Few fireworks are expected as confirmation hearings begin for David J. Shulkin, MD, for secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Shulkin, who served as under secretary of health during the Obama administration, has widespread support from veteran service organizations, Democrats, and Republicans.  

Related: Shulkin: VA "Not a Political Issue”

“We ask for the speedy confirmation of Dr. David Shulkin,” Randy Reeves, president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs wrote in a letter to committee members. “As we all know, Dr. Shulkin is an accomplished physician and leader in healthcare. Most importantly, I think, he has been an important leader in the team that has effected the largest (positive) transformation in VA’s history. We can all agree there is still work ahead and we are confident that David Shulkin will be a great leader for VA, serve our veterans well and continue the MyVA Transformation.”

One of the likely topics in the hearing will be in the impact of the federal hiring freeze implemented by the Trump administration. The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Snyder recently released a memo that insisted that the freeze will not affect many categories of VA employees. The VA will exempt frontline personnel at VA medical centers, outpatient clinics, community-based outpatient clinics, and health centers who “it deems necessary for public health and safety,” Snyder said in a statement. As VA Secretary Nominee, Dr. Shulkin recently told Federal Practitioner, there are currently 45,000 openings at the VA for frontline medical positions.

Related: Shulkin Addresses APRN Rule, Health Care Vacancies, and Access

Recognizing the important role the VA plays in “training the nations health care providers,” the memo also exempted personnel involved in training and residency programs.

Those positions have proven to be difficult to fill. According to an investigation by National Public Radio (NPR) and local member stations, even an infusion of $2.5 billion from the Veterans Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which was meant to help VA medical centers with the most urgent wait time problems, has not helped. “New hires weren’t sent to VA hospitals with the longest wait times,” NPR reported, “and the VA medical centers that got new hires were not more likely to see improved wait times.”

According to the NPR report, about 13% of the candidates for VA positions withdraw before they are hired due to the “months-long lag time after they are hired.”

Related: Get to Know the Trump Administration VA Secretary Nominee

Few fireworks are expected as confirmation hearings begin for David J. Shulkin, MD, for secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Shulkin, who served as under secretary of health during the Obama administration, has widespread support from veteran service organizations, Democrats, and Republicans.  

Related: Shulkin: VA "Not a Political Issue”

“We ask for the speedy confirmation of Dr. David Shulkin,” Randy Reeves, president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs wrote in a letter to committee members. “As we all know, Dr. Shulkin is an accomplished physician and leader in healthcare. Most importantly, I think, he has been an important leader in the team that has effected the largest (positive) transformation in VA’s history. We can all agree there is still work ahead and we are confident that David Shulkin will be a great leader for VA, serve our veterans well and continue the MyVA Transformation.”

One of the likely topics in the hearing will be in the impact of the federal hiring freeze implemented by the Trump administration. The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Snyder recently released a memo that insisted that the freeze will not affect many categories of VA employees. The VA will exempt frontline personnel at VA medical centers, outpatient clinics, community-based outpatient clinics, and health centers who “it deems necessary for public health and safety,” Snyder said in a statement. As VA Secretary Nominee, Dr. Shulkin recently told Federal Practitioner, there are currently 45,000 openings at the VA for frontline medical positions.

Related: Shulkin Addresses APRN Rule, Health Care Vacancies, and Access

Recognizing the important role the VA plays in “training the nations health care providers,” the memo also exempted personnel involved in training and residency programs.

Those positions have proven to be difficult to fill. According to an investigation by National Public Radio (NPR) and local member stations, even an infusion of $2.5 billion from the Veterans Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which was meant to help VA medical centers with the most urgent wait time problems, has not helped. “New hires weren’t sent to VA hospitals with the longest wait times,” NPR reported, “and the VA medical centers that got new hires were not more likely to see improved wait times.”

According to the NPR report, about 13% of the candidates for VA positions withdraw before they are hired due to the “months-long lag time after they are hired.”

Related: Get to Know the Trump Administration VA Secretary Nominee

Few fireworks are expected as confirmation hearings begin for David J. Shulkin, MD, for secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Shulkin, who served as under secretary of health during the Obama administration, has widespread support from veteran service organizations, Democrats, and Republicans.  

Related: Shulkin: VA "Not a Political Issue”

“We ask for the speedy confirmation of Dr. David Shulkin,” Randy Reeves, president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs wrote in a letter to committee members. “As we all know, Dr. Shulkin is an accomplished physician and leader in healthcare. Most importantly, I think, he has been an important leader in the team that has effected the largest (positive) transformation in VA’s history. We can all agree there is still work ahead and we are confident that David Shulkin will be a great leader for VA, serve our veterans well and continue the MyVA Transformation.”

One of the likely topics in the hearing will be in the impact of the federal hiring freeze implemented by the Trump administration. The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Snyder recently released a memo that insisted that the freeze will not affect many categories of VA employees. The VA will exempt frontline personnel at VA medical centers, outpatient clinics, community-based outpatient clinics, and health centers who “it deems necessary for public health and safety,” Snyder said in a statement. As VA Secretary Nominee, Dr. Shulkin recently told Federal Practitioner, there are currently 45,000 openings at the VA for frontline medical positions.

Related: Shulkin Addresses APRN Rule, Health Care Vacancies, and Access

Recognizing the important role the VA plays in “training the nations health care providers,” the memo also exempted personnel involved in training and residency programs.

Those positions have proven to be difficult to fill. According to an investigation by National Public Radio (NPR) and local member stations, even an infusion of $2.5 billion from the Veterans Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which was meant to help VA medical centers with the most urgent wait time problems, has not helped. “New hires weren’t sent to VA hospitals with the longest wait times,” NPR reported, “and the VA medical centers that got new hires were not more likely to see improved wait times.”

According to the NPR report, about 13% of the candidates for VA positions withdraw before they are hired due to the “months-long lag time after they are hired.”

Related: Get to Know the Trump Administration VA Secretary Nominee

Click here to access the Best Practices in Hematology and Oncology 2017 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• Timeliness of Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
• Treatment and Management of Multiple Myeloma
• Ketogenic Diets and Cancer: Emerging Evidence
• Distress Screening and Management in an Outpatient VA Cancer Clinic: A Pilot Project Involving Ambulatory Patients Across the Disease Trajectory
• A Road Map for Creating a CPRS Template for a Cancer Survivorship Treatment Summary and Care Plan

Click here to access the Best Practices in Hematology and Oncology 2017 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• Timeliness of Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
• Treatment and Management of Multiple Myeloma
• Ketogenic Diets and Cancer: Emerging Evidence
• Distress Screening and Management in an Outpatient VA Cancer Clinic: A Pilot Project Involving Ambulatory Patients Across the Disease Trajectory
• A Road Map for Creating a CPRS Template for a Cancer Survivorship Treatment Summary and Care Plan

Click here to access the Best Practices in Hematology and Oncology 2017 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• Timeliness of Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
• Treatment and Management of Multiple Myeloma
• Ketogenic Diets and Cancer: Emerging Evidence
• Distress Screening and Management in an Outpatient VA Cancer Clinic: A Pilot Project Involving Ambulatory Patients Across the Disease Trajectory
• A Road Map for Creating a CPRS Template for a Cancer Survivorship Treatment Summary and Care Plan

Click here to access the February 2017 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• The VA Is Not Just a Hospital, It Is a Community
• Minimizing Postdisaster Fatalities
• A Primary Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention on Pneumonia Treatment Duration
• Review of the Long-Term Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors
• Malnutrition as a Fall Risk Factor
• Sleep-Disordered Breathing in the Active-Duty Military Population and Its Civilian Care Cost
• Anticoagulation Management Outcomes in Veterans: Office vs Telephone Visits
• Allergic Reaction to Phenylephrine
• FDA Updates
• COVER to COVER: Connecting Older Veterans (Especially Rural) to Community or Veteran-Eligible Resources

Click here to access the February 2017 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• The VA Is Not Just a Hospital, It Is a Community
• Minimizing Postdisaster Fatalities
• A Primary Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention on Pneumonia Treatment Duration
• Review of the Long-Term Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors
• Malnutrition as a Fall Risk Factor
• Sleep-Disordered Breathing in the Active-Duty Military Population and Its Civilian Care Cost
• Anticoagulation Management Outcomes in Veterans: Office vs Telephone Visits
• Allergic Reaction to Phenylephrine
• FDA Updates
• COVER to COVER: Connecting Older Veterans (Especially Rural) to Community or Veteran-Eligible Resources

Click here to access the February 2017 Digital Edition.

Table of Contents

• The VA Is Not Just a Hospital, It Is a Community
• Minimizing Postdisaster Fatalities
• A Primary Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention on Pneumonia Treatment Duration
• Review of the Long-Term Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors
• Malnutrition as a Fall Risk Factor
• Sleep-Disordered Breathing in the Active-Duty Military Population and Its Civilian Care Cost
• Anticoagulation Management Outcomes in Veterans: Office vs Telephone Visits
• Allergic Reaction to Phenylephrine
• FDA Updates
• COVER to COVER: Connecting Older Veterans (Especially Rural) to Community or Veteran-Eligible Resources

Session at the 9th Annual

T-cell Lymphoma Forum

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Researchers have used data from the T-Cell Project (TCP) to create a prognostic model for peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS).

Analyses have suggested the TCP model is more accurate for PTCL-NOS than 4 other prognostic models—the International Prognostic Index (IPI), the Prognostic Index for T-cell Lymphoma (PIT), the International Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma Project score (IPTCLP), and the modified PIT (mPIT).

Massimo Federico, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, described the TCP model at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Creating the model

TCP is a prospective registry that includes data from T-cell lymphoma patients in 15 countries located in 5 different regions of the world. As of December 31, 2016, 1523 cases of T-cell lymphoma have been registered with TCP.

Dr Federico and his colleagues used these data to create their prognostic model. There were 311 patients with PTCL-NOS who had adequate data for analysis. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for these patients was 36%.

The researchers chose 13 variables from the literature that have been reported to have a prognostic impact on survival in PTCL-NOS:

• Age > 60
• Lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal
• Albumin < 3.5 g/dL
• Hemoglobin < 12 g/dL
• Platelets < 150/mm³
• Lymphocyte to monocyte ratio ≤ 2.1
• Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio > 6.5
• Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 6.5/mm³
• ECOG performance status > 1
• Stage III-IV disease
• B symptoms
• Extra nodal sites > 1
• Male gender.

In univariate analysis, nearly all of these factors were significantly associated with OS in the cohort of TCP patients. (The 2 exceptions were age older than 60 and having more than 1 extranodal site.)

However, Dr Federico and his colleagues said the factors with the greatest prognostic impact were:

• ECOG performance status > 1, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.12 (P<0.001)
• Albumin < 3.5 g/dL, with an HR of 2.03 (P<0.001)
• ANC > 6.5/mm³, with an HR of 1.85 (P<0.001)
• Stage III-IV disease, with an HR of 1.74 (P=0.010).

So the researchers used these factors in their model, which has 3 risk categories.

Risk categories

Patients were considered low-risk if they had 0 of the 4 risk factors. These patients had a 3-year OS of 76% and a 5-year OS of 69%.

Patients were considered intermediate-risk if they had 1 to 2 risk factors. These patients had a 3-year OS of 43% and a 5-year OS of 31%. Compared to low-risk patients, the HR was 3.08 (P<0.001).

Patients were considered high-risk if they had 3 to 4 risk factors. The 3-year OS was 11% for these patients, and the 5-year OS was 8%.

The HR was 8.88 (P<0.001) for high-risk compared to low-risk patients and 2.88 (P<0.001) for high-risk compared to intermediate-risk patients.

Validation

The researchers tested the TCP model in a validation cohort of 98 patients from the COMPLETE registry. As with the training cohort of TCP patients, the model revealed 3 different risk groups (in terms of OS) in the validation cohort.

Dr Federico noted that there were no significant differences between the training and validation cohorts, except when it came to follow-up. The median follow-up was 46 months in the TCP group and 18 months in the COMPLETE group.

The researchers also found the TCP could classify patients into 3 different risk groups according to progression-free survival.

Comparison

Finally, Dr Federico and his colleagues compared the TCP model to the IPI, PIT, IPTCLP, and mPIT models using 208 patients.

“The discriminant power of the proposed model is superior to the others in terms of all of the statistical tests we adopted,” Dr Federico said.

In closing, Dr Federico said the TCP model clearly defines risk groups in PTCL-NOS and identifies patients with relatively good prognosis.

However, there is a need for emerging biologic variables to be tested for prognostic value and included in prognostic tools to allow for better risk stratification.

*c-Harrel: Harrell’s concordance index, 95% CI: confidence interval, D-Royston: Royston/Sauerbrei’s D statistic (Stat Med 2004 Mar 15, 23[5]:723-48), SE: standard error, R²: explained randomness, AIC: Akaike information criterion, AUC: area under the curve (according to Heagerty et al, Biometrics, 2000 Jun, 56[2]:337-44).

Session at the 9th Annual

T-cell Lymphoma Forum

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Researchers have used data from the T-Cell Project (TCP) to create a prognostic model for peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS).

Analyses have suggested the TCP model is more accurate for PTCL-NOS than 4 other prognostic models—the International Prognostic Index (IPI), the Prognostic Index for T-cell Lymphoma (PIT), the International Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma Project score (IPTCLP), and the modified PIT (mPIT).

Massimo Federico, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, described the TCP model at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Creating the model

TCP is a prospective registry that includes data from T-cell lymphoma patients in 15 countries located in 5 different regions of the world. As of December 31, 2016, 1523 cases of T-cell lymphoma have been registered with TCP.

Dr Federico and his colleagues used these data to create their prognostic model. There were 311 patients with PTCL-NOS who had adequate data for analysis. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for these patients was 36%.

The researchers chose 13 variables from the literature that have been reported to have a prognostic impact on survival in PTCL-NOS:

• Age > 60
• Lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal
• Albumin < 3.5 g/dL
• Hemoglobin < 12 g/dL
• Platelets < 150/mm³
• Lymphocyte to monocyte ratio ≤ 2.1
• Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio > 6.5
• Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 6.5/mm³
• ECOG performance status > 1
• Stage III-IV disease
• B symptoms
• Extra nodal sites > 1
• Male gender.

In univariate analysis, nearly all of these factors were significantly associated with OS in the cohort of TCP patients. (The 2 exceptions were age older than 60 and having more than 1 extranodal site.)

However, Dr Federico and his colleagues said the factors with the greatest prognostic impact were:

• ECOG performance status > 1, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.12 (P<0.001)
• Albumin < 3.5 g/dL, with an HR of 2.03 (P<0.001)
• ANC > 6.5/mm³, with an HR of 1.85 (P<0.001)
• Stage III-IV disease, with an HR of 1.74 (P=0.010).

So the researchers used these factors in their model, which has 3 risk categories.

Risk categories

Patients were considered low-risk if they had 0 of the 4 risk factors. These patients had a 3-year OS of 76% and a 5-year OS of 69%.

Patients were considered intermediate-risk if they had 1 to 2 risk factors. These patients had a 3-year OS of 43% and a 5-year OS of 31%. Compared to low-risk patients, the HR was 3.08 (P<0.001).

Patients were considered high-risk if they had 3 to 4 risk factors. The 3-year OS was 11% for these patients, and the 5-year OS was 8%.

The HR was 8.88 (P<0.001) for high-risk compared to low-risk patients and 2.88 (P<0.001) for high-risk compared to intermediate-risk patients.

Validation

The researchers tested the TCP model in a validation cohort of 98 patients from the COMPLETE registry. As with the training cohort of TCP patients, the model revealed 3 different risk groups (in terms of OS) in the validation cohort.

Dr Federico noted that there were no significant differences between the training and validation cohorts, except when it came to follow-up. The median follow-up was 46 months in the TCP group and 18 months in the COMPLETE group.

The researchers also found the TCP could classify patients into 3 different risk groups according to progression-free survival.

Comparison

Finally, Dr Federico and his colleagues compared the TCP model to the IPI, PIT, IPTCLP, and mPIT models using 208 patients.

“The discriminant power of the proposed model is superior to the others in terms of all of the statistical tests we adopted,” Dr Federico said.

In closing, Dr Federico said the TCP model clearly defines risk groups in PTCL-NOS and identifies patients with relatively good prognosis.

However, there is a need for emerging biologic variables to be tested for prognostic value and included in prognostic tools to allow for better risk stratification.

*c-Harrel: Harrell’s concordance index, 95% CI: confidence interval, D-Royston: Royston/Sauerbrei’s D statistic (Stat Med 2004 Mar 15, 23[5]:723-48), SE: standard error, R²: explained randomness, AIC: Akaike information criterion, AUC: area under the curve (according to Heagerty et al, Biometrics, 2000 Jun, 56[2]:337-44).

Session at the 9th Annual

T-cell Lymphoma Forum

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Researchers have used data from the T-Cell Project (TCP) to create a prognostic model for peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS).

Analyses have suggested the TCP model is more accurate for PTCL-NOS than 4 other prognostic models—the International Prognostic Index (IPI), the Prognostic Index for T-cell Lymphoma (PIT), the International Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma Project score (IPTCLP), and the modified PIT (mPIT).

Massimo Federico, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, described the TCP model at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Creating the model

TCP is a prospective registry that includes data from T-cell lymphoma patients in 15 countries located in 5 different regions of the world. As of December 31, 2016, 1523 cases of T-cell lymphoma have been registered with TCP.

Dr Federico and his colleagues used these data to create their prognostic model. There were 311 patients with PTCL-NOS who had adequate data for analysis. The 5-year overall survival (OS) for these patients was 36%.

The researchers chose 13 variables from the literature that have been reported to have a prognostic impact on survival in PTCL-NOS:

• Age > 60
• Lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal
• Albumin < 3.5 g/dL
• Hemoglobin < 12 g/dL
• Platelets < 150/mm³
• Lymphocyte to monocyte ratio ≤ 2.1
• Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio > 6.5
• Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 6.5/mm³
• ECOG performance status > 1
• Stage III-IV disease
• B symptoms
• Extra nodal sites > 1
• Male gender.

In univariate analysis, nearly all of these factors were significantly associated with OS in the cohort of TCP patients. (The 2 exceptions were age older than 60 and having more than 1 extranodal site.)

However, Dr Federico and his colleagues said the factors with the greatest prognostic impact were:

• ECOG performance status > 1, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.12 (P<0.001)
• Albumin < 3.5 g/dL, with an HR of 2.03 (P<0.001)
• ANC > 6.5/mm³, with an HR of 1.85 (P<0.001)
• Stage III-IV disease, with an HR of 1.74 (P=0.010).

So the researchers used these factors in their model, which has 3 risk categories.

Risk categories

Patients were considered low-risk if they had 0 of the 4 risk factors. These patients had a 3-year OS of 76% and a 5-year OS of 69%.

Patients were considered intermediate-risk if they had 1 to 2 risk factors. These patients had a 3-year OS of 43% and a 5-year OS of 31%. Compared to low-risk patients, the HR was 3.08 (P<0.001).

Patients were considered high-risk if they had 3 to 4 risk factors. The 3-year OS was 11% for these patients, and the 5-year OS was 8%.

The HR was 8.88 (P<0.001) for high-risk compared to low-risk patients and 2.88 (P<0.001) for high-risk compared to intermediate-risk patients.

Validation

The researchers tested the TCP model in a validation cohort of 98 patients from the COMPLETE registry. As with the training cohort of TCP patients, the model revealed 3 different risk groups (in terms of OS) in the validation cohort.

Dr Federico noted that there were no significant differences between the training and validation cohorts, except when it came to follow-up. The median follow-up was 46 months in the TCP group and 18 months in the COMPLETE group.

The researchers also found the TCP could classify patients into 3 different risk groups according to progression-free survival.

Comparison

Finally, Dr Federico and his colleagues compared the TCP model to the IPI, PIT, IPTCLP, and mPIT models using 208 patients.

“The discriminant power of the proposed model is superior to the others in terms of all of the statistical tests we adopted,” Dr Federico said.

In closing, Dr Federico said the TCP model clearly defines risk groups in PTCL-NOS and identifies patients with relatively good prognosis.

However, there is a need for emerging biologic variables to be tested for prognostic value and included in prognostic tools to allow for better risk stratification.

*c-Harrel: Harrell’s concordance index, 95% CI: confidence interval, D-Royston: Royston/Sauerbrei’s D statistic (Stat Med 2004 Mar 15, 23[5]:723-48), SE: standard error, R²: explained randomness, AIC: Akaike information criterion, AUC: area under the curve (according to Heagerty et al, Biometrics, 2000 Jun, 56[2]:337-44).

Massimo Federico, MD
Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—The T-Cell Project has provided information that can enhance our understanding of T-cell lymphomas, according to a presentation at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

The project is a prospective registry that includes data from T-cell lymphoma patients in 15 countries located in 5 different regions of the world. 

The data showed that peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) is the most common subtype of T-cell lymphoma in all 5 regions, although the distribution of other subtypes varies.

A majority of patients in the registry received chemotherapy as induction, and anthracycline-containing regimens were the most popular treatment choice.

Although 60% of patients in the registry had low-risk or low/intermediate-risk disease, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were low. The 5-year PFS was 32%, and the 5-year OS was 42%.

Massimo Federico, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, presented these data at the meeting.

About the project

Dr Federico said the goals of the T-Cell Project are to determine if prospective data collection provides more accurate information to better define prognosis of the most frequent subtypes of T-cell lymphoma and to improve our knowledge of clinical and biological characteristics, as well as outcomes, of the more uncommon subtypes.

“Why did we choose to propose a prospective registry for the collection of information in T-cell lymphoma?” Dr Federico asked. “Because it is, by far, less expensive than a clinical trial, but also because it can offer excellent data for generating new research programs and is a great opportunity for academic cooperation.”

As of December 31, 2016, the registry included 1523 patients. There were 75 sites (with at least 1 patient) active in the registry.

Fifteen countries in 5 geographic regions were represented. Europe was the greatest contributor (44%), followed by North America (US only, 25%), South America (20%), the Far East (9%), the Middle East (2%), and Oceania (<1%).

Subtypes

Overall, the distribution of the different T-cell lymphoma subtypes is as follows:

PTCL-NOS—36%
Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL)—17%
ALK- anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL)—16%
NK/T-cell lymphoma (NKTCL)—11%
ALK+ ALCL—8%
Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma—4%
Unclassifiable T-cell lymphoma—3%
Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma—2%
Subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma—2%
Peripheral gamma delta T-cell lymphoma—1%

Geographic distribution

The most common T-cell lymphoma subtypes in Europe were PTCL-NOS (37%), AITL (21%), and ALK- ALCL (14%). Likewise, the most common subtypes in the US were PTCL-NOS (35%), AITL (21%), and ALK- ALCL (13%).

In the Middle East, the most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS (40%), AITL (16%), and ALK+ ALCL (13%). In South America, they were PTCL-NOS (41%), ALK- ALCL (26%), and NKTCL (10%). And in Asia, they were PTCL-NOS (29%), NKTCL (29%), and AITL (17%).

Patient characteristics

Dr Federico presented data on patient characteristics for 1391 individuals, validated as of April 30, 2016.

The patients’ median age was 56 (range, 18-89). Forty-four percent were 60 or older, and 60% were male. Twenty-six percent had ECOG performance status > 1, 50% had B symptoms, and 72% had disease-related discomfort.

Sixty percent had low-risk or low/intermediate-risk disease according to the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and the Prognostic Index for T-cell Lymphoma (PIT).

Treatment

Treatment details are available for 1022 patients. Ninety-two percent received therapy with curative intent.

For induction, 76% of patients received chemotherapy alone, 14% received chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 8% received best supportive care, and 2% received radiotherapy alone.

Seventy-one percent of patients who received chemotherapy had an anthracycline-containing regimen, 13% received etoposide-containing chemotherapy, 9% received chemotherapy containing an anthracycline and etoposide, and 7% of patients received other therapy.

Thirteen percent of patients received a transplant as salvage treatment, and 7% received a transplant as consolidation.

Outcomes

Data on patient responses to initial treatment were available for 888 individuals. The 84 patients who received best supportive care were not included, and 50 patients were not evaluable for response.

The complete response/unconfirmed complete response rate was 53%, and the partial response rate was 19%. Twenty-eight percent of patients had no response or progressed.

The median PFS was 16 months. The 5-year PFS rate was 32% overall, 23% for PTCL-NOS, 28% for AITL, 39% for ALK- ALCL, and 57% for ALK+ ALCL.

The median OS was 36 months. The 5-year OS was 42% overall, 34% for PTCL-NOS, 42% for AITL, 46% for ALK- ALCL, and 76% for ALK+ ALCL.

Dr Federico and his colleagues have used these data to develop a prognostic model for PTCL-NOS that, they say, is more accurate than current models.

Massimo Federico, MD
Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—The T-Cell Project has provided information that can enhance our understanding of T-cell lymphomas, according to a presentation at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

The project is a prospective registry that includes data from T-cell lymphoma patients in 15 countries located in 5 different regions of the world. 

The data showed that peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) is the most common subtype of T-cell lymphoma in all 5 regions, although the distribution of other subtypes varies.

A majority of patients in the registry received chemotherapy as induction, and anthracycline-containing regimens were the most popular treatment choice.

Although 60% of patients in the registry had low-risk or low/intermediate-risk disease, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were low. The 5-year PFS was 32%, and the 5-year OS was 42%.

Massimo Federico, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, presented these data at the meeting.

About the project

Dr Federico said the goals of the T-Cell Project are to determine if prospective data collection provides more accurate information to better define prognosis of the most frequent subtypes of T-cell lymphoma and to improve our knowledge of clinical and biological characteristics, as well as outcomes, of the more uncommon subtypes.

“Why did we choose to propose a prospective registry for the collection of information in T-cell lymphoma?” Dr Federico asked. “Because it is, by far, less expensive than a clinical trial, but also because it can offer excellent data for generating new research programs and is a great opportunity for academic cooperation.”

As of December 31, 2016, the registry included 1523 patients. There were 75 sites (with at least 1 patient) active in the registry.

Fifteen countries in 5 geographic regions were represented. Europe was the greatest contributor (44%), followed by North America (US only, 25%), South America (20%), the Far East (9%), the Middle East (2%), and Oceania (<1%).

Subtypes

Overall, the distribution of the different T-cell lymphoma subtypes is as follows:

PTCL-NOS—36%
Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL)—17%
ALK- anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL)—16%
NK/T-cell lymphoma (NKTCL)—11%
ALK+ ALCL—8%
Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma—4%
Unclassifiable T-cell lymphoma—3%
Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma—2%
Subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma—2%
Peripheral gamma delta T-cell lymphoma—1%

Geographic distribution

The most common T-cell lymphoma subtypes in Europe were PTCL-NOS (37%), AITL (21%), and ALK- ALCL (14%). Likewise, the most common subtypes in the US were PTCL-NOS (35%), AITL (21%), and ALK- ALCL (13%).

In the Middle East, the most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS (40%), AITL (16%), and ALK+ ALCL (13%). In South America, they were PTCL-NOS (41%), ALK- ALCL (26%), and NKTCL (10%). And in Asia, they were PTCL-NOS (29%), NKTCL (29%), and AITL (17%).

Patient characteristics

Dr Federico presented data on patient characteristics for 1391 individuals, validated as of April 30, 2016.

The patients’ median age was 56 (range, 18-89). Forty-four percent were 60 or older, and 60% were male. Twenty-six percent had ECOG performance status > 1, 50% had B symptoms, and 72% had disease-related discomfort.

Sixty percent had low-risk or low/intermediate-risk disease according to the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and the Prognostic Index for T-cell Lymphoma (PIT).

Treatment

Treatment details are available for 1022 patients. Ninety-two percent received therapy with curative intent.

For induction, 76% of patients received chemotherapy alone, 14% received chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 8% received best supportive care, and 2% received radiotherapy alone.

Seventy-one percent of patients who received chemotherapy had an anthracycline-containing regimen, 13% received etoposide-containing chemotherapy, 9% received chemotherapy containing an anthracycline and etoposide, and 7% of patients received other therapy.

Thirteen percent of patients received a transplant as salvage treatment, and 7% received a transplant as consolidation.

Outcomes

Data on patient responses to initial treatment were available for 888 individuals. The 84 patients who received best supportive care were not included, and 50 patients were not evaluable for response.

The complete response/unconfirmed complete response rate was 53%, and the partial response rate was 19%. Twenty-eight percent of patients had no response or progressed.

The median PFS was 16 months. The 5-year PFS rate was 32% overall, 23% for PTCL-NOS, 28% for AITL, 39% for ALK- ALCL, and 57% for ALK+ ALCL.

The median OS was 36 months. The 5-year OS was 42% overall, 34% for PTCL-NOS, 42% for AITL, 46% for ALK- ALCL, and 76% for ALK+ ALCL.

Dr Federico and his colleagues have used these data to develop a prognostic model for PTCL-NOS that, they say, is more accurate than current models.

Massimo Federico, MD
Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—The T-Cell Project has provided information that can enhance our understanding of T-cell lymphomas, according to a presentation at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

The project is a prospective registry that includes data from T-cell lymphoma patients in 15 countries located in 5 different regions of the world. 

The data showed that peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) is the most common subtype of T-cell lymphoma in all 5 regions, although the distribution of other subtypes varies.

A majority of patients in the registry received chemotherapy as induction, and anthracycline-containing regimens were the most popular treatment choice.

Although 60% of patients in the registry had low-risk or low/intermediate-risk disease, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were low. The 5-year PFS was 32%, and the 5-year OS was 42%.

Massimo Federico, MD, of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, presented these data at the meeting.

About the project

Dr Federico said the goals of the T-Cell Project are to determine if prospective data collection provides more accurate information to better define prognosis of the most frequent subtypes of T-cell lymphoma and to improve our knowledge of clinical and biological characteristics, as well as outcomes, of the more uncommon subtypes.

“Why did we choose to propose a prospective registry for the collection of information in T-cell lymphoma?” Dr Federico asked. “Because it is, by far, less expensive than a clinical trial, but also because it can offer excellent data for generating new research programs and is a great opportunity for academic cooperation.”

As of December 31, 2016, the registry included 1523 patients. There were 75 sites (with at least 1 patient) active in the registry.

Fifteen countries in 5 geographic regions were represented. Europe was the greatest contributor (44%), followed by North America (US only, 25%), South America (20%), the Far East (9%), the Middle East (2%), and Oceania (<1%).

Subtypes

Overall, the distribution of the different T-cell lymphoma subtypes is as follows:

PTCL-NOS—36%
Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL)—17%
ALK- anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL)—16%
NK/T-cell lymphoma (NKTCL)—11%
ALK+ ALCL—8%
Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma—4%
Unclassifiable T-cell lymphoma—3%
Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma—2%
Subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma—2%
Peripheral gamma delta T-cell lymphoma—1%

Geographic distribution

The most common T-cell lymphoma subtypes in Europe were PTCL-NOS (37%), AITL (21%), and ALK- ALCL (14%). Likewise, the most common subtypes in the US were PTCL-NOS (35%), AITL (21%), and ALK- ALCL (13%).

In the Middle East, the most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS (40%), AITL (16%), and ALK+ ALCL (13%). In South America, they were PTCL-NOS (41%), ALK- ALCL (26%), and NKTCL (10%). And in Asia, they were PTCL-NOS (29%), NKTCL (29%), and AITL (17%).

Patient characteristics

Dr Federico presented data on patient characteristics for 1391 individuals, validated as of April 30, 2016.

The patients’ median age was 56 (range, 18-89). Forty-four percent were 60 or older, and 60% were male. Twenty-six percent had ECOG performance status > 1, 50% had B symptoms, and 72% had disease-related discomfort.

Sixty percent had low-risk or low/intermediate-risk disease according to the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and the Prognostic Index for T-cell Lymphoma (PIT).

Treatment

Treatment details are available for 1022 patients. Ninety-two percent received therapy with curative intent.

For induction, 76% of patients received chemotherapy alone, 14% received chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 8% received best supportive care, and 2% received radiotherapy alone.

Seventy-one percent of patients who received chemotherapy had an anthracycline-containing regimen, 13% received etoposide-containing chemotherapy, 9% received chemotherapy containing an anthracycline and etoposide, and 7% of patients received other therapy.

Thirteen percent of patients received a transplant as salvage treatment, and 7% received a transplant as consolidation.

Outcomes

Data on patient responses to initial treatment were available for 888 individuals. The 84 patients who received best supportive care were not included, and 50 patients were not evaluable for response.

The complete response/unconfirmed complete response rate was 53%, and the partial response rate was 19%. Twenty-eight percent of patients had no response or progressed.

The median PFS was 16 months. The 5-year PFS rate was 32% overall, 23% for PTCL-NOS, 28% for AITL, 39% for ALK- ALCL, and 57% for ALK+ ALCL.

The median OS was 36 months. The 5-year OS was 42% overall, 34% for PTCL-NOS, 42% for AITL, 46% for ALK- ALCL, and 76% for ALK+ ALCL.

Dr Federico and his colleagues have used these data to develop a prognostic model for PTCL-NOS that, they say, is more accurate than current models.

Prescription drugs
Photo by Steven Harbour

AMSTERDAM—The UK has seen substantial price increases for some generic cancer drugs over the last few years, according to a study presented at ECCO 2017: European Cancer Congress (abstract 966).

Of the 89 drugs analyzed in this study, 21 of them—including 17 generics—had price increases from 2011 to 2016.

Fourteen of the generic cancer drugs had price increases over 100%, and 2 of the drugs had increases exceeding 1000%.

“We were surprised to find several companies consistently raising the prices of cancer treatment,” said study investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in the UK.

“Twenty treatments have shown rises of over 100% in the last 5 years, and in 2—busulfan (used to treat leukemia) and tamoxifen (breast cancer)—prices have increased by over 1000%. We have found that some companies take over the supply of some generic cancer medicines and then raise the price progressively.”

Dr Hill and his co-investigator Melissa Barber, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK, analyzed prices for 190 formulations of 89 cancer drugs.

Twenty-eight formulations of 21 drugs had price increases from 2011 to 2016. Seventeen of these 21 drugs were generic in 2016.

Twenty formulations of 14 generic cancer drugs had price increases exceeding 100%.

For example, the cost per tablet or injection increased for:

• Ifosfamide (2 g vial)—from £89 to £180, or 103%.
• Melphalan (50 mg vial)—from £33 to £137, or 315%.
• Chlorambucil (2 mg)—from £0.33 to £1.62, or 390%.
• Cyclophosphamide (50 mg)—from £0.20 to £1.39, or 695%.
• Busulfan (2 mg)—from £0.21 to £2.61, or 1227%.

Dr Hill said the UK’s Department of Health is aware of this issue and has introduced the Health Services Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill to enable price regulation in the future.

Companies found to be raising prices with no clear justification will be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority, and they could face fines.

However, Dr Hill and Barber said they found large price increases for generic cancer drugs in other European countries as well.

In Spain and Italy, failure to accept the high prices demanded for some generic drugs has led to warnings from companies that they could stop the supply of these drugs.

For instance, Italy fined the generic company Aspen €5 million after a 1500% increase in the price of cancer drugs, including melphalan and chlorambucil. Aspen then threatened Italy with drug shortages unless higher prices were accepted. 

In Spain, Aspen demanded a 4000% increase in melphalan prices.

“We hope that, by explaining what we have found in the UK, other European countries will take note and protect themselves against these kinds of price rises,” Dr Hill said. “At a time when cancer patients are living longer and better lives due to effective treatments, this situation is particularly worrying.”

Prescription drugs
Photo by Steven Harbour

AMSTERDAM—The UK has seen substantial price increases for some generic cancer drugs over the last few years, according to a study presented at ECCO 2017: European Cancer Congress (abstract 966).

Of the 89 drugs analyzed in this study, 21 of them—including 17 generics—had price increases from 2011 to 2016.

Fourteen of the generic cancer drugs had price increases over 100%, and 2 of the drugs had increases exceeding 1000%.

“We were surprised to find several companies consistently raising the prices of cancer treatment,” said study investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in the UK.

“Twenty treatments have shown rises of over 100% in the last 5 years, and in 2—busulfan (used to treat leukemia) and tamoxifen (breast cancer)—prices have increased by over 1000%. We have found that some companies take over the supply of some generic cancer medicines and then raise the price progressively.”

Dr Hill and his co-investigator Melissa Barber, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK, analyzed prices for 190 formulations of 89 cancer drugs.

Twenty-eight formulations of 21 drugs had price increases from 2011 to 2016. Seventeen of these 21 drugs were generic in 2016.

Twenty formulations of 14 generic cancer drugs had price increases exceeding 100%.

For example, the cost per tablet or injection increased for:

• Ifosfamide (2 g vial)—from £89 to £180, or 103%.
• Melphalan (50 mg vial)—from £33 to £137, or 315%.
• Chlorambucil (2 mg)—from £0.33 to £1.62, or 390%.
• Cyclophosphamide (50 mg)—from £0.20 to £1.39, or 695%.
• Busulfan (2 mg)—from £0.21 to £2.61, or 1227%.

Dr Hill said the UK’s Department of Health is aware of this issue and has introduced the Health Services Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill to enable price regulation in the future.

Companies found to be raising prices with no clear justification will be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority, and they could face fines.

However, Dr Hill and Barber said they found large price increases for generic cancer drugs in other European countries as well.

In Spain and Italy, failure to accept the high prices demanded for some generic drugs has led to warnings from companies that they could stop the supply of these drugs.

For instance, Italy fined the generic company Aspen €5 million after a 1500% increase in the price of cancer drugs, including melphalan and chlorambucil. Aspen then threatened Italy with drug shortages unless higher prices were accepted. 

In Spain, Aspen demanded a 4000% increase in melphalan prices.

“We hope that, by explaining what we have found in the UK, other European countries will take note and protect themselves against these kinds of price rises,” Dr Hill said. “At a time when cancer patients are living longer and better lives due to effective treatments, this situation is particularly worrying.”

Prescription drugs
Photo by Steven Harbour

AMSTERDAM—The UK has seen substantial price increases for some generic cancer drugs over the last few years, according to a study presented at ECCO 2017: European Cancer Congress (abstract 966).

Of the 89 drugs analyzed in this study, 21 of them—including 17 generics—had price increases from 2011 to 2016.

Fourteen of the generic cancer drugs had price increases over 100%, and 2 of the drugs had increases exceeding 1000%.

“We were surprised to find several companies consistently raising the prices of cancer treatment,” said study investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in the UK.

“Twenty treatments have shown rises of over 100% in the last 5 years, and in 2—busulfan (used to treat leukemia) and tamoxifen (breast cancer)—prices have increased by over 1000%. We have found that some companies take over the supply of some generic cancer medicines and then raise the price progressively.”

Dr Hill and his co-investigator Melissa Barber, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK, analyzed prices for 190 formulations of 89 cancer drugs.

Twenty-eight formulations of 21 drugs had price increases from 2011 to 2016. Seventeen of these 21 drugs were generic in 2016.

Twenty formulations of 14 generic cancer drugs had price increases exceeding 100%.

For example, the cost per tablet or injection increased for:

• Ifosfamide (2 g vial)—from £89 to £180, or 103%.
• Melphalan (50 mg vial)—from £33 to £137, or 315%.
• Chlorambucil (2 mg)—from £0.33 to £1.62, or 390%.
• Cyclophosphamide (50 mg)—from £0.20 to £1.39, or 695%.
• Busulfan (2 mg)—from £0.21 to £2.61, or 1227%.

Dr Hill said the UK’s Department of Health is aware of this issue and has introduced the Health Services Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill to enable price regulation in the future.

Companies found to be raising prices with no clear justification will be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority, and they could face fines.

However, Dr Hill and Barber said they found large price increases for generic cancer drugs in other European countries as well.

In Spain and Italy, failure to accept the high prices demanded for some generic drugs has led to warnings from companies that they could stop the supply of these drugs.

For instance, Italy fined the generic company Aspen €5 million after a 1500% increase in the price of cancer drugs, including melphalan and chlorambucil. Aspen then threatened Italy with drug shortages unless higher prices were accepted. 

In Spain, Aspen demanded a 4000% increase in melphalan prices.

“We hope that, by explaining what we have found in the UK, other European countries will take note and protect themselves against these kinds of price rises,” Dr Hill said. “At a time when cancer patients are living longer and better lives due to effective treatments, this situation is particularly worrying.”

Blood donation

The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) has agreed to lift the ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men (MSM).

Instead, MSMs will be allowed to donate blood if it has been at least 12 months since their last sexual contact with another man.

Swiss Transfusion SRC Inc. expects to implement the modified donation criteria for MSMs in regional blood transfusion services starting in mid-2017.

However, Swissmedic’s decision is subject to certain conditions.

Specifically, blood transfusion services will have to record additional data on the effects of the modified donation criteria and donors’ compliance with them, as well as closely monitor the risk trend.

Swissmedic said that, since January 2016, the tests for specific pathogens in donated blood in Switzerland have been further refined, resulting in a higher level of sensitivity.

The diagnostic window—the period in which any infections carried by blood donors cannot yet be discovered—for the relevant pathogens has been further narrowed. Depending on the virus, the diagnostic window is 3 days to 15 days after infection.

Therefore, Swissmedic believes that a 12-month deferral period for MSM blood donors would not expose recipients of blood transfusions to an increased risk of contracting a blood-borne infection.

Swissmedic noted that approximately half of all new HIV infections in Switzerland are attributable to MSMs. This is one of the reasons MSMs have been permanently excluded from giving blood since 1977.

The new 12-month deferral period for MSMs is in line with the precautionary measures applicable to various other behaviors that have been shown to increase the risk of HIV transmission, such as changing sexual partners, staying in countries with a high AIDS rate, and sexual contact with partners who have stayed in countries with a high AIDS rate for a lengthy period.

The change to a 1-year deferral period for MSM blood donors brings Switzerland into line with other nations that have adopted similar policies, such as Ireland, Canada, the US, and the UK.

Blood donation

The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) has agreed to lift the ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men (MSM).

Instead, MSMs will be allowed to donate blood if it has been at least 12 months since their last sexual contact with another man.

Swiss Transfusion SRC Inc. expects to implement the modified donation criteria for MSMs in regional blood transfusion services starting in mid-2017.

However, Swissmedic’s decision is subject to certain conditions.

Specifically, blood transfusion services will have to record additional data on the effects of the modified donation criteria and donors’ compliance with them, as well as closely monitor the risk trend.

Swissmedic said that, since January 2016, the tests for specific pathogens in donated blood in Switzerland have been further refined, resulting in a higher level of sensitivity.

The diagnostic window—the period in which any infections carried by blood donors cannot yet be discovered—for the relevant pathogens has been further narrowed. Depending on the virus, the diagnostic window is 3 days to 15 days after infection.

Therefore, Swissmedic believes that a 12-month deferral period for MSM blood donors would not expose recipients of blood transfusions to an increased risk of contracting a blood-borne infection.

Swissmedic noted that approximately half of all new HIV infections in Switzerland are attributable to MSMs. This is one of the reasons MSMs have been permanently excluded from giving blood since 1977.

The new 12-month deferral period for MSMs is in line with the precautionary measures applicable to various other behaviors that have been shown to increase the risk of HIV transmission, such as changing sexual partners, staying in countries with a high AIDS rate, and sexual contact with partners who have stayed in countries with a high AIDS rate for a lengthy period.

The change to a 1-year deferral period for MSM blood donors brings Switzerland into line with other nations that have adopted similar policies, such as Ireland, Canada, the US, and the UK.

Blood donation

The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) has agreed to lift the ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men (MSM).

Instead, MSMs will be allowed to donate blood if it has been at least 12 months since their last sexual contact with another man.

Swiss Transfusion SRC Inc. expects to implement the modified donation criteria for MSMs in regional blood transfusion services starting in mid-2017.

However, Swissmedic’s decision is subject to certain conditions.

Specifically, blood transfusion services will have to record additional data on the effects of the modified donation criteria and donors’ compliance with them, as well as closely monitor the risk trend.

Swissmedic said that, since January 2016, the tests for specific pathogens in donated blood in Switzerland have been further refined, resulting in a higher level of sensitivity.

The diagnostic window—the period in which any infections carried by blood donors cannot yet be discovered—for the relevant pathogens has been further narrowed. Depending on the virus, the diagnostic window is 3 days to 15 days after infection.

Therefore, Swissmedic believes that a 12-month deferral period for MSM blood donors would not expose recipients of blood transfusions to an increased risk of contracting a blood-borne infection.

Swissmedic noted that approximately half of all new HIV infections in Switzerland are attributable to MSMs. This is one of the reasons MSMs have been permanently excluded from giving blood since 1977.

The new 12-month deferral period for MSMs is in line with the precautionary measures applicable to various other behaviors that have been shown to increase the risk of HIV transmission, such as changing sexual partners, staying in countries with a high AIDS rate, and sexual contact with partners who have stayed in countries with a high AIDS rate for a lengthy period.

The change to a 1-year deferral period for MSM blood donors brings Switzerland into line with other nations that have adopted similar policies, such as Ireland, Canada, the US, and the UK.

The residency applicant walking with me through the lobby of the Albuquerque VA hospital on the way to an interview in my office asked me, “Are all VAs like this?” She was referring to the mariachi band that was entertaining veterans, families, and staff and the volunteer who was serving popcorn—for many years a regular feature at our VA. I responded, “No, they are all a little different, but yes, every VA is more than a hospital.” If she had asked a follow-up question, I would have added, “It is a community.”

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary has multiple definitions of community, and it is remarkable that most of them in one way or another describe the VA from the perspective of many veterans and even career employees:

• 1: a unified body of individuals: as
  a: state, commonwealth
  b: the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly: the area itself (eg, the problems of a large community)
  c: an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location
  d: a group of people with a common characteristic or interest in living together within a larger society (eg, a community of retired persons)
  e: a group linked by a common policy
  f: a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests (eg, the international community)
  g: a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society (eg, the academic community)
• 2: society at large
• 3a: joint ownership or participation (community of goods)
  b: common character: likeness (community of interests)
  c: social activity: fellowship d: a social state or condition
  d: a social state or condition

There is much talk in the media about the privatization of the VA. There are zealous critics who argue that privatization would improve access and quality of care. I won’t debate that here.

What I want to consider is what the VA represents and provides in addition to health care. Each VA hospital and clinic serves “a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests.” Sit in the waiting area of any VA emergency department or pharmacy and you will hear bonding conversations between veterans. Even when the conversation is critical of the VA, it is because it is their hospital. That “joint ownership or participation” means that every VA employee, including the nearly 30% who wore a uniform, is there for a single purpose: to help veterans. That is our sole mission and advocacy.

Back to my VA. We are “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.” Similar to most other large medical centers, this VA is like the army base where I was born and raised—a small village. The single most popular service at my VA is the barber shop where veterans can get a haircut and shave. We also have an extensive clothing closet where eligible veterans experiencing tough times can get decent clothes.

Our VA, like almost any military base, has a post exchange that sells a little bit of everything from snacks to small appliances. When I was an intern, I treated an elderly patient who was in a deep psychotic depression and was transferred with only the clothes he was wearing. After several electroconvulsive treatments, I could tell he was feeling better when he asked me to buy him underwear from the post exchange downstairs. What this patient needed, the community provided.

A VA medical center is “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.” Like any American small town, there is a chapel where twice a year chaplains hold a memorial service for families and staff of patients who recently passed away in our hospital. At other times, we gather as a family of various and no faiths to grieve over the loss of a beloved fellow employee who, all too often, died too soon under tragic circumstances.

Much of this interaction naturally takes place around food. In the morning, there is a line at the coffee shop in the lobby that matches any Starbucks in town. Our VA also has an award-winning canteen that knows the favorite dishes of veterans and employees. If you go for breakfast or lunch, you will almost always run in to someone you have not seen in a while and have a quick visit.

At our VA, you also can browse kiosks of handcrafted items and military memorabilia and support small veteran-owned businesses. In good weather you can buy fruits and vegetables at the veteran farmers market and hear the stories of backyard gardeners and small farmers.

There are special events for every season. In the summer, concerts are held in the gazebo and veteran and guest musicians play all types of music. We even have a VA all-star band made up of current and former employees. The band is a big hit with patients and staff alike.

Although many of these community resources are unique to my VA, the effort to provide a welcoming atmosphere for veterans and health care providers to come together as a community is not unusual. Most VA medical centers have developed cultural responses to the needs of the veterans who return often over the course of years to their VA community.

One definition that does not apply to the large, diverse veteran population or to their health care providers is “a unified body of individuals.” There are many veterans who never have and never will set foot inside a VA hospital for many complex reasons. But for those who do call it home and want to receive care under VA auspices, a private VA would result in a deep and abiding loss of community. This loss is especially true for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable for whom the VA provides a broad and compassionate safety net. Under that protective tent, unbefriended veterans may grow closer to employees who have cared for them for years than to their family. Patients with complex medical and psychiatric needs, such as spinal cord injuries, polytrauma, substance use disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder find specialized services dedicated to them that would be difficult to rival anywhere in the private sector.What also is not appreciated amid the fierce and too often well-deserved criticisms of VA business processes is that all VA health care practitioners are “a group linked by a common policy.” Even if we do not always live up to them, the VA has higher regulatory and ethical standards than almost any civilian health care organization. Ensuring those standards are followed in a myriad of health care entities not under VA policy and federal regulation seems a shibboleth.

The residency applicant walking with me through the lobby of the Albuquerque VA hospital on the way to an interview in my office asked me, “Are all VAs like this?” She was referring to the mariachi band that was entertaining veterans, families, and staff and the volunteer who was serving popcorn—for many years a regular feature at our VA. I responded, “No, they are all a little different, but yes, every VA is more than a hospital.” If she had asked a follow-up question, I would have added, “It is a community.”

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary has multiple definitions of community, and it is remarkable that most of them in one way or another describe the VA from the perspective of many veterans and even career employees:

• 1: a unified body of individuals: as
  a: state, commonwealth
  b: the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly: the area itself (eg, the problems of a large community)
  c: an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location
  d: a group of people with a common characteristic or interest in living together within a larger society (eg, a community of retired persons)
  e: a group linked by a common policy
  f: a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests (eg, the international community)
  g: a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society (eg, the academic community)
• 2: society at large
• 3a: joint ownership or participation (community of goods)
  b: common character: likeness (community of interests)
  c: social activity: fellowship d: a social state or condition
  d: a social state or condition

There is much talk in the media about the privatization of the VA. There are zealous critics who argue that privatization would improve access and quality of care. I won’t debate that here.

What I want to consider is what the VA represents and provides in addition to health care. Each VA hospital and clinic serves “a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests.” Sit in the waiting area of any VA emergency department or pharmacy and you will hear bonding conversations between veterans. Even when the conversation is critical of the VA, it is because it is their hospital. That “joint ownership or participation” means that every VA employee, including the nearly 30% who wore a uniform, is there for a single purpose: to help veterans. That is our sole mission and advocacy.

Back to my VA. We are “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.” Similar to most other large medical centers, this VA is like the army base where I was born and raised—a small village. The single most popular service at my VA is the barber shop where veterans can get a haircut and shave. We also have an extensive clothing closet where eligible veterans experiencing tough times can get decent clothes.

Our VA, like almost any military base, has a post exchange that sells a little bit of everything from snacks to small appliances. When I was an intern, I treated an elderly patient who was in a deep psychotic depression and was transferred with only the clothes he was wearing. After several electroconvulsive treatments, I could tell he was feeling better when he asked me to buy him underwear from the post exchange downstairs. What this patient needed, the community provided.

A VA medical center is “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.” Like any American small town, there is a chapel where twice a year chaplains hold a memorial service for families and staff of patients who recently passed away in our hospital. At other times, we gather as a family of various and no faiths to grieve over the loss of a beloved fellow employee who, all too often, died too soon under tragic circumstances.

Much of this interaction naturally takes place around food. In the morning, there is a line at the coffee shop in the lobby that matches any Starbucks in town. Our VA also has an award-winning canteen that knows the favorite dishes of veterans and employees. If you go for breakfast or lunch, you will almost always run in to someone you have not seen in a while and have a quick visit.

At our VA, you also can browse kiosks of handcrafted items and military memorabilia and support small veteran-owned businesses. In good weather you can buy fruits and vegetables at the veteran farmers market and hear the stories of backyard gardeners and small farmers.

There are special events for every season. In the summer, concerts are held in the gazebo and veteran and guest musicians play all types of music. We even have a VA all-star band made up of current and former employees. The band is a big hit with patients and staff alike.

Although many of these community resources are unique to my VA, the effort to provide a welcoming atmosphere for veterans and health care providers to come together as a community is not unusual. Most VA medical centers have developed cultural responses to the needs of the veterans who return often over the course of years to their VA community.

One definition that does not apply to the large, diverse veteran population or to their health care providers is “a unified body of individuals.” There are many veterans who never have and never will set foot inside a VA hospital for many complex reasons. But for those who do call it home and want to receive care under VA auspices, a private VA would result in a deep and abiding loss of community. This loss is especially true for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable for whom the VA provides a broad and compassionate safety net. Under that protective tent, unbefriended veterans may grow closer to employees who have cared for them for years than to their family. Patients with complex medical and psychiatric needs, such as spinal cord injuries, polytrauma, substance use disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder find specialized services dedicated to them that would be difficult to rival anywhere in the private sector.What also is not appreciated amid the fierce and too often well-deserved criticisms of VA business processes is that all VA health care practitioners are “a group linked by a common policy.” Even if we do not always live up to them, the VA has higher regulatory and ethical standards than almost any civilian health care organization. Ensuring those standards are followed in a myriad of health care entities not under VA policy and federal regulation seems a shibboleth.

The residency applicant walking with me through the lobby of the Albuquerque VA hospital on the way to an interview in my office asked me, “Are all VAs like this?” She was referring to the mariachi band that was entertaining veterans, families, and staff and the volunteer who was serving popcorn—for many years a regular feature at our VA. I responded, “No, they are all a little different, but yes, every VA is more than a hospital.” If she had asked a follow-up question, I would have added, “It is a community.”

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary has multiple definitions of community, and it is remarkable that most of them in one way or another describe the VA from the perspective of many veterans and even career employees:

• 1: a unified body of individuals: as
  a: state, commonwealth
  b: the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly: the area itself (eg, the problems of a large community)
  c: an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location
  d: a group of people with a common characteristic or interest in living together within a larger society (eg, a community of retired persons)
  e: a group linked by a common policy
  f: a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests (eg, the international community)
  g: a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society (eg, the academic community)
• 2: society at large
• 3a: joint ownership or participation (community of goods)
  b: common character: likeness (community of interests)
  c: social activity: fellowship d: a social state or condition
  d: a social state or condition

There is much talk in the media about the privatization of the VA. There are zealous critics who argue that privatization would improve access and quality of care. I won’t debate that here.

What I want to consider is what the VA represents and provides in addition to health care. Each VA hospital and clinic serves “a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests.” Sit in the waiting area of any VA emergency department or pharmacy and you will hear bonding conversations between veterans. Even when the conversation is critical of the VA, it is because it is their hospital. That “joint ownership or participation” means that every VA employee, including the nearly 30% who wore a uniform, is there for a single purpose: to help veterans. That is our sole mission and advocacy.

Back to my VA. We are “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.” Similar to most other large medical centers, this VA is like the army base where I was born and raised—a small village. The single most popular service at my VA is the barber shop where veterans can get a haircut and shave. We also have an extensive clothing closet where eligible veterans experiencing tough times can get decent clothes.

Our VA, like almost any military base, has a post exchange that sells a little bit of everything from snacks to small appliances. When I was an intern, I treated an elderly patient who was in a deep psychotic depression and was transferred with only the clothes he was wearing. After several electroconvulsive treatments, I could tell he was feeling better when he asked me to buy him underwear from the post exchange downstairs. What this patient needed, the community provided.

A VA medical center is “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society.” Like any American small town, there is a chapel where twice a year chaplains hold a memorial service for families and staff of patients who recently passed away in our hospital. At other times, we gather as a family of various and no faiths to grieve over the loss of a beloved fellow employee who, all too often, died too soon under tragic circumstances.

Much of this interaction naturally takes place around food. In the morning, there is a line at the coffee shop in the lobby that matches any Starbucks in town. Our VA also has an award-winning canteen that knows the favorite dishes of veterans and employees. If you go for breakfast or lunch, you will almost always run in to someone you have not seen in a while and have a quick visit.

At our VA, you also can browse kiosks of handcrafted items and military memorabilia and support small veteran-owned businesses. In good weather you can buy fruits and vegetables at the veteran farmers market and hear the stories of backyard gardeners and small farmers.

There are special events for every season. In the summer, concerts are held in the gazebo and veteran and guest musicians play all types of music. We even have a VA all-star band made up of current and former employees. The band is a big hit with patients and staff alike.

Although many of these community resources are unique to my VA, the effort to provide a welcoming atmosphere for veterans and health care providers to come together as a community is not unusual. Most VA medical centers have developed cultural responses to the needs of the veterans who return often over the course of years to their VA community.

One definition that does not apply to the large, diverse veteran population or to their health care providers is “a unified body of individuals.” There are many veterans who never have and never will set foot inside a VA hospital for many complex reasons. But for those who do call it home and want to receive care under VA auspices, a private VA would result in a deep and abiding loss of community. This loss is especially true for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable for whom the VA provides a broad and compassionate safety net. Under that protective tent, unbefriended veterans may grow closer to employees who have cared for them for years than to their family. Patients with complex medical and psychiatric needs, such as spinal cord injuries, polytrauma, substance use disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder find specialized services dedicated to them that would be difficult to rival anywhere in the private sector.What also is not appreciated amid the fierce and too often well-deserved criticisms of VA business processes is that all VA health care practitioners are “a group linked by a common policy.” Even if we do not always live up to them, the VA has higher regulatory and ethical standards than almost any civilian health care organization. Ensuring those standards are followed in a myriad of health care entities not under VA policy and federal regulation seems a shibboleth.

Although the meaning of these terms varied from department to department, biologically oriented programs—influenced by Eli Robins and Samuel Guze and DSM-III—were focused on descriptive psychiatry: reliable, observable, and symptom-based elements of psychiatric illness. Related and important elements were a focus on psychopharmacologic treatments, genetics, epidemiology, and putative mechanisms for both diseases and treatments. Psychodynamic programs had a primary focus on psychodynamic theory, with extensive training in long-term, depth-oriented psychotherapy. Many of these are programs employed charismatic and brilliant teachers whose supervisory and interviewing skills were legendary. And, of course, all the programs claimed they did everything and did it well.

However, none of these programs were exactly what I was looking for. Although I had a long-standing interest in psychodynamics and was fascinated by the implications of—what was then a far more nascent—neurobiology, I was looking for a program that had all of these elements, but also had a focus on, what I thought of as, “medical psychiatry.” Although this may have meant different things to others, and was known as “psychosomatic medicine” or “consultation-liaison psychiatry,” to me, it was about the psychiatric manifestations of medical and neurologic disorders.

My years training in internal medicine were full of patients with neuro­psychiatric illness due to a host of general medical and neurologic disorders. When I was an intern, the most common admitting diagnosis was what we called “Delta MS”—change in mental status. As I advanced in my residency and focused on a subspecialty of internal medicine, it became clear that whichever illnesses I studied, conditions such as anxiety disorders in Grave’s disease or the psychotic symptoms in lupus held my interest. Finally, the only specialty left was psychiatry.

The only program I found that seemed to understand medical psychiatry at the time was at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). MGH not only had eminent psychiatrists in every area of the field, it seemed, but also a special focus on training psychiatrists in medical settings and as medical experts. My first Chief of Psychiatry was Thomas P. Hackett, MD—a brilliant clinician, raconteur, and polymath—who had written a cri de coeur on the importance of medical skills and training in psychiatry.¹ At last, I had found a place where I could remain a physician and think and learn about every aspect of psychiatry, especially medical psychiatry.

What is medical psychiatry, and why is it relevant now?

There has been substantial and increasing interest in the integration of medical and psychiatric care. Whether it is collaborative care or co-location models, the recognition of the high rate of combined medical and psychiatric illnesses and associated increased mortality and total health care costs of these patients requires psychiatrists to be deeply familiar with the interactions among medical and psychiatric conditions.

Building on long-developed expertise in consultation-liaison psychiatry and other forms of medical psychiatric training, such as double-board medicine–psychiatry programs, medical psychiatry includes several specific areas of knowledge and skill sets, including understanding the impact that psychiatric illnesses and the medications used to treat them can have on medical illnesses and the ways in which the presence of medical disorders can change the presentation of psychiatric illnesses. Similarly, the psychiatric impact of the general medical pharmacopeia and the ways in which psychiatric illness can affect the presentation of medical illness are important for all psychiatrists to know. Most importantly, medical psychiatry should focus on the medical and neurologic causes of psychiatric illnesses. Many general medical conditions produce symptoms, which, in whole or in part, mimic psychiatric illnesses and, in some cases, could lead to psychiatric disorders, which makes identification of the underlying cause difficult.

Whether due to infectious, auto­immune, metabolic, or endocrinologic disorders, being aware of these conditions and, where clinical circumstances warrant, be able to diagnose them, with other specialists as needed, and ensure they are appropriately treated should be an essential skill for psychiatrists.

An illustrative case

I remember a case from early in my training of a woman with a late-onset mood disorder with abulia, wide-based gait, and urinary incontinence, in addition to withdrawal and loss of pleasure. Despite the skepticism of the neurology team, at autopsy she was found to have arteriosclerosis of the deep, penetrating arterioles causing white matter hyperintensities—Binswanger’s disease. There was no question that despite the neurologic cause of her symptoms treating her depression with antidepressants was needed and helpful. It also was important that her family was aware of her underlying medical condition and its implications for her care.²

Medicine is our calling

Many of these illnesses, even when identified, require expert psychiatric management of psychiatric symptoms. This should not be surprising to psychiatrists or other clinicians. No one expects a cardiologist to beg off the care of a patient with heart failure caused by alcohol abuse or a virus rather than vascular heart disease, and psychiatrists likewise need to manage psychosis due to steroid use or N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antibodies as well as other causes. Pursuing this understanding is important from another perspective. As we consider other potential mechanisms for onset of psychiatric illness (eg, inflammation), our understanding of the mechanisms associated with general medical conditions may provide unexpected insight into the etiology of psychiatric illnesses where no general medical cause has been found. No other physician specialists are as attuned to the nuances of psychiatric illnesses, their typical and atypical presentations as psychiatrists. It is incumbent on us to pursue the medical differential of patients when we think it is needed, even if other physicians disagree.

Medical psychiatry has a broader and more inclusive perspective than what we generally mean by “biological psychiatry,” if by the latter, we mean a focus on the neurobiology and psychopharmacology of “primary” psychiatric conditions that are not secondary to other medical or neurologic disorders. As important and fundamental as deep understanding of neurobiology, genetics, and psychopharmacology are, medical psychiatry embeds our work more broadly in all of human biology and requires the full breadth of our medical training.

At a time when political battles over prescriptive privileges by non-medically trained mental health clinicians engage legislatures and professional organizations, medical psychiatry is a powerful reminder that prescribing or not prescribing medications is the final step in, what should be, an extensive, clinical evaluation including a thorough medical work up and consideration of the medical–psychiatric interactions and the differential diagnosis of these illnesses. It is, after all, what physicians do and is essential to our calling as psychiatric physicians. If psychiatrists are not at home in medicine, as Tom Hackett reminded us in 1977¹—at a time when psychiatry had temporarily eliminated the requirement for medical internships—then, indeed, psychiatry would be “homeless.”

Although the meaning of these terms varied from department to department, biologically oriented programs—influenced by Eli Robins and Samuel Guze and DSM-III—were focused on descriptive psychiatry: reliable, observable, and symptom-based elements of psychiatric illness. Related and important elements were a focus on psychopharmacologic treatments, genetics, epidemiology, and putative mechanisms for both diseases and treatments. Psychodynamic programs had a primary focus on psychodynamic theory, with extensive training in long-term, depth-oriented psychotherapy. Many of these are programs employed charismatic and brilliant teachers whose supervisory and interviewing skills were legendary. And, of course, all the programs claimed they did everything and did it well.

However, none of these programs were exactly what I was looking for. Although I had a long-standing interest in psychodynamics and was fascinated by the implications of—what was then a far more nascent—neurobiology, I was looking for a program that had all of these elements, but also had a focus on, what I thought of as, “medical psychiatry.” Although this may have meant different things to others, and was known as “psychosomatic medicine” or “consultation-liaison psychiatry,” to me, it was about the psychiatric manifestations of medical and neurologic disorders.

My years training in internal medicine were full of patients with neuro­psychiatric illness due to a host of general medical and neurologic disorders. When I was an intern, the most common admitting diagnosis was what we called “Delta MS”—change in mental status. As I advanced in my residency and focused on a subspecialty of internal medicine, it became clear that whichever illnesses I studied, conditions such as anxiety disorders in Grave’s disease or the psychotic symptoms in lupus held my interest. Finally, the only specialty left was psychiatry.

The only program I found that seemed to understand medical psychiatry at the time was at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). MGH not only had eminent psychiatrists in every area of the field, it seemed, but also a special focus on training psychiatrists in medical settings and as medical experts. My first Chief of Psychiatry was Thomas P. Hackett, MD—a brilliant clinician, raconteur, and polymath—who had written a cri de coeur on the importance of medical skills and training in psychiatry.¹ At last, I had found a place where I could remain a physician and think and learn about every aspect of psychiatry, especially medical psychiatry.

What is medical psychiatry, and why is it relevant now?

There has been substantial and increasing interest in the integration of medical and psychiatric care. Whether it is collaborative care or co-location models, the recognition of the high rate of combined medical and psychiatric illnesses and associated increased mortality and total health care costs of these patients requires psychiatrists to be deeply familiar with the interactions among medical and psychiatric conditions.

Building on long-developed expertise in consultation-liaison psychiatry and other forms of medical psychiatric training, such as double-board medicine–psychiatry programs, medical psychiatry includes several specific areas of knowledge and skill sets, including understanding the impact that psychiatric illnesses and the medications used to treat them can have on medical illnesses and the ways in which the presence of medical disorders can change the presentation of psychiatric illnesses. Similarly, the psychiatric impact of the general medical pharmacopeia and the ways in which psychiatric illness can affect the presentation of medical illness are important for all psychiatrists to know. Most importantly, medical psychiatry should focus on the medical and neurologic causes of psychiatric illnesses. Many general medical conditions produce symptoms, which, in whole or in part, mimic psychiatric illnesses and, in some cases, could lead to psychiatric disorders, which makes identification of the underlying cause difficult.

Whether due to infectious, auto­immune, metabolic, or endocrinologic disorders, being aware of these conditions and, where clinical circumstances warrant, be able to diagnose them, with other specialists as needed, and ensure they are appropriately treated should be an essential skill for psychiatrists.

An illustrative case

I remember a case from early in my training of a woman with a late-onset mood disorder with abulia, wide-based gait, and urinary incontinence, in addition to withdrawal and loss of pleasure. Despite the skepticism of the neurology team, at autopsy she was found to have arteriosclerosis of the deep, penetrating arterioles causing white matter hyperintensities—Binswanger’s disease. There was no question that despite the neurologic cause of her symptoms treating her depression with antidepressants was needed and helpful. It also was important that her family was aware of her underlying medical condition and its implications for her care.²

Medicine is our calling

Many of these illnesses, even when identified, require expert psychiatric management of psychiatric symptoms. This should not be surprising to psychiatrists or other clinicians. No one expects a cardiologist to beg off the care of a patient with heart failure caused by alcohol abuse or a virus rather than vascular heart disease, and psychiatrists likewise need to manage psychosis due to steroid use or N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antibodies as well as other causes. Pursuing this understanding is important from another perspective. As we consider other potential mechanisms for onset of psychiatric illness (eg, inflammation), our understanding of the mechanisms associated with general medical conditions may provide unexpected insight into the etiology of psychiatric illnesses where no general medical cause has been found. No other physician specialists are as attuned to the nuances of psychiatric illnesses, their typical and atypical presentations as psychiatrists. It is incumbent on us to pursue the medical differential of patients when we think it is needed, even if other physicians disagree.

Medical psychiatry has a broader and more inclusive perspective than what we generally mean by “biological psychiatry,” if by the latter, we mean a focus on the neurobiology and psychopharmacology of “primary” psychiatric conditions that are not secondary to other medical or neurologic disorders. As important and fundamental as deep understanding of neurobiology, genetics, and psychopharmacology are, medical psychiatry embeds our work more broadly in all of human biology and requires the full breadth of our medical training.

At a time when political battles over prescriptive privileges by non-medically trained mental health clinicians engage legislatures and professional organizations, medical psychiatry is a powerful reminder that prescribing or not prescribing medications is the final step in, what should be, an extensive, clinical evaluation including a thorough medical work up and consideration of the medical–psychiatric interactions and the differential diagnosis of these illnesses. It is, after all, what physicians do and is essential to our calling as psychiatric physicians. If psychiatrists are not at home in medicine, as Tom Hackett reminded us in 1977¹—at a time when psychiatry had temporarily eliminated the requirement for medical internships—then, indeed, psychiatry would be “homeless.”

Although the meaning of these terms varied from department to department, biologically oriented programs—influenced by Eli Robins and Samuel Guze and DSM-III—were focused on descriptive psychiatry: reliable, observable, and symptom-based elements of psychiatric illness. Related and important elements were a focus on psychopharmacologic treatments, genetics, epidemiology, and putative mechanisms for both diseases and treatments. Psychodynamic programs had a primary focus on psychodynamic theory, with extensive training in long-term, depth-oriented psychotherapy. Many of these are programs employed charismatic and brilliant teachers whose supervisory and interviewing skills were legendary. And, of course, all the programs claimed they did everything and did it well.

However, none of these programs were exactly what I was looking for. Although I had a long-standing interest in psychodynamics and was fascinated by the implications of—what was then a far more nascent—neurobiology, I was looking for a program that had all of these elements, but also had a focus on, what I thought of as, “medical psychiatry.” Although this may have meant different things to others, and was known as “psychosomatic medicine” or “consultation-liaison psychiatry,” to me, it was about the psychiatric manifestations of medical and neurologic disorders.

My years training in internal medicine were full of patients with neuro­psychiatric illness due to a host of general medical and neurologic disorders. When I was an intern, the most common admitting diagnosis was what we called “Delta MS”—change in mental status. As I advanced in my residency and focused on a subspecialty of internal medicine, it became clear that whichever illnesses I studied, conditions such as anxiety disorders in Grave’s disease or the psychotic symptoms in lupus held my interest. Finally, the only specialty left was psychiatry.

The only program I found that seemed to understand medical psychiatry at the time was at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). MGH not only had eminent psychiatrists in every area of the field, it seemed, but also a special focus on training psychiatrists in medical settings and as medical experts. My first Chief of Psychiatry was Thomas P. Hackett, MD—a brilliant clinician, raconteur, and polymath—who had written a cri de coeur on the importance of medical skills and training in psychiatry.¹ At last, I had found a place where I could remain a physician and think and learn about every aspect of psychiatry, especially medical psychiatry.

What is medical psychiatry, and why is it relevant now?

There has been substantial and increasing interest in the integration of medical and psychiatric care. Whether it is collaborative care or co-location models, the recognition of the high rate of combined medical and psychiatric illnesses and associated increased mortality and total health care costs of these patients requires psychiatrists to be deeply familiar with the interactions among medical and psychiatric conditions.

Building on long-developed expertise in consultation-liaison psychiatry and other forms of medical psychiatric training, such as double-board medicine–psychiatry programs, medical psychiatry includes several specific areas of knowledge and skill sets, including understanding the impact that psychiatric illnesses and the medications used to treat them can have on medical illnesses and the ways in which the presence of medical disorders can change the presentation of psychiatric illnesses. Similarly, the psychiatric impact of the general medical pharmacopeia and the ways in which psychiatric illness can affect the presentation of medical illness are important for all psychiatrists to know. Most importantly, medical psychiatry should focus on the medical and neurologic causes of psychiatric illnesses. Many general medical conditions produce symptoms, which, in whole or in part, mimic psychiatric illnesses and, in some cases, could lead to psychiatric disorders, which makes identification of the underlying cause difficult.

Whether due to infectious, auto­immune, metabolic, or endocrinologic disorders, being aware of these conditions and, where clinical circumstances warrant, be able to diagnose them, with other specialists as needed, and ensure they are appropriately treated should be an essential skill for psychiatrists.

An illustrative case

I remember a case from early in my training of a woman with a late-onset mood disorder with abulia, wide-based gait, and urinary incontinence, in addition to withdrawal and loss of pleasure. Despite the skepticism of the neurology team, at autopsy she was found to have arteriosclerosis of the deep, penetrating arterioles causing white matter hyperintensities—Binswanger’s disease. There was no question that despite the neurologic cause of her symptoms treating her depression with antidepressants was needed and helpful. It also was important that her family was aware of her underlying medical condition and its implications for her care.²

Medicine is our calling

Many of these illnesses, even when identified, require expert psychiatric management of psychiatric symptoms. This should not be surprising to psychiatrists or other clinicians. No one expects a cardiologist to beg off the care of a patient with heart failure caused by alcohol abuse or a virus rather than vascular heart disease, and psychiatrists likewise need to manage psychosis due to steroid use or N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antibodies as well as other causes. Pursuing this understanding is important from another perspective. As we consider other potential mechanisms for onset of psychiatric illness (eg, inflammation), our understanding of the mechanisms associated with general medical conditions may provide unexpected insight into the etiology of psychiatric illnesses where no general medical cause has been found. No other physician specialists are as attuned to the nuances of psychiatric illnesses, their typical and atypical presentations as psychiatrists. It is incumbent on us to pursue the medical differential of patients when we think it is needed, even if other physicians disagree.

Medical psychiatry has a broader and more inclusive perspective than what we generally mean by “biological psychiatry,” if by the latter, we mean a focus on the neurobiology and psychopharmacology of “primary” psychiatric conditions that are not secondary to other medical or neurologic disorders. As important and fundamental as deep understanding of neurobiology, genetics, and psychopharmacology are, medical psychiatry embeds our work more broadly in all of human biology and requires the full breadth of our medical training.

At a time when political battles over prescriptive privileges by non-medically trained mental health clinicians engage legislatures and professional organizations, medical psychiatry is a powerful reminder that prescribing or not prescribing medications is the final step in, what should be, an extensive, clinical evaluation including a thorough medical work up and consideration of the medical–psychiatric interactions and the differential diagnosis of these illnesses. It is, after all, what physicians do and is essential to our calling as psychiatric physicians. If psychiatrists are not at home in medicine, as Tom Hackett reminded us in 1977¹—at a time when psychiatry had temporarily eliminated the requirement for medical internships—then, indeed, psychiatry would be “homeless.”