for specific subgroups or aims (eg, professional mentorship). The anticipated benefits of integrating virtual CoPs into medical education are notable, as a number of studies have already suggested that they are effective for disseminating knowledge, enhancing social learning, and aiding with professional development.^7,20-23 These virtual CoPs continue to evolve, however, and further research is warranted to clarify how best to utilize them in medical education and professional societies.

Amidst the tragic loss of lives and financial calamity, the COVID-19 pandemic has also spurred innovation and change in the way health professionals learn and communicate. Going forward, the medical establishment should capitalize on these recent innovations and work to further build, recognize, and foster such digital gathering spaces in order to more equitably and effectively disseminate knowledge and educational resources.

Despite physical distancing, health professionals have grown closer during these past few months. Innovations spurred by the pandemic have made us stronger and more united. Our experience with social media, online learning communities, and virtual conferences suggests the opportunity to grow and evolve from this experience. As Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in March 2020, “...life is not going to be how it used to be [after the pandemic]…” Let’s hope he’s right.

We thank Reza Manesh, MD, Rabih Geha, MD, and Jack Penner, MD, for their careful review of the manuscript.

Large unilateral hyperpigmented patches on the trunk with onset around puberty are the hallmark of a Becker nevus, also more descriptively called pigmented hairy epidermal nevus.

Becker nevi are a form of epidermal nevus that usually occur on the upper back or chest. They most commonly develop during puberty when there are increasing circulating levels of androgens. (Becker nevus cells are androgen sensitive.) This is consistent with this patient’s history of the lesion developing in her teens when the lesions become hyperpigmented and noticeable. The localized androgen sensitivity also can lead to unilateral hypoplastic breast growth when it occurs on the chest in young women.

The lesions are more common in males than females and often have associated hypertrichosis. The etiology is not certain but is thought to be due to regional loss of heterozygosity during embryogenesis leading to the abnormally elevated levels of androgen receptors and increased androgen sensitivity in the basal keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts.

Laser is the most effective therapy for the hyperpigmentation and for hypertrichosis when present. If a young woman with a Becker nevus has breast hypoplasia, spironolactone (an antiandrogen) has been helpful in restoring breast growth. For this patient, the hyperpigmented patch was asymptomatic and not troublesome, so she opted not to treat it.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

Large unilateral hyperpigmented patches on the trunk with onset around puberty are the hallmark of a Becker nevus, also more descriptively called pigmented hairy epidermal nevus.

Becker nevi are a form of epidermal nevus that usually occur on the upper back or chest. They most commonly develop during puberty when there are increasing circulating levels of androgens. (Becker nevus cells are androgen sensitive.) This is consistent with this patient’s history of the lesion developing in her teens when the lesions become hyperpigmented and noticeable. The localized androgen sensitivity also can lead to unilateral hypoplastic breast growth when it occurs on the chest in young women.

The lesions are more common in males than females and often have associated hypertrichosis. The etiology is not certain but is thought to be due to regional loss of heterozygosity during embryogenesis leading to the abnormally elevated levels of androgen receptors and increased androgen sensitivity in the basal keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts.

Laser is the most effective therapy for the hyperpigmentation and for hypertrichosis when present. If a young woman with a Becker nevus has breast hypoplasia, spironolactone (an antiandrogen) has been helpful in restoring breast growth. For this patient, the hyperpigmented patch was asymptomatic and not troublesome, so she opted not to treat it.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

Large unilateral hyperpigmented patches on the trunk with onset around puberty are the hallmark of a Becker nevus, also more descriptively called pigmented hairy epidermal nevus.

Becker nevi are a form of epidermal nevus that usually occur on the upper back or chest. They most commonly develop during puberty when there are increasing circulating levels of androgens. (Becker nevus cells are androgen sensitive.) This is consistent with this patient’s history of the lesion developing in her teens when the lesions become hyperpigmented and noticeable. The localized androgen sensitivity also can lead to unilateral hypoplastic breast growth when it occurs on the chest in young women.

The lesions are more common in males than females and often have associated hypertrichosis. The etiology is not certain but is thought to be due to regional loss of heterozygosity during embryogenesis leading to the abnormally elevated levels of androgen receptors and increased androgen sensitivity in the basal keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts.

Laser is the most effective therapy for the hyperpigmentation and for hypertrichosis when present. If a young woman with a Becker nevus has breast hypoplasia, spironolactone (an antiandrogen) has been helpful in restoring breast growth. For this patient, the hyperpigmented patch was asymptomatic and not troublesome, so she opted not to treat it.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

[email protected]

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

[email protected]

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

[email protected]

Coagulation in patients with cirrhosis is a complicated area of evolving research. Patients with cirrhosis were originally thought to be naturally anticoagulated due to the decreased production of clotting factors and platelets, combined with an increased international normalized ratio (INR).¹ New data have shown that patients with cirrhosis are at a concomitant risk of bleeding and thrombosis due to increased platelet aggregation, decreased fibrinolysis, and decreased production of natural anticoagulants such as protein C and antithrombin.¹ Traditionally, patients with cirrhosis needing anticoagulation therapy for comorbid conditions, such as nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) were placed on warfarin therapy. Managing warfarin in patients with cirrhosis poses a challenge to clinicians due to the many food and drug interactions, narrow therapeutic index, and complications with maintaining a therapeutic INR.¹

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have several benefits over warfarin therapy, including convenience, decreased monitoring, decreased drug and dietary restrictions, and faster onset of action.² Conversely, DOACs undergo extensive hepatic metabolism giving rise to concerns about supratherapeutic drug levels and increased bleeding rates in patients with liver dysfunction.¹ Consequently, patients with cirrhosis were excluded from the pivotal trials establishing DOACs for NVAF and VTE treatment. Exclusion of these patients in major clinical trials alongside the challenges of managing warfarin warrant an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis.

Recent retrospective studies have examined the use of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis and found favorable results. A retrospective chart review by Intagliata and colleagues consisting of 39 patients with cirrhosis using either a DOAC or warfarin found similar rates of all-cause bleeding and major bleeding between the 2 groups.³ A retrospective cohort study by Hum and colleagues consisting of 45 patients with cirrhosis compared the use of DOACs with warfarin or low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH).⁴ Hum and colleagues found patients prescribed a DOAC had significantly fewer major bleeding events than did patients using warfarin or LMWH.⁴ The largest retrospective cohort study consisted of 233 patients with chronic liver disease and found no differences among all-cause bleeding and major bleeding rates between patients using DOACs compared with those of patients using warfarin.⁵

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs in veteran patients with cirrhosis compared with patients using warfarin.

Methods

A retrospective single-center chart review was conducted at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, between October 31, 2014 and October 31, 2018. Patients included in the study were adults aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of cirrhosis and prescribed any of the following oral anticoagulants: apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. Patients prescribed apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban were collectively grouped into the DOAC group, while patients prescribed warfarin were classified as the standard of care comparator group.

A diagnosis of cirrhosis was confirmed using a combination of the codes from the ninth and tenth editions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for cirrhosis, documentation of diagnostic confirmation by clinicians from the gastroenterology or hepatology services, and positive liver biopsy result. Liver function tests, liver ultrasound results, and FibroSure biomarker assays were used to aid in confirming the diagnosis of cirrhosis but were not considered definitive. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had indications for anticoagulation other than NVAF and VTE and/or were prescribed triple antithrombotic therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant). Patients who switched anticoagulant therapy during the trial period (ie, switched from warfarin to a DOAC) were also excluded from the analysis.

Patient demographic characteristics that were collected included weight; body mass index (BMI); etiology of cirrhosis; Child-Turcotte-Pugh, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score; concomitant antiplatelet, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) medications; presence of gastric and/or esophageal varices; active malignancies; albumin, total bilirubin, serum creatinine, INR, and platelet laboratory values; and indication and duration of anticoagulation therapy.

Two patient lists were used to identify patients for inclusion in the warfarin arm. The first patient list was generated using the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cirrhosis Tracker, which identified patients with an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis and an INR laboratory value. Patients generated from the VA Cirrhosis Tracker with an INR > 1.5 were screened for a warfarin prescription and then evaluated for full study inclusion. The second patient list was generated using the VA Advanced Liver Disease Dashboard which identified patients with ICD-9/10 codes for advanced liver disease and an active warfarin prescription. Patients with an active warfarin prescription were then evaluated for full study inclusion. A single patient list was generated to identify patients for inclusion in the DOAC arm. This patient list was generated using the VA DOAC dashboard, which identified patients with an active DOAC prescription and an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis. Patients with an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis and prescribed a DOAC were screened for full study inclusion. Patient data were collected from the MEDVAMC Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) electronic health record (EHR). The research study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board and the VA Office of Research and Development.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint for the study was all-cause bleeding. The secondary endpoints for the study were major bleeding and failed efficacy. Major bleeding was defined using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) 2005 definition: fatal bleeding, symptomatic bleeding in a critical organ area (ie, intracranial, intraspinal, intraocular, retroperitoneal, intraarticular, pericardial, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome), or bleeding causing a fall in hemoglobin level of > 2 g/dL or leading to the transfusion of ≥ 2 units of red cells.⁶ Failed efficacy was a combination endpoint that included development of VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and/or death. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted at the end of the study period to analyze trends in the DOAC and warfarin groups with respect to all-cause bleeding. All-cause bleeding risk was stratified by weight, BMI, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, presence of gastric and/or esophageal varices, active malignancies, percentage of time within therapeutic INR range in the warfarin group, indications for anticoagulation, and antiplatelet, NSAID, PPI, and H2RA therapy.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Continuous data were analyzed using the Student t test, and categorical data were analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Previous studies determined an all-cause bleeding rate of 10 to 17% for warfarin compared with 5% for DOACs.^7,8 To detect a 12% difference in the all-cause bleeding rate between DOACs and warfarin, 212 patients would be needed to achieve 80% power at an α level of 0.05.

Results

A total of 170 patients were screened, and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 79 patients were enrolled in the study (Figure). The DOAC group included 42 patients, and the warfarin group included 37 patients. In the DOAC group, 69.1% (n = 29) of patients were taking apixaban, 21.4% (n = 9) rivaroxaban, and 9.5% (n = 4) dabigatran. There were no patients prescribed edoxaban during the study period.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, mean INR, and number of days on anticoagulation therapy (Table 1). Most of the patients were male (98.7%), and the mean age was 71 years. The most common causes of cirrhosis were viral (29.1%), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (24.1%), multiple causes (22.8%), and alcohol (21.5%). Sixty-two patients (78.5%) had a NVAF indication for anticoagulation. The average CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 3.7. Aspirin was prescribed in 51.9% (n = 41) of patients, and PPIs were prescribed in 48.1% (n = 38) of patients. At inclusion, esophageal varices were present in 13 patients and active malignancies were present in 6 patients.

Safety Outcome

The primary outcome comparing all-cause bleeding rates between patients on DOACs compared with warfarin are listed in Table 2. With respect to the primary outcome, 7 (16.7%) patients on DOACs experienced a bleeding event compared with 8 (21.6%) patients on warfarin (P = .77). No statistically significant differences were detected between the DOAC and warfarin groups with respect to all-cause bleeding. Seven bleeding events occurred in the DOAC group; 1 met the qualification for major bleeding with a suspected gastrointestinal (GI) bleed.⁶ The other 6 bleeding episodes in the DOAC group consisted of hematoma, epistaxis, hematuria, and hematochezia. Eight bleeding events occurred in the warfarin group; 2 met the qualification for major bleeding with an intracranial hemorrhage and upper GI bleed.⁶ The other 6 bleeding episodes in the warfarin group consisted of epistaxis, bleeding gums, hematuria, and hematochezia. There were no statistically significant differences between the rates of major bleeding and nonmajor bleeding between the DOAC and warfarin groups.

Efficacy Outcomes

There were 3 events in the DOAC group and 3 events in the warfarin group (P = .99). In the DOAC group, 2 patients experienced a pulmonary embolism, and 1 patient experienced a MI. In the warfarin group, 3 patients died (end-stage heart failure, unknown cause due to death at an outside hospital, and sepsis/organ failure). There were no statistically significant differences between the composite endpoint of failed efficacy or the individual endpoints of VTE, stroke, MI, and death.

Subgroup Analysis

A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to determine risk factors for all-cause bleeding within each treatment group (Table 3). No significant trends were observed in the following risk factors: Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, indication for anticoagulation, use of NSAIDs, PPIs or H2RAs, presence of gastric or esophageal varices, active malignancies, and time within therapeutic INR range in the warfarin group. Patients with bleeding events had slightly increased weight and BMI vs patients without bleeding events. Within the warfarin group, patients with bleeding events had slightly elevated MELD scores compared to patients without bleeding events. There was an equal balance of patients prescribed aspirin therapy between the groups with and without bleeding events. Overall, no significant risk factors were identified for all-cause bleeding.

Discussion

Initially, patients with cirrhosis were excluded from DOAC trials due to concerns for increased bleeding risk with hepatically eliminated medications. New retrospective research has concluded that in patients with cirrhosis, DOACs have similar or lower bleeding rates when compared directly to warfarin.^9,10

In this study, no statistically significant differences were detected between the primary and secondary outcomes of all-cause bleeding, major bleeding, or failed efficacy. Subgroup analysis did not identify any significant risk factors with respect to all-cause bleeding among patients in the DOAC and warfarin groups. To meet 80% power, 212 patients needed to be enrolled in the study; however, only 79 patients were enrolled, and power was not met. The results of this study should be interpreted cautiously as hypothesis-generating due to the small sample size. Strengths of this study include similar baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups, 4-year length of retrospective data review, and availability of both inpatient and outpatient EHR limiting the amount of missing data points.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for mean INR, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, and number of days on anticoagulation therapy. The difference in mean INR between groups is expected as patients in the warfarin group have a goal INR of 2 to 3 to maintain therapeutic efficacy and safety. INR is not used as a marker of efficacy or safety with DOACs; therefore, a consistent elevation in INR is not expected. Child- Turcotte-Pugh scores are calculated using INR levels.¹¹ When calculating the score, patients with an INR < 1.7 receive 1 point; patients with an INR between 1.7 and 2.3 receive 2 points.¹¹ Therefore, patients in the warfarin group will have artificially inflated Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores as this group has goal INR levels of 2 to 3. This makes Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores unreliable markers of disease severity in patients using warfarin therapy. When the INR scores for patients prescribed warfarin were replaced with values < 1.7, the statistical difference disappeared between the warfarin and DOAC groups. The same effect is seen on MELD scores for patients prescribed warfarin therapy. The MELD score is calculated using INR levels.¹² MELD scores also will be artificially elevated in patients prescribed warfarin therapy due to the INR elevation to between 2 and 3. When MELD scores for patients prescribed warfarin were replaced with values similar to those in the DOAC group, the statistical difference disappeared between the warfarin and DOAC groups.

The last statistically significant difference was found in number of days on anticoagulant therapy. This difference was expected as warfarin is the standard of care for anticoagulation treatment in patients with cirrhosis. The first DOAC, dabigatran, was not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration until 2010.¹³ DOACs have only recently been used in patients with cirrhosis accounting for the statistically significant difference in days on anticoagulation therapy between the warfarin and DOAC groups.

Limitations

The inability to meet power or evaluate adherence and appropriate renal dose adjustments for DOACs limited this study. This study was conducted at a single center in a predominantly male veteran population and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations. A majority of patients in the DOAC group were prescribed apixaban (69.1%), which may have affected the overall rate of major bleeding in the DOAC group. Pivotal trials of apixaban have shown a consistent decreased risk of major bleeding in patients with NVAF or VTE when compared with warfarin.^14,15 Therefore, the results of this study may not be generalizable to all DOACs.

An inherent limitation of this study was the inability to collect data verifying adherence in the DOAC group. However, in the warfarin group, percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range of 2 to 3 was collected. While not a direct marker of adherence, this does allow for limited evaluation of therapeutic efficacy and safety within the warfarin group. Last, proper dosing of DOACs in patients with and without adequate renal function was not evaluated in this study.

Conclusions

The results of this study are consistent with other retrospective research and literature reviews. There were no statistically significant differences identified between the rates of all-cause bleeding, major bleeding, and failed efficacy between the DOAC and warfarin groups. DOACs may be a safe alternative to warfarin in patients with cirrhosis requiring anticoagulation for NVAF or VTE, but large randomized trials are required to confirm these results.

Coagulation in patients with cirrhosis is a complicated area of evolving research. Patients with cirrhosis were originally thought to be naturally anticoagulated due to the decreased production of clotting factors and platelets, combined with an increased international normalized ratio (INR).¹ New data have shown that patients with cirrhosis are at a concomitant risk of bleeding and thrombosis due to increased platelet aggregation, decreased fibrinolysis, and decreased production of natural anticoagulants such as protein C and antithrombin.¹ Traditionally, patients with cirrhosis needing anticoagulation therapy for comorbid conditions, such as nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) were placed on warfarin therapy. Managing warfarin in patients with cirrhosis poses a challenge to clinicians due to the many food and drug interactions, narrow therapeutic index, and complications with maintaining a therapeutic INR.¹

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have several benefits over warfarin therapy, including convenience, decreased monitoring, decreased drug and dietary restrictions, and faster onset of action.² Conversely, DOACs undergo extensive hepatic metabolism giving rise to concerns about supratherapeutic drug levels and increased bleeding rates in patients with liver dysfunction.¹ Consequently, patients with cirrhosis were excluded from the pivotal trials establishing DOACs for NVAF and VTE treatment. Exclusion of these patients in major clinical trials alongside the challenges of managing warfarin warrant an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis.

Recent retrospective studies have examined the use of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis and found favorable results. A retrospective chart review by Intagliata and colleagues consisting of 39 patients with cirrhosis using either a DOAC or warfarin found similar rates of all-cause bleeding and major bleeding between the 2 groups.³ A retrospective cohort study by Hum and colleagues consisting of 45 patients with cirrhosis compared the use of DOACs with warfarin or low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH).⁴ Hum and colleagues found patients prescribed a DOAC had significantly fewer major bleeding events than did patients using warfarin or LMWH.⁴ The largest retrospective cohort study consisted of 233 patients with chronic liver disease and found no differences among all-cause bleeding and major bleeding rates between patients using DOACs compared with those of patients using warfarin.⁵

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs in veteran patients with cirrhosis compared with patients using warfarin.

Methods

A retrospective single-center chart review was conducted at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, between October 31, 2014 and October 31, 2018. Patients included in the study were adults aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of cirrhosis and prescribed any of the following oral anticoagulants: apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. Patients prescribed apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban were collectively grouped into the DOAC group, while patients prescribed warfarin were classified as the standard of care comparator group.

A diagnosis of cirrhosis was confirmed using a combination of the codes from the ninth and tenth editions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for cirrhosis, documentation of diagnostic confirmation by clinicians from the gastroenterology or hepatology services, and positive liver biopsy result. Liver function tests, liver ultrasound results, and FibroSure biomarker assays were used to aid in confirming the diagnosis of cirrhosis but were not considered definitive. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had indications for anticoagulation other than NVAF and VTE and/or were prescribed triple antithrombotic therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant). Patients who switched anticoagulant therapy during the trial period (ie, switched from warfarin to a DOAC) were also excluded from the analysis.

Patient demographic characteristics that were collected included weight; body mass index (BMI); etiology of cirrhosis; Child-Turcotte-Pugh, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score; concomitant antiplatelet, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) medications; presence of gastric and/or esophageal varices; active malignancies; albumin, total bilirubin, serum creatinine, INR, and platelet laboratory values; and indication and duration of anticoagulation therapy.

Two patient lists were used to identify patients for inclusion in the warfarin arm. The first patient list was generated using the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cirrhosis Tracker, which identified patients with an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis and an INR laboratory value. Patients generated from the VA Cirrhosis Tracker with an INR > 1.5 were screened for a warfarin prescription and then evaluated for full study inclusion. The second patient list was generated using the VA Advanced Liver Disease Dashboard which identified patients with ICD-9/10 codes for advanced liver disease and an active warfarin prescription. Patients with an active warfarin prescription were then evaluated for full study inclusion. A single patient list was generated to identify patients for inclusion in the DOAC arm. This patient list was generated using the VA DOAC dashboard, which identified patients with an active DOAC prescription and an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis. Patients with an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis and prescribed a DOAC were screened for full study inclusion. Patient data were collected from the MEDVAMC Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) electronic health record (EHR). The research study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board and the VA Office of Research and Development.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint for the study was all-cause bleeding. The secondary endpoints for the study were major bleeding and failed efficacy. Major bleeding was defined using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) 2005 definition: fatal bleeding, symptomatic bleeding in a critical organ area (ie, intracranial, intraspinal, intraocular, retroperitoneal, intraarticular, pericardial, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome), or bleeding causing a fall in hemoglobin level of > 2 g/dL or leading to the transfusion of ≥ 2 units of red cells.⁶ Failed efficacy was a combination endpoint that included development of VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and/or death. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted at the end of the study period to analyze trends in the DOAC and warfarin groups with respect to all-cause bleeding. All-cause bleeding risk was stratified by weight, BMI, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, presence of gastric and/or esophageal varices, active malignancies, percentage of time within therapeutic INR range in the warfarin group, indications for anticoagulation, and antiplatelet, NSAID, PPI, and H2RA therapy.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Continuous data were analyzed using the Student t test, and categorical data were analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Previous studies determined an all-cause bleeding rate of 10 to 17% for warfarin compared with 5% for DOACs.^7,8 To detect a 12% difference in the all-cause bleeding rate between DOACs and warfarin, 212 patients would be needed to achieve 80% power at an α level of 0.05.

Results

A total of 170 patients were screened, and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 79 patients were enrolled in the study (Figure). The DOAC group included 42 patients, and the warfarin group included 37 patients. In the DOAC group, 69.1% (n = 29) of patients were taking apixaban, 21.4% (n = 9) rivaroxaban, and 9.5% (n = 4) dabigatran. There were no patients prescribed edoxaban during the study period.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, mean INR, and number of days on anticoagulation therapy (Table 1). Most of the patients were male (98.7%), and the mean age was 71 years. The most common causes of cirrhosis were viral (29.1%), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (24.1%), multiple causes (22.8%), and alcohol (21.5%). Sixty-two patients (78.5%) had a NVAF indication for anticoagulation. The average CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 3.7. Aspirin was prescribed in 51.9% (n = 41) of patients, and PPIs were prescribed in 48.1% (n = 38) of patients. At inclusion, esophageal varices were present in 13 patients and active malignancies were present in 6 patients.

Safety Outcome

The primary outcome comparing all-cause bleeding rates between patients on DOACs compared with warfarin are listed in Table 2. With respect to the primary outcome, 7 (16.7%) patients on DOACs experienced a bleeding event compared with 8 (21.6%) patients on warfarin (P = .77). No statistically significant differences were detected between the DOAC and warfarin groups with respect to all-cause bleeding. Seven bleeding events occurred in the DOAC group; 1 met the qualification for major bleeding with a suspected gastrointestinal (GI) bleed.⁶ The other 6 bleeding episodes in the DOAC group consisted of hematoma, epistaxis, hematuria, and hematochezia. Eight bleeding events occurred in the warfarin group; 2 met the qualification for major bleeding with an intracranial hemorrhage and upper GI bleed.⁶ The other 6 bleeding episodes in the warfarin group consisted of epistaxis, bleeding gums, hematuria, and hematochezia. There were no statistically significant differences between the rates of major bleeding and nonmajor bleeding between the DOAC and warfarin groups.

Efficacy Outcomes

There were 3 events in the DOAC group and 3 events in the warfarin group (P = .99). In the DOAC group, 2 patients experienced a pulmonary embolism, and 1 patient experienced a MI. In the warfarin group, 3 patients died (end-stage heart failure, unknown cause due to death at an outside hospital, and sepsis/organ failure). There were no statistically significant differences between the composite endpoint of failed efficacy or the individual endpoints of VTE, stroke, MI, and death.

Subgroup Analysis

A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to determine risk factors for all-cause bleeding within each treatment group (Table 3). No significant trends were observed in the following risk factors: Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, indication for anticoagulation, use of NSAIDs, PPIs or H2RAs, presence of gastric or esophageal varices, active malignancies, and time within therapeutic INR range in the warfarin group. Patients with bleeding events had slightly increased weight and BMI vs patients without bleeding events. Within the warfarin group, patients with bleeding events had slightly elevated MELD scores compared to patients without bleeding events. There was an equal balance of patients prescribed aspirin therapy between the groups with and without bleeding events. Overall, no significant risk factors were identified for all-cause bleeding.

Discussion

Initially, patients with cirrhosis were excluded from DOAC trials due to concerns for increased bleeding risk with hepatically eliminated medications. New retrospective research has concluded that in patients with cirrhosis, DOACs have similar or lower bleeding rates when compared directly to warfarin.^9,10

In this study, no statistically significant differences were detected between the primary and secondary outcomes of all-cause bleeding, major bleeding, or failed efficacy. Subgroup analysis did not identify any significant risk factors with respect to all-cause bleeding among patients in the DOAC and warfarin groups. To meet 80% power, 212 patients needed to be enrolled in the study; however, only 79 patients were enrolled, and power was not met. The results of this study should be interpreted cautiously as hypothesis-generating due to the small sample size. Strengths of this study include similar baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups, 4-year length of retrospective data review, and availability of both inpatient and outpatient EHR limiting the amount of missing data points.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for mean INR, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, and number of days on anticoagulation therapy. The difference in mean INR between groups is expected as patients in the warfarin group have a goal INR of 2 to 3 to maintain therapeutic efficacy and safety. INR is not used as a marker of efficacy or safety with DOACs; therefore, a consistent elevation in INR is not expected. Child- Turcotte-Pugh scores are calculated using INR levels.¹¹ When calculating the score, patients with an INR < 1.7 receive 1 point; patients with an INR between 1.7 and 2.3 receive 2 points.¹¹ Therefore, patients in the warfarin group will have artificially inflated Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores as this group has goal INR levels of 2 to 3. This makes Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores unreliable markers of disease severity in patients using warfarin therapy. When the INR scores for patients prescribed warfarin were replaced with values < 1.7, the statistical difference disappeared between the warfarin and DOAC groups. The same effect is seen on MELD scores for patients prescribed warfarin therapy. The MELD score is calculated using INR levels.¹² MELD scores also will be artificially elevated in patients prescribed warfarin therapy due to the INR elevation to between 2 and 3. When MELD scores for patients prescribed warfarin were replaced with values similar to those in the DOAC group, the statistical difference disappeared between the warfarin and DOAC groups.

The last statistically significant difference was found in number of days on anticoagulant therapy. This difference was expected as warfarin is the standard of care for anticoagulation treatment in patients with cirrhosis. The first DOAC, dabigatran, was not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration until 2010.¹³ DOACs have only recently been used in patients with cirrhosis accounting for the statistically significant difference in days on anticoagulation therapy between the warfarin and DOAC groups.

Limitations

The inability to meet power or evaluate adherence and appropriate renal dose adjustments for DOACs limited this study. This study was conducted at a single center in a predominantly male veteran population and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations. A majority of patients in the DOAC group were prescribed apixaban (69.1%), which may have affected the overall rate of major bleeding in the DOAC group. Pivotal trials of apixaban have shown a consistent decreased risk of major bleeding in patients with NVAF or VTE when compared with warfarin.^14,15 Therefore, the results of this study may not be generalizable to all DOACs.

An inherent limitation of this study was the inability to collect data verifying adherence in the DOAC group. However, in the warfarin group, percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range of 2 to 3 was collected. While not a direct marker of adherence, this does allow for limited evaluation of therapeutic efficacy and safety within the warfarin group. Last, proper dosing of DOACs in patients with and without adequate renal function was not evaluated in this study.

Conclusions

The results of this study are consistent with other retrospective research and literature reviews. There were no statistically significant differences identified between the rates of all-cause bleeding, major bleeding, and failed efficacy between the DOAC and warfarin groups. DOACs may be a safe alternative to warfarin in patients with cirrhosis requiring anticoagulation for NVAF or VTE, but large randomized trials are required to confirm these results.

Coagulation in patients with cirrhosis is a complicated area of evolving research. Patients with cirrhosis were originally thought to be naturally anticoagulated due to the decreased production of clotting factors and platelets, combined with an increased international normalized ratio (INR).¹ New data have shown that patients with cirrhosis are at a concomitant risk of bleeding and thrombosis due to increased platelet aggregation, decreased fibrinolysis, and decreased production of natural anticoagulants such as protein C and antithrombin.¹ Traditionally, patients with cirrhosis needing anticoagulation therapy for comorbid conditions, such as nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) were placed on warfarin therapy. Managing warfarin in patients with cirrhosis poses a challenge to clinicians due to the many food and drug interactions, narrow therapeutic index, and complications with maintaining a therapeutic INR.¹

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have several benefits over warfarin therapy, including convenience, decreased monitoring, decreased drug and dietary restrictions, and faster onset of action.² Conversely, DOACs undergo extensive hepatic metabolism giving rise to concerns about supratherapeutic drug levels and increased bleeding rates in patients with liver dysfunction.¹ Consequently, patients with cirrhosis were excluded from the pivotal trials establishing DOACs for NVAF and VTE treatment. Exclusion of these patients in major clinical trials alongside the challenges of managing warfarin warrant an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis.

Recent retrospective studies have examined the use of DOACs in patients with cirrhosis and found favorable results. A retrospective chart review by Intagliata and colleagues consisting of 39 patients with cirrhosis using either a DOAC or warfarin found similar rates of all-cause bleeding and major bleeding between the 2 groups.³ A retrospective cohort study by Hum and colleagues consisting of 45 patients with cirrhosis compared the use of DOACs with warfarin or low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH).⁴ Hum and colleagues found patients prescribed a DOAC had significantly fewer major bleeding events than did patients using warfarin or LMWH.⁴ The largest retrospective cohort study consisted of 233 patients with chronic liver disease and found no differences among all-cause bleeding and major bleeding rates between patients using DOACs compared with those of patients using warfarin.⁵

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs in veteran patients with cirrhosis compared with patients using warfarin.

Methods

A retrospective single-center chart review was conducted at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, between October 31, 2014 and October 31, 2018. Patients included in the study were adults aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of cirrhosis and prescribed any of the following oral anticoagulants: apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. Patients prescribed apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban were collectively grouped into the DOAC group, while patients prescribed warfarin were classified as the standard of care comparator group.

A diagnosis of cirrhosis was confirmed using a combination of the codes from the ninth and tenth editions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for cirrhosis, documentation of diagnostic confirmation by clinicians from the gastroenterology or hepatology services, and positive liver biopsy result. Liver function tests, liver ultrasound results, and FibroSure biomarker assays were used to aid in confirming the diagnosis of cirrhosis but were not considered definitive. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had indications for anticoagulation other than NVAF and VTE and/or were prescribed triple antithrombotic therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant). Patients who switched anticoagulant therapy during the trial period (ie, switched from warfarin to a DOAC) were also excluded from the analysis.

Patient demographic characteristics that were collected included weight; body mass index (BMI); etiology of cirrhosis; Child-Turcotte-Pugh, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score; concomitant antiplatelet, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) medications; presence of gastric and/or esophageal varices; active malignancies; albumin, total bilirubin, serum creatinine, INR, and platelet laboratory values; and indication and duration of anticoagulation therapy.

Two patient lists were used to identify patients for inclusion in the warfarin arm. The first patient list was generated using the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cirrhosis Tracker, which identified patients with an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis and an INR laboratory value. Patients generated from the VA Cirrhosis Tracker with an INR > 1.5 were screened for a warfarin prescription and then evaluated for full study inclusion. The second patient list was generated using the VA Advanced Liver Disease Dashboard which identified patients with ICD-9/10 codes for advanced liver disease and an active warfarin prescription. Patients with an active warfarin prescription were then evaluated for full study inclusion. A single patient list was generated to identify patients for inclusion in the DOAC arm. This patient list was generated using the VA DOAC dashboard, which identified patients with an active DOAC prescription and an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis. Patients with an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis and prescribed a DOAC were screened for full study inclusion. Patient data were collected from the MEDVAMC Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) electronic health record (EHR). The research study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board and the VA Office of Research and Development.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint for the study was all-cause bleeding. The secondary endpoints for the study were major bleeding and failed efficacy. Major bleeding was defined using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) 2005 definition: fatal bleeding, symptomatic bleeding in a critical organ area (ie, intracranial, intraspinal, intraocular, retroperitoneal, intraarticular, pericardial, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome), or bleeding causing a fall in hemoglobin level of > 2 g/dL or leading to the transfusion of ≥ 2 units of red cells.⁶ Failed efficacy was a combination endpoint that included development of VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and/or death. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted at the end of the study period to analyze trends in the DOAC and warfarin groups with respect to all-cause bleeding. All-cause bleeding risk was stratified by weight, BMI, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, presence of gastric and/or esophageal varices, active malignancies, percentage of time within therapeutic INR range in the warfarin group, indications for anticoagulation, and antiplatelet, NSAID, PPI, and H2RA therapy.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Continuous data were analyzed using the Student t test, and categorical data were analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Previous studies determined an all-cause bleeding rate of 10 to 17% for warfarin compared with 5% for DOACs.^7,8 To detect a 12% difference in the all-cause bleeding rate between DOACs and warfarin, 212 patients would be needed to achieve 80% power at an α level of 0.05.

Results

A total of 170 patients were screened, and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 79 patients were enrolled in the study (Figure). The DOAC group included 42 patients, and the warfarin group included 37 patients. In the DOAC group, 69.1% (n = 29) of patients were taking apixaban, 21.4% (n = 9) rivaroxaban, and 9.5% (n = 4) dabigatran. There were no patients prescribed edoxaban during the study period.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, mean INR, and number of days on anticoagulation therapy (Table 1). Most of the patients were male (98.7%), and the mean age was 71 years. The most common causes of cirrhosis were viral (29.1%), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (24.1%), multiple causes (22.8%), and alcohol (21.5%). Sixty-two patients (78.5%) had a NVAF indication for anticoagulation. The average CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 3.7. Aspirin was prescribed in 51.9% (n = 41) of patients, and PPIs were prescribed in 48.1% (n = 38) of patients. At inclusion, esophageal varices were present in 13 patients and active malignancies were present in 6 patients.

Safety Outcome

The primary outcome comparing all-cause bleeding rates between patients on DOACs compared with warfarin are listed in Table 2. With respect to the primary outcome, 7 (16.7%) patients on DOACs experienced a bleeding event compared with 8 (21.6%) patients on warfarin (P = .77). No statistically significant differences were detected between the DOAC and warfarin groups with respect to all-cause bleeding. Seven bleeding events occurred in the DOAC group; 1 met the qualification for major bleeding with a suspected gastrointestinal (GI) bleed.⁶ The other 6 bleeding episodes in the DOAC group consisted of hematoma, epistaxis, hematuria, and hematochezia. Eight bleeding events occurred in the warfarin group; 2 met the qualification for major bleeding with an intracranial hemorrhage and upper GI bleed.⁶ The other 6 bleeding episodes in the warfarin group consisted of epistaxis, bleeding gums, hematuria, and hematochezia. There were no statistically significant differences between the rates of major bleeding and nonmajor bleeding between the DOAC and warfarin groups.

Efficacy Outcomes

There were 3 events in the DOAC group and 3 events in the warfarin group (P = .99). In the DOAC group, 2 patients experienced a pulmonary embolism, and 1 patient experienced a MI. In the warfarin group, 3 patients died (end-stage heart failure, unknown cause due to death at an outside hospital, and sepsis/organ failure). There were no statistically significant differences between the composite endpoint of failed efficacy or the individual endpoints of VTE, stroke, MI, and death.

Subgroup Analysis

A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to determine risk factors for all-cause bleeding within each treatment group (Table 3). No significant trends were observed in the following risk factors: Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, indication for anticoagulation, use of NSAIDs, PPIs or H2RAs, presence of gastric or esophageal varices, active malignancies, and time within therapeutic INR range in the warfarin group. Patients with bleeding events had slightly increased weight and BMI vs patients without bleeding events. Within the warfarin group, patients with bleeding events had slightly elevated MELD scores compared to patients without bleeding events. There was an equal balance of patients prescribed aspirin therapy between the groups with and without bleeding events. Overall, no significant risk factors were identified for all-cause bleeding.

Discussion

Initially, patients with cirrhosis were excluded from DOAC trials due to concerns for increased bleeding risk with hepatically eliminated medications. New retrospective research has concluded that in patients with cirrhosis, DOACs have similar or lower bleeding rates when compared directly to warfarin.^9,10

In this study, no statistically significant differences were detected between the primary and secondary outcomes of all-cause bleeding, major bleeding, or failed efficacy. Subgroup analysis did not identify any significant risk factors with respect to all-cause bleeding among patients in the DOAC and warfarin groups. To meet 80% power, 212 patients needed to be enrolled in the study; however, only 79 patients were enrolled, and power was not met. The results of this study should be interpreted cautiously as hypothesis-generating due to the small sample size. Strengths of this study include similar baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups, 4-year length of retrospective data review, and availability of both inpatient and outpatient EHR limiting the amount of missing data points.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for mean INR, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, MELD score, and number of days on anticoagulation therapy. The difference in mean INR between groups is expected as patients in the warfarin group have a goal INR of 2 to 3 to maintain therapeutic efficacy and safety. INR is not used as a marker of efficacy or safety with DOACs; therefore, a consistent elevation in INR is not expected. Child- Turcotte-Pugh scores are calculated using INR levels.¹¹ When calculating the score, patients with an INR < 1.7 receive 1 point; patients with an INR between 1.7 and 2.3 receive 2 points.¹¹ Therefore, patients in the warfarin group will have artificially inflated Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores as this group has goal INR levels of 2 to 3. This makes Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores unreliable markers of disease severity in patients using warfarin therapy. When the INR scores for patients prescribed warfarin were replaced with values < 1.7, the statistical difference disappeared between the warfarin and DOAC groups. The same effect is seen on MELD scores for patients prescribed warfarin therapy. The MELD score is calculated using INR levels.¹² MELD scores also will be artificially elevated in patients prescribed warfarin therapy due to the INR elevation to between 2 and 3. When MELD scores for patients prescribed warfarin were replaced with values similar to those in the DOAC group, the statistical difference disappeared between the warfarin and DOAC groups.

The last statistically significant difference was found in number of days on anticoagulant therapy. This difference was expected as warfarin is the standard of care for anticoagulation treatment in patients with cirrhosis. The first DOAC, dabigatran, was not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration until 2010.¹³ DOACs have only recently been used in patients with cirrhosis accounting for the statistically significant difference in days on anticoagulation therapy between the warfarin and DOAC groups.

Limitations

The inability to meet power or evaluate adherence and appropriate renal dose adjustments for DOACs limited this study. This study was conducted at a single center in a predominantly male veteran population and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations. A majority of patients in the DOAC group were prescribed apixaban (69.1%), which may have affected the overall rate of major bleeding in the DOAC group. Pivotal trials of apixaban have shown a consistent decreased risk of major bleeding in patients with NVAF or VTE when compared with warfarin.^14,15 Therefore, the results of this study may not be generalizable to all DOACs.

An inherent limitation of this study was the inability to collect data verifying adherence in the DOAC group. However, in the warfarin group, percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range of 2 to 3 was collected. While not a direct marker of adherence, this does allow for limited evaluation of therapeutic efficacy and safety within the warfarin group. Last, proper dosing of DOACs in patients with and without adequate renal function was not evaluated in this study.

Conclusions

The results of this study are consistent with other retrospective research and literature reviews. There were no statistically significant differences identified between the rates of all-cause bleeding, major bleeding, and failed efficacy between the DOAC and warfarin groups. DOACs may be a safe alternative to warfarin in patients with cirrhosis requiring anticoagulation for NVAF or VTE, but large randomized trials are required to confirm these results.

Despite advancements in techniques, postsurgical pain continues to be a prominent part of the patient experience. Often this experience can lead to developing chronic postsurgical pain that interferes with quality of life after the expected time to recovery.^1-3 As many as 14% of patients who undergo surgery without any history of opioid use develop chronic opioid use that persists after recovery from their operation.^4-8 For patients with existing chronic opioid use or a history of substance use disorder (SUD), surgeons, primary care providers, or addiction providers often do not provide sufficient presurgical planning or postsurgical coordination of care. This lack of pain care coordination can increase the risk of inadequate pain control, opioid use escalation, or SUD relapse after surgery.

Convincing arguments have been made that a perioperative surgical home can improve significantly the quality of perioperative care.^9-14 This report describes our experience implementing a perioperative surgical home at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Salt Lake City VA Medical Center (SLCVAMC), focusing on pain management extending from the preoperative period until 6 months or more after surgery. This type of Transitional Pain Service (TPS) has been described previously.^15-17 Our service differs from those described previously by enrolling all patients before surgery rather than select postsurgical enrollment of only patients with a history of opioid use or SUD or patients who struggle with persistent postsurgical pain.

Methods

In January 2018, we developed and implemented a new TPS at the SLCVAMC. The transitional pain team consisted of an anesthesiologist with specialization in acute pain management, a nurse practitioner (NP) with experience in both acute and chronic pain management, 2 nurse care coordinators, and a psychologist (Figure 1). Before implementation, a needs assessment took place with these key stakeholders and others at SLCVAMC to identify the following specific goals of the TPS: (1) reduce pain through pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions; (2) eliminate new chronic opioid use in previously nonopioid user (NOU) patients; (3) address chronic opioid use in previous chronic opioid users (COUs) by providing support for opioid taper and alternative analgesic therapies for their chronic pain conditions; and (4) improve continuity of care by close coordination with the surgical team, primary care providers (PCPs), and mental health or chronic pain providers as needed.

Once these TPS goals were defined, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the implementation. CFIR is a theory-based implementation framework consisting of 5 domains: intervention characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. These domains were used to identify barriers and facilitators during the early implementation process and helped refine TPS as it was put into clinical practice.

Patient Selection

During the initial implementation of TPS, enrollment was limited to patients scheduled for elective primary or revision knee, hip, or shoulder replacement as well as rotator cuff repair surgery. But as the TPS workflow became established after iterative refinement, we expanded the program to enroll patients with established risk factors for OUD having other types of surgery (Table 1). The diagnosis of risk factors, such as history of SUD, chronic opioid use, or significant mental health disorders (ie, history of suicidal ideation or attempt, posttraumatic stress disorder, and inpatient psychiatric care) were confirmed through both in-person interviews and electronic health record (EHR) documentation. The overall goal was to identify all at-risk patients as soon as they were indicated for surgery, to allow time for evaluation, education, developing an individualized pain plan, and opioid taper prior to surgery if indicated.

Preoperative Procedures

Once identified, patients were contacted by a TPS team member and invited to attend a onetime 90-minute presurgical expectations class held at SLCVAMC. The education curriculum was developed by the whole team, and classes were taught primarily by the TPS psychologist. The class included education about expectations for postoperative pain, available analgesic therapies, opioid education, appropriate use of opioids, and the effect of psychological factors on pain. Pain coping strategies were introduced using a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) and the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) matrix. Classes were offered multiple times a week to help maximize convenience for patients and were separate from the anesthesia preoperative evaluation. Patients attended class only once. High-risk patients (patients with chronic opioid therapy, recent history of or current SUDs, significant comorbid mental health issues) were encouraged to attend this class one-on-one with the TPS psychologist rather than in the group setting, so individual attention to mental health and SUD issues could be addressed directly. For patients who were unable to or who chose not to attend the class, the basic education component of the class without the MBI and ACT matrix was provided by nurse care coordinators and/or the anesthesiologist/NP individually before surgery either during the anesthesia preoperative visit or in the same-day surgery unit on the day of surgery.

Baseline history, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and patient-reported outcomes using measures from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement System (PROMIS) for pain intensity (PROMIS 3a), pain interference (PROMIS 6b), and physical function (PROMIS 8b), and a pain-catastrophizing scale (PCS) score were obtained on all patients.¹⁸ PROMIS measures are validated questionnaires developed with the National Institutes of Health to standardize and quantify patient-reported outcomes in many domains.¹⁹ Patients with a history of SUD or COU met with the anesthesiologist and/or NP, and a personalized pain plan was developed that included preoperative opioid taper, buprenorphine use strategy, or opioid-free strategies.

Hospital Procedures

On the day of surgery, the TPS team met with the patient preoperatively and implemented an individualized pain plan that included multimodal analgesic techniques with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and regional anesthesia, where appropriate (Table 2). Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols were developed in conjunction with the surgeons to include local infiltration analgesia by the surgeon, postoperative multimodal analgesic strategies, and intensive physical therapy starting the day of surgery for inpatient procedures.

After surgery, the TPS team followed up with patients daily and provided recommendations for analgesic therapies. Patients were offered daily sessions with the psychologist to reinforce and practice nonpharmacologic pain-coping strategies, such as meditation and relaxation. Prior to patient discharge, the TPS team provided recommendations for discharge medications and an opioid taper plan. For some patients taking buprenorphine before surgery who had stopped this therapy prior to or during their hospital stay, TPS providers transitioned them back to buprenorphine before discharge.

Postoperative Procedures

Patients were called by the nurse care coordinators at postdischarge days 2, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and then monthly for ≥ 6 months. For patients who had not stopped opioid use or returned to their preoperative baseline opioid dose, weekly calls were made until opioid taper goals were achieved. At each call, nurses collected PROMIS scores for the previous 24 hours, the most recent 24-hour MEDD, the date of last opioid use, and the number of remaining opioid tablets after opioid cessation. In addition, nurses provided active listening and supportive care and encouragement as well as care coordination for issues related to rehabilitation facilities, physical therapy, transportation, medication questions, and wound questions. Nurses notified the anesthesiologist or NP when patients were unable to taper opioid use or had poor pain control as indicated by their PROMIS scores, opioid use, or directly expressed by the patient.

The TPS team prescribed alternative analgesic therapies, opioid taper plans, and communicated with surgeons and primary care providers if limited continued opioid therapy was recommended. Individual sessions with the psychologist were available to patients after discharge with a focus on ACT-matrix therapy and consultation with long-term mental health and/or substance abuse providers as indicated. Frequent communication and care coordination were maintained with the surgical team, the PCP, and other providers on the mental health or chronic pain services. This care coordination often included postsurgical joint clinic appointments in which TPS providers and nurses would be present with the surgeon or the PCP.

For patients with inadequately treated chronic pain conditions or who required long-term opioid tapers, we developed a combined clinic with the TPS and Anesthesia Chronic Pain group. This clinic allows patients to be seen by both services in the same setting, allowing a warm handoff by TPS to the chronic pain team.

Heath and Decision Support Tools 

An electronic dashboard registry of surgical episodes managed by TPS was developed to achieve clinical, administrative, and quality improvement goals. The dashboard registry consists of surgical episode data, opioid doses, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical decision-making processes. Custom-built note templates capture pertinent data through embedded data labels, called health factors. Data are captured as part of routine clinical care, recorded in Computerized Patient Record System as health factors. They are available in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse as structured data. Workflows are executed daily to keep the dashboard registry current, clean, and able to process new data. Information displays direct daily clinical workflow and support point-of-care clinical decision making (Figures 2, 3, and 4). Data are aggregated across patient-care encounters and allow nurse care coordinators to concisely review pertinent patient data prior to delivering care. These data include surgical history, comorbidities, timeline of opioid use, and PROMIS scores during their course of recovery. This system allows TPS to optimize care delivery by providing longitudinal data across the surgical episode, thereby reducing the time needed to review records. Secondary purposes of captured data include measuring clinic performance and quality improvement to improve care delivery.

Results

The TPS intervention was implemented January 1, 2018. Two-hundred thirteen patients were enrolled between January and December 2018, which included 60 (28%) patients with a history of chronic opioid use and 153 (72%) patients who were considered opioid naïve. A total of 99% of patients had ≥ 1 successful follow-up within 14 days after discharge, 96% had ≥ 1 follow-up between 14 and 30 days after surgery, and 72% had completed personal follow-up 90 days after discharge (Table 3). For patients who TPS was unable to contact in person or by phone, 90-day MEDD was obtained using prescription and Controlled Substance Database reviews. The protocol for this retrospective analysis was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and the VA Research Review Committee.

By 90 days after surgery, 26 (43.3%) COUs were off opioids completely, 17 (28.3%) had decreased their opioid dose from their preoperative baseline MEDD (120 [SD, 108] vs 55 [SD, 45]), 14 (23.3%) returned to their baseline dose, and 3 (5%) increased from their baseline dose. Of the 153 patients who were NOUs before surgery, only 1 (0.7%) was taking opioids after 90 days. TPS continued to work closely with the patient and their PCP and that patient was finally able to stop opioid use 262 days after discharge. Ten patients had an additional surgery within 90 days of the initial surgery. Of these, 6 were COU, of whom 3 stopped all opioids by 90 days from their original surgery, 2 had no change in MEDD at 90 days, and 1 had a lower MEDD at 90 days. Of the 4 NOU who had additional surgery, all were off opioids by 90 days from the original surgery.

Discussion

With any new clinical service, there are obstacles and challenges. TPS requires a considerable investment in personnel, and currently no mechanism is in place for obtaining payment for many of the provided services. We were fortunate the VA Whole Health Initiative, the VA Office of Rural Health, and the VA Centers of Innovation provided support for the development, implementation, and pilot evaluation of TPS. After we presented our initial results to hospital leadership, we also received hospital support to expand TPS service to include a total of 4 nurse care coordinators and 2 psychologists. We are currently performing a cost analysis of the service but recognize that this model may be difficult to reproduce at other institutions without a change in reimbursement standards.

Developing a working relationship with the surgical and primary care services required a concerted effort from the TPS team and a number of months to become effective. As most veterans receive primary care, mental health care, and surgical care within the VA system, this model lends itself to close care coordination. Initially there was skepticism about TPS recommendations to reduce opioid use, especially from PCPs who had cared for complex patients over many years. But this uncertainty went away as we showed evidence of close patient follow-up and detailed communication. TPS soon became the designated service for both primary care and surgical providers who were otherwise uncomfortable with how to approach opioid tapers and nonopioid pain strategies. In fact, a substantial portion of our referrals now come directly from the PCP who is referring a high-risk patient for evaluation for surgery rather than from the surgeons, and joint visits with TPS and primary care have become commonplace.

Challenges abound when working with patients with substance abuse history, opioid use history, high anxiety, significant pain catastrophizing, and those who have had previous negative experiences with surgery. We have found that the most important facet of our service comes from the amount of time and effort team members, especially the nurses, spend helping patients. Much of the nurses' work focuses on nonpain-related issues, such as assisting patients with finding transportation, housing issues, questions about medications, help scheduling appointments, etc. Through this concerted effort, patients gain trust in TPS providers and are willing to listen to and experiment with our recommendations. Many patients who were initially extremely unreceptive to the presurgery education asked for our support weeks after surgery to help with postsurgery pain.

Another challenge we continue to experience comes from the success of the program. We receive many requests from PCPs to help with opioid tapers and pain management for nonsurgical patients. Although we are happy that they look to TPS for assistance, the pressure to expand threatens our ability to maintain the expected quality of work we are trying to provide for surgical patients.

Conclusions

The multidisciplinary TPS supports greater preoperative to postoperative longitudinal care for surgical patients. This endeavor has resulted in better patient preparation before surgery and improved care coordination after surgery, with specific improvements in appropriate use of opioid medications and smooth transitions of care for patients with ongoing and complex needs. Development of sophisticated note templates and customized health information technology allows for accurate follow-through and data gathering for quality improvement, facilitating data-driven improvements and proving value to the facility.

Given that TPS is a multidisciplinary program with multiple interventions, it is difficult to pinpoint which specific aspects of TPS are most effective in achieving success. For example, although we have little doubt that the work our psychologists do with our patients is beneficial and even essential for the success we have had with some of our most difficult patients, it is less clear whether it matters if they use mindfulness, ACT matrix, or cognitive behavioral therapy. We think that an important part of TPS is the frequent human interaction with a caring individual. Therefore, as TPS continues to grow, maintaining the ability to provide frequent personal interaction is a priority.

The role of opioids in acute pain deserves further scrutiny. In 2018, with TPS use of opioids after orthopedic surgery decreased by > 40% from the previous year. Despite this more restricted use of opioids, pain interference and physical function scores indicated that surgical patients do not seem to experience increased pain or reduced physical function. In addition, stopping opioid use for COUs did not seem to affect the quality of recovery, pain, or physical function. Future prospective controlled studies of TPS are needed to confirm these findings and identify which aspects of TPS are most effective in improving functional recovery of patients. Also, more evidence is needed to determine the appropriateness or need for opioids in acute postsurgical pain.

TPS has expanded to include all surgical specialties. Given the high burden and limited resources, we have chosen to focus on patients at higher risk for chronic postsurgical pain by type of surgery (eg, thoracotomy, open abdominal, limb amputation, major joint surgery) and/or history of substance abuse or chronic opioid use. To better direct scarce resources where it would be of most benefit, we are now enrolling only NOUs without other risk factors postoperatively if they request a refill of opioids or are otherwise struggling with pain control after surgery. Whether this approach affects the success we had in the first year in preventing new COUs after surgery remains to be seen.

It is unlikely that any single model of a perioperative surgical home will fit the needs of the many different types of medical systems that exist. The TPS model fits well in large hospital systems, like the VA, where patients receive most of their care within the same system. However, it seems to us that the optimal TPS program in any health system will provide education, support, and care coordination beginning preoperatively to prepare the patient for surgery and then to facilitate care coordination to transition patients back to their PCPs or on to specialized chronic care.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Candice Harmon, RN; David Merrill, RN; Amy Beckstead, RN, who have provided invaluable assistance with establishing the TPS program at the VA Salt Lake City and helping with the evaluation process.

Funding for the implementation and evaluation of the TPS was received from the VA Whole Health Initiative, the VA Center of Innovation, the VA Office of Rural Health, and National Institutes of Health Grant UL1TR002538.

Despite advancements in techniques, postsurgical pain continues to be a prominent part of the patient experience. Often this experience can lead to developing chronic postsurgical pain that interferes with quality of life after the expected time to recovery.^1-3 As many as 14% of patients who undergo surgery without any history of opioid use develop chronic opioid use that persists after recovery from their operation.^4-8 For patients with existing chronic opioid use or a history of substance use disorder (SUD), surgeons, primary care providers, or addiction providers often do not provide sufficient presurgical planning or postsurgical coordination of care. This lack of pain care coordination can increase the risk of inadequate pain control, opioid use escalation, or SUD relapse after surgery.

Convincing arguments have been made that a perioperative surgical home can improve significantly the quality of perioperative care.^9-14 This report describes our experience implementing a perioperative surgical home at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Salt Lake City VA Medical Center (SLCVAMC), focusing on pain management extending from the preoperative period until 6 months or more after surgery. This type of Transitional Pain Service (TPS) has been described previously.^15-17 Our service differs from those described previously by enrolling all patients before surgery rather than select postsurgical enrollment of only patients with a history of opioid use or SUD or patients who struggle with persistent postsurgical pain.

Methods

In January 2018, we developed and implemented a new TPS at the SLCVAMC. The transitional pain team consisted of an anesthesiologist with specialization in acute pain management, a nurse practitioner (NP) with experience in both acute and chronic pain management, 2 nurse care coordinators, and a psychologist (Figure 1). Before implementation, a needs assessment took place with these key stakeholders and others at SLCVAMC to identify the following specific goals of the TPS: (1) reduce pain through pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions; (2) eliminate new chronic opioid use in previously nonopioid user (NOU) patients; (3) address chronic opioid use in previous chronic opioid users (COUs) by providing support for opioid taper and alternative analgesic therapies for their chronic pain conditions; and (4) improve continuity of care by close coordination with the surgical team, primary care providers (PCPs), and mental health or chronic pain providers as needed.

Once these TPS goals were defined, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the implementation. CFIR is a theory-based implementation framework consisting of 5 domains: intervention characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. These domains were used to identify barriers and facilitators during the early implementation process and helped refine TPS as it was put into clinical practice.

Patient Selection

During the initial implementation of TPS, enrollment was limited to patients scheduled for elective primary or revision knee, hip, or shoulder replacement as well as rotator cuff repair surgery. But as the TPS workflow became established after iterative refinement, we expanded the program to enroll patients with established risk factors for OUD having other types of surgery (Table 1). The diagnosis of risk factors, such as history of SUD, chronic opioid use, or significant mental health disorders (ie, history of suicidal ideation or attempt, posttraumatic stress disorder, and inpatient psychiatric care) were confirmed through both in-person interviews and electronic health record (EHR) documentation. The overall goal was to identify all at-risk patients as soon as they were indicated for surgery, to allow time for evaluation, education, developing an individualized pain plan, and opioid taper prior to surgery if indicated.

Preoperative Procedures

Once identified, patients were contacted by a TPS team member and invited to attend a onetime 90-minute presurgical expectations class held at SLCVAMC. The education curriculum was developed by the whole team, and classes were taught primarily by the TPS psychologist. The class included education about expectations for postoperative pain, available analgesic therapies, opioid education, appropriate use of opioids, and the effect of psychological factors on pain. Pain coping strategies were introduced using a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) and the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) matrix. Classes were offered multiple times a week to help maximize convenience for patients and were separate from the anesthesia preoperative evaluation. Patients attended class only once. High-risk patients (patients with chronic opioid therapy, recent history of or current SUDs, significant comorbid mental health issues) were encouraged to attend this class one-on-one with the TPS psychologist rather than in the group setting, so individual attention to mental health and SUD issues could be addressed directly. For patients who were unable to or who chose not to attend the class, the basic education component of the class without the MBI and ACT matrix was provided by nurse care coordinators and/or the anesthesiologist/NP individually before surgery either during the anesthesia preoperative visit or in the same-day surgery unit on the day of surgery.

Baseline history, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and patient-reported outcomes using measures from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement System (PROMIS) for pain intensity (PROMIS 3a), pain interference (PROMIS 6b), and physical function (PROMIS 8b), and a pain-catastrophizing scale (PCS) score were obtained on all patients.¹⁸ PROMIS measures are validated questionnaires developed with the National Institutes of Health to standardize and quantify patient-reported outcomes in many domains.¹⁹ Patients with a history of SUD or COU met with the anesthesiologist and/or NP, and a personalized pain plan was developed that included preoperative opioid taper, buprenorphine use strategy, or opioid-free strategies.

Hospital Procedures

On the day of surgery, the TPS team met with the patient preoperatively and implemented an individualized pain plan that included multimodal analgesic techniques with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and regional anesthesia, where appropriate (Table 2). Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols were developed in conjunction with the surgeons to include local infiltration analgesia by the surgeon, postoperative multimodal analgesic strategies, and intensive physical therapy starting the day of surgery for inpatient procedures.

After surgery, the TPS team followed up with patients daily and provided recommendations for analgesic therapies. Patients were offered daily sessions with the psychologist to reinforce and practice nonpharmacologic pain-coping strategies, such as meditation and relaxation. Prior to patient discharge, the TPS team provided recommendations for discharge medications and an opioid taper plan. For some patients taking buprenorphine before surgery who had stopped this therapy prior to or during their hospital stay, TPS providers transitioned them back to buprenorphine before discharge.

Postoperative Procedures

Patients were called by the nurse care coordinators at postdischarge days 2, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and then monthly for ≥ 6 months. For patients who had not stopped opioid use or returned to their preoperative baseline opioid dose, weekly calls were made until opioid taper goals were achieved. At each call, nurses collected PROMIS scores for the previous 24 hours, the most recent 24-hour MEDD, the date of last opioid use, and the number of remaining opioid tablets after opioid cessation. In addition, nurses provided active listening and supportive care and encouragement as well as care coordination for issues related to rehabilitation facilities, physical therapy, transportation, medication questions, and wound questions. Nurses notified the anesthesiologist or NP when patients were unable to taper opioid use or had poor pain control as indicated by their PROMIS scores, opioid use, or directly expressed by the patient.

The TPS team prescribed alternative analgesic therapies, opioid taper plans, and communicated with surgeons and primary care providers if limited continued opioid therapy was recommended. Individual sessions with the psychologist were available to patients after discharge with a focus on ACT-matrix therapy and consultation with long-term mental health and/or substance abuse providers as indicated. Frequent communication and care coordination were maintained with the surgical team, the PCP, and other providers on the mental health or chronic pain services. This care coordination often included postsurgical joint clinic appointments in which TPS providers and nurses would be present with the surgeon or the PCP.

For patients with inadequately treated chronic pain conditions or who required long-term opioid tapers, we developed a combined clinic with the TPS and Anesthesia Chronic Pain group. This clinic allows patients to be seen by both services in the same setting, allowing a warm handoff by TPS to the chronic pain team.

Heath and Decision Support Tools 

An electronic dashboard registry of surgical episodes managed by TPS was developed to achieve clinical, administrative, and quality improvement goals. The dashboard registry consists of surgical episode data, opioid doses, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical decision-making processes. Custom-built note templates capture pertinent data through embedded data labels, called health factors. Data are captured as part of routine clinical care, recorded in Computerized Patient Record System as health factors. They are available in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse as structured data. Workflows are executed daily to keep the dashboard registry current, clean, and able to process new data. Information displays direct daily clinical workflow and support point-of-care clinical decision making (Figures 2, 3, and 4). Data are aggregated across patient-care encounters and allow nurse care coordinators to concisely review pertinent patient data prior to delivering care. These data include surgical history, comorbidities, timeline of opioid use, and PROMIS scores during their course of recovery. This system allows TPS to optimize care delivery by providing longitudinal data across the surgical episode, thereby reducing the time needed to review records. Secondary purposes of captured data include measuring clinic performance and quality improvement to improve care delivery.

Results

The TPS intervention was implemented January 1, 2018. Two-hundred thirteen patients were enrolled between January and December 2018, which included 60 (28%) patients with a history of chronic opioid use and 153 (72%) patients who were considered opioid naïve. A total of 99% of patients had ≥ 1 successful follow-up within 14 days after discharge, 96% had ≥ 1 follow-up between 14 and 30 days after surgery, and 72% had completed personal follow-up 90 days after discharge (Table 3). For patients who TPS was unable to contact in person or by phone, 90-day MEDD was obtained using prescription and Controlled Substance Database reviews. The protocol for this retrospective analysis was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and the VA Research Review Committee.

By 90 days after surgery, 26 (43.3%) COUs were off opioids completely, 17 (28.3%) had decreased their opioid dose from their preoperative baseline MEDD (120 [SD, 108] vs 55 [SD, 45]), 14 (23.3%) returned to their baseline dose, and 3 (5%) increased from their baseline dose. Of the 153 patients who were NOUs before surgery, only 1 (0.7%) was taking opioids after 90 days. TPS continued to work closely with the patient and their PCP and that patient was finally able to stop opioid use 262 days after discharge. Ten patients had an additional surgery within 90 days of the initial surgery. Of these, 6 were COU, of whom 3 stopped all opioids by 90 days from their original surgery, 2 had no change in MEDD at 90 days, and 1 had a lower MEDD at 90 days. Of the 4 NOU who had additional surgery, all were off opioids by 90 days from the original surgery.

Discussion

With any new clinical service, there are obstacles and challenges. TPS requires a considerable investment in personnel, and currently no mechanism is in place for obtaining payment for many of the provided services. We were fortunate the VA Whole Health Initiative, the VA Office of Rural Health, and the VA Centers of Innovation provided support for the development, implementation, and pilot evaluation of TPS. After we presented our initial results to hospital leadership, we also received hospital support to expand TPS service to include a total of 4 nurse care coordinators and 2 psychologists. We are currently performing a cost analysis of the service but recognize that this model may be difficult to reproduce at other institutions without a change in reimbursement standards.

Developing a working relationship with the surgical and primary care services required a concerted effort from the TPS team and a number of months to become effective. As most veterans receive primary care, mental health care, and surgical care within the VA system, this model lends itself to close care coordination. Initially there was skepticism about TPS recommendations to reduce opioid use, especially from PCPs who had cared for complex patients over many years. But this uncertainty went away as we showed evidence of close patient follow-up and detailed communication. TPS soon became the designated service for both primary care and surgical providers who were otherwise uncomfortable with how to approach opioid tapers and nonopioid pain strategies. In fact, a substantial portion of our referrals now come directly from the PCP who is referring a high-risk patient for evaluation for surgery rather than from the surgeons, and joint visits with TPS and primary care have become commonplace.

Challenges abound when working with patients with substance abuse history, opioid use history, high anxiety, significant pain catastrophizing, and those who have had previous negative experiences with surgery. We have found that the most important facet of our service comes from the amount of time and effort team members, especially the nurses, spend helping patients. Much of the nurses' work focuses on nonpain-related issues, such as assisting patients with finding transportation, housing issues, questions about medications, help scheduling appointments, etc. Through this concerted effort, patients gain trust in TPS providers and are willing to listen to and experiment with our recommendations. Many patients who were initially extremely unreceptive to the presurgery education asked for our support weeks after surgery to help with postsurgery pain.

Another challenge we continue to experience comes from the success of the program. We receive many requests from PCPs to help with opioid tapers and pain management for nonsurgical patients. Although we are happy that they look to TPS for assistance, the pressure to expand threatens our ability to maintain the expected quality of work we are trying to provide for surgical patients.

Conclusions

The multidisciplinary TPS supports greater preoperative to postoperative longitudinal care for surgical patients. This endeavor has resulted in better patient preparation before surgery and improved care coordination after surgery, with specific improvements in appropriate use of opioid medications and smooth transitions of care for patients with ongoing and complex needs. Development of sophisticated note templates and customized health information technology allows for accurate follow-through and data gathering for quality improvement, facilitating data-driven improvements and proving value to the facility.

Given that TPS is a multidisciplinary program with multiple interventions, it is difficult to pinpoint which specific aspects of TPS are most effective in achieving success. For example, although we have little doubt that the work our psychologists do with our patients is beneficial and even essential for the success we have had with some of our most difficult patients, it is less clear whether it matters if they use mindfulness, ACT matrix, or cognitive behavioral therapy. We think that an important part of TPS is the frequent human interaction with a caring individual. Therefore, as TPS continues to grow, maintaining the ability to provide frequent personal interaction is a priority.

The role of opioids in acute pain deserves further scrutiny. In 2018, with TPS use of opioids after orthopedic surgery decreased by > 40% from the previous year. Despite this more restricted use of opioids, pain interference and physical function scores indicated that surgical patients do not seem to experience increased pain or reduced physical function. In addition, stopping opioid use for COUs did not seem to affect the quality of recovery, pain, or physical function. Future prospective controlled studies of TPS are needed to confirm these findings and identify which aspects of TPS are most effective in improving functional recovery of patients. Also, more evidence is needed to determine the appropriateness or need for opioids in acute postsurgical pain.

TPS has expanded to include all surgical specialties. Given the high burden and limited resources, we have chosen to focus on patients at higher risk for chronic postsurgical pain by type of surgery (eg, thoracotomy, open abdominal, limb amputation, major joint surgery) and/or history of substance abuse or chronic opioid use. To better direct scarce resources where it would be of most benefit, we are now enrolling only NOUs without other risk factors postoperatively if they request a refill of opioids or are otherwise struggling with pain control after surgery. Whether this approach affects the success we had in the first year in preventing new COUs after surgery remains to be seen.

It is unlikely that any single model of a perioperative surgical home will fit the needs of the many different types of medical systems that exist. The TPS model fits well in large hospital systems, like the VA, where patients receive most of their care within the same system. However, it seems to us that the optimal TPS program in any health system will provide education, support, and care coordination beginning preoperatively to prepare the patient for surgery and then to facilitate care coordination to transition patients back to their PCPs or on to specialized chronic care.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Candice Harmon, RN; David Merrill, RN; Amy Beckstead, RN, who have provided invaluable assistance with establishing the TPS program at the VA Salt Lake City and helping with the evaluation process.

Funding for the implementation and evaluation of the TPS was received from the VA Whole Health Initiative, the VA Center of Innovation, the VA Office of Rural Health, and National Institutes of Health Grant UL1TR002538.

Despite advancements in techniques, postsurgical pain continues to be a prominent part of the patient experience. Often this experience can lead to developing chronic postsurgical pain that interferes with quality of life after the expected time to recovery.^1-3 As many as 14% of patients who undergo surgery without any history of opioid use develop chronic opioid use that persists after recovery from their operation.^4-8 For patients with existing chronic opioid use or a history of substance use disorder (SUD), surgeons, primary care providers, or addiction providers often do not provide sufficient presurgical planning or postsurgical coordination of care. This lack of pain care coordination can increase the risk of inadequate pain control, opioid use escalation, or SUD relapse after surgery.

Convincing arguments have been made that a perioperative surgical home can improve significantly the quality of perioperative care.^9-14 This report describes our experience implementing a perioperative surgical home at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Salt Lake City VA Medical Center (SLCVAMC), focusing on pain management extending from the preoperative period until 6 months or more after surgery. This type of Transitional Pain Service (TPS) has been described previously.^15-17 Our service differs from those described previously by enrolling all patients before surgery rather than select postsurgical enrollment of only patients with a history of opioid use or SUD or patients who struggle with persistent postsurgical pain.

Methods

In January 2018, we developed and implemented a new TPS at the SLCVAMC. The transitional pain team consisted of an anesthesiologist with specialization in acute pain management, a nurse practitioner (NP) with experience in both acute and chronic pain management, 2 nurse care coordinators, and a psychologist (Figure 1). Before implementation, a needs assessment took place with these key stakeholders and others at SLCVAMC to identify the following specific goals of the TPS: (1) reduce pain through pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions; (2) eliminate new chronic opioid use in previously nonopioid user (NOU) patients; (3) address chronic opioid use in previous chronic opioid users (COUs) by providing support for opioid taper and alternative analgesic therapies for their chronic pain conditions; and (4) improve continuity of care by close coordination with the surgical team, primary care providers (PCPs), and mental health or chronic pain providers as needed.

Once these TPS goals were defined, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the implementation. CFIR is a theory-based implementation framework consisting of 5 domains: intervention characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. These domains were used to identify barriers and facilitators during the early implementation process and helped refine TPS as it was put into clinical practice.

Patient Selection

During the initial implementation of TPS, enrollment was limited to patients scheduled for elective primary or revision knee, hip, or shoulder replacement as well as rotator cuff repair surgery. But as the TPS workflow became established after iterative refinement, we expanded the program to enroll patients with established risk factors for OUD having other types of surgery (Table 1). The diagnosis of risk factors, such as history of SUD, chronic opioid use, or significant mental health disorders (ie, history of suicidal ideation or attempt, posttraumatic stress disorder, and inpatient psychiatric care) were confirmed through both in-person interviews and electronic health record (EHR) documentation. The overall goal was to identify all at-risk patients as soon as they were indicated for surgery, to allow time for evaluation, education, developing an individualized pain plan, and opioid taper prior to surgery if indicated.

Preoperative Procedures

Once identified, patients were contacted by a TPS team member and invited to attend a onetime 90-minute presurgical expectations class held at SLCVAMC. The education curriculum was developed by the whole team, and classes were taught primarily by the TPS psychologist. The class included education about expectations for postoperative pain, available analgesic therapies, opioid education, appropriate use of opioids, and the effect of psychological factors on pain. Pain coping strategies were introduced using a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) and the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) matrix. Classes were offered multiple times a week to help maximize convenience for patients and were separate from the anesthesia preoperative evaluation. Patients attended class only once. High-risk patients (patients with chronic opioid therapy, recent history of or current SUDs, significant comorbid mental health issues) were encouraged to attend this class one-on-one with the TPS psychologist rather than in the group setting, so individual attention to mental health and SUD issues could be addressed directly. For patients who were unable to or who chose not to attend the class, the basic education component of the class without the MBI and ACT matrix was provided by nurse care coordinators and/or the anesthesiologist/NP individually before surgery either during the anesthesia preoperative visit or in the same-day surgery unit on the day of surgery.

Baseline history, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and patient-reported outcomes using measures from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement System (PROMIS) for pain intensity (PROMIS 3a), pain interference (PROMIS 6b), and physical function (PROMIS 8b), and a pain-catastrophizing scale (PCS) score were obtained on all patients.¹⁸ PROMIS measures are validated questionnaires developed with the National Institutes of Health to standardize and quantify patient-reported outcomes in many domains.¹⁹ Patients with a history of SUD or COU met with the anesthesiologist and/or NP, and a personalized pain plan was developed that included preoperative opioid taper, buprenorphine use strategy, or opioid-free strategies.

Hospital Procedures

On the day of surgery, the TPS team met with the patient preoperatively and implemented an individualized pain plan that included multimodal analgesic techniques with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and regional anesthesia, where appropriate (Table 2). Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols were developed in conjunction with the surgeons to include local infiltration analgesia by the surgeon, postoperative multimodal analgesic strategies, and intensive physical therapy starting the day of surgery for inpatient procedures.

After surgery, the TPS team followed up with patients daily and provided recommendations for analgesic therapies. Patients were offered daily sessions with the psychologist to reinforce and practice nonpharmacologic pain-coping strategies, such as meditation and relaxation. Prior to patient discharge, the TPS team provided recommendations for discharge medications and an opioid taper plan. For some patients taking buprenorphine before surgery who had stopped this therapy prior to or during their hospital stay, TPS providers transitioned them back to buprenorphine before discharge.

Postoperative Procedures

Patients were called by the nurse care coordinators at postdischarge days 2, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and then monthly for ≥ 6 months. For patients who had not stopped opioid use or returned to their preoperative baseline opioid dose, weekly calls were made until opioid taper goals were achieved. At each call, nurses collected PROMIS scores for the previous 24 hours, the most recent 24-hour MEDD, the date of last opioid use, and the number of remaining opioid tablets after opioid cessation. In addition, nurses provided active listening and supportive care and encouragement as well as care coordination for issues related to rehabilitation facilities, physical therapy, transportation, medication questions, and wound questions. Nurses notified the anesthesiologist or NP when patients were unable to taper opioid use or had poor pain control as indicated by their PROMIS scores, opioid use, or directly expressed by the patient.

The TPS team prescribed alternative analgesic therapies, opioid taper plans, and communicated with surgeons and primary care providers if limited continued opioid therapy was recommended. Individual sessions with the psychologist were available to patients after discharge with a focus on ACT-matrix therapy and consultation with long-term mental health and/or substance abuse providers as indicated. Frequent communication and care coordination were maintained with the surgical team, the PCP, and other providers on the mental health or chronic pain services. This care coordination often included postsurgical joint clinic appointments in which TPS providers and nurses would be present with the surgeon or the PCP.

For patients with inadequately treated chronic pain conditions or who required long-term opioid tapers, we developed a combined clinic with the TPS and Anesthesia Chronic Pain group. This clinic allows patients to be seen by both services in the same setting, allowing a warm handoff by TPS to the chronic pain team.

Heath and Decision Support Tools 

An electronic dashboard registry of surgical episodes managed by TPS was developed to achieve clinical, administrative, and quality improvement goals. The dashboard registry consists of surgical episode data, opioid doses, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical decision-making processes. Custom-built note templates capture pertinent data through embedded data labels, called health factors. Data are captured as part of routine clinical care, recorded in Computerized Patient Record System as health factors. They are available in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse as structured data. Workflows are executed daily to keep the dashboard registry current, clean, and able to process new data. Information displays direct daily clinical workflow and support point-of-care clinical decision making (Figures 2, 3, and 4). Data are aggregated across patient-care encounters and allow nurse care coordinators to concisely review pertinent patient data prior to delivering care. These data include surgical history, comorbidities, timeline of opioid use, and PROMIS scores during their course of recovery. This system allows TPS to optimize care delivery by providing longitudinal data across the surgical episode, thereby reducing the time needed to review records. Secondary purposes of captured data include measuring clinic performance and quality improvement to improve care delivery.

Results

The TPS intervention was implemented January 1, 2018. Two-hundred thirteen patients were enrolled between January and December 2018, which included 60 (28%) patients with a history of chronic opioid use and 153 (72%) patients who were considered opioid naïve. A total of 99% of patients had ≥ 1 successful follow-up within 14 days after discharge, 96% had ≥ 1 follow-up between 14 and 30 days after surgery, and 72% had completed personal follow-up 90 days after discharge (Table 3). For patients who TPS was unable to contact in person or by phone, 90-day MEDD was obtained using prescription and Controlled Substance Database reviews. The protocol for this retrospective analysis was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and the VA Research Review Committee.

By 90 days after surgery, 26 (43.3%) COUs were off opioids completely, 17 (28.3%) had decreased their opioid dose from their preoperative baseline MEDD (120 [SD, 108] vs 55 [SD, 45]), 14 (23.3%) returned to their baseline dose, and 3 (5%) increased from their baseline dose. Of the 153 patients who were NOUs before surgery, only 1 (0.7%) was taking opioids after 90 days. TPS continued to work closely with the patient and their PCP and that patient was finally able to stop opioid use 262 days after discharge. Ten patients had an additional surgery within 90 days of the initial surgery. Of these, 6 were COU, of whom 3 stopped all opioids by 90 days from their original surgery, 2 had no change in MEDD at 90 days, and 1 had a lower MEDD at 90 days. Of the 4 NOU who had additional surgery, all were off opioids by 90 days from the original surgery.

Discussion

With any new clinical service, there are obstacles and challenges. TPS requires a considerable investment in personnel, and currently no mechanism is in place for obtaining payment for many of the provided services. We were fortunate the VA Whole Health Initiative, the VA Office of Rural Health, and the VA Centers of Innovation provided support for the development, implementation, and pilot evaluation of TPS. After we presented our initial results to hospital leadership, we also received hospital support to expand TPS service to include a total of 4 nurse care coordinators and 2 psychologists. We are currently performing a cost analysis of the service but recognize that this model may be difficult to reproduce at other institutions without a change in reimbursement standards.

Developing a working relationship with the surgical and primary care services required a concerted effort from the TPS team and a number of months to become effective. As most veterans receive primary care, mental health care, and surgical care within the VA system, this model lends itself to close care coordination. Initially there was skepticism about TPS recommendations to reduce opioid use, especially from PCPs who had cared for complex patients over many years. But this uncertainty went away as we showed evidence of close patient follow-up and detailed communication. TPS soon became the designated service for both primary care and surgical providers who were otherwise uncomfortable with how to approach opioid tapers and nonopioid pain strategies. In fact, a substantial portion of our referrals now come directly from the PCP who is referring a high-risk patient for evaluation for surgery rather than from the surgeons, and joint visits with TPS and primary care have become commonplace.

Challenges abound when working with patients with substance abuse history, opioid use history, high anxiety, significant pain catastrophizing, and those who have had previous negative experiences with surgery. We have found that the most important facet of our service comes from the amount of time and effort team members, especially the nurses, spend helping patients. Much of the nurses' work focuses on nonpain-related issues, such as assisting patients with finding transportation, housing issues, questions about medications, help scheduling appointments, etc. Through this concerted effort, patients gain trust in TPS providers and are willing to listen to and experiment with our recommendations. Many patients who were initially extremely unreceptive to the presurgery education asked for our support weeks after surgery to help with postsurgery pain.

Another challenge we continue to experience comes from the success of the program. We receive many requests from PCPs to help with opioid tapers and pain management for nonsurgical patients. Although we are happy that they look to TPS for assistance, the pressure to expand threatens our ability to maintain the expected quality of work we are trying to provide for surgical patients.

Conclusions

The multidisciplinary TPS supports greater preoperative to postoperative longitudinal care for surgical patients. This endeavor has resulted in better patient preparation before surgery and improved care coordination after surgery, with specific improvements in appropriate use of opioid medications and smooth transitions of care for patients with ongoing and complex needs. Development of sophisticated note templates and customized health information technology allows for accurate follow-through and data gathering for quality improvement, facilitating data-driven improvements and proving value to the facility.

Given that TPS is a multidisciplinary program with multiple interventions, it is difficult to pinpoint which specific aspects of TPS are most effective in achieving success. For example, although we have little doubt that the work our psychologists do with our patients is beneficial and even essential for the success we have had with some of our most difficult patients, it is less clear whether it matters if they use mindfulness, ACT matrix, or cognitive behavioral therapy. We think that an important part of TPS is the frequent human interaction with a caring individual. Therefore, as TPS continues to grow, maintaining the ability to provide frequent personal interaction is a priority.

The role of opioids in acute pain deserves further scrutiny. In 2018, with TPS use of opioids after orthopedic surgery decreased by > 40% from the previous year. Despite this more restricted use of opioids, pain interference and physical function scores indicated that surgical patients do not seem to experience increased pain or reduced physical function. In addition, stopping opioid use for COUs did not seem to affect the quality of recovery, pain, or physical function. Future prospective controlled studies of TPS are needed to confirm these findings and identify which aspects of TPS are most effective in improving functional recovery of patients. Also, more evidence is needed to determine the appropriateness or need for opioids in acute postsurgical pain.

TPS has expanded to include all surgical specialties. Given the high burden and limited resources, we have chosen to focus on patients at higher risk for chronic postsurgical pain by type of surgery (eg, thoracotomy, open abdominal, limb amputation, major joint surgery) and/or history of substance abuse or chronic opioid use. To better direct scarce resources where it would be of most benefit, we are now enrolling only NOUs without other risk factors postoperatively if they request a refill of opioids or are otherwise struggling with pain control after surgery. Whether this approach affects the success we had in the first year in preventing new COUs after surgery remains to be seen.

It is unlikely that any single model of a perioperative surgical home will fit the needs of the many different types of medical systems that exist. The TPS model fits well in large hospital systems, like the VA, where patients receive most of their care within the same system. However, it seems to us that the optimal TPS program in any health system will provide education, support, and care coordination beginning preoperatively to prepare the patient for surgery and then to facilitate care coordination to transition patients back to their PCPs or on to specialized chronic care.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Candice Harmon, RN; David Merrill, RN; Amy Beckstead, RN, who have provided invaluable assistance with establishing the TPS program at the VA Salt Lake City and helping with the evaluation process.

Funding for the implementation and evaluation of the TPS was received from the VA Whole Health Initiative, the VA Center of Innovation, the VA Office of Rural Health, and National Institutes of Health Grant UL1TR002538.