Perspectives

Editor’s note: As of this writing, the following proposed health insurance policy from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is still active. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations and other rheumatology advocacy groups are in ongoing discussions with the health insurer and hope to have major changes to this policy implemented.

While AI has been in our world for years, it is expanding by the minute, perhaps by the nanosecond, within the health care sector. The $6.7 billion dollar health care AI market in 2020 is expected to climb to more than $120 billion by 2028. There are many questions regarding the application of AI in our world. Is it a mere instructional algorithm that computes things in a much faster way, or does it create a new story based on the information it has access to? Does it engender excitement or fear ... or both? Remember HAL? As we have seen throughout history with new inventions and technologies, there are risks and rewards. Even the best can have harmful unintended consequences. AI is no different, particularly when it comes to health care. In this case, AI can get a bad name if it is utilized along with biased data input and bad policy.

Shared savings

Here is where “shared savings” comes into play. A shared savings program starts with a baseline cost analysis of a particular care plan and then tracks costs (performance) going forward after certain changes to the original care plan are instituted. If savings are accrued when compared with baseline spending, those savings are shared with the providers of the care. Depending on how the shared savings program is implemented, the optics can be very bad if it appears as though physicians are being paid to reduce care.

‘The volunteer opportunity’

Recently, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, in partnership with Outcomes Matter Innovations, a data analysis company that uses AI/machine-learning technology, offered rheumatologists a new voluntary shared savings, value-based care (VBC) “opportunity.” Rheumatologists would be able to “utilize a web-based machine-learning technology platform that suggests evidence-based care pathways” in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The VBC/shared savings model uses the AI platform to propose two different pathways. One model would delay the start of biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), and the second model would taper and/or stop biologics or JAKi altogether.

Delaying the start of biologics/JAKi would be achieved through “methotrexate optimization” and/or the use of triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine. The other model would recommend tapering biologic/JAKi dosing in patients in remission or low disease activity and might even suggest a “medication holiday.”

The intention of this 3-year VBC/shared savings program is to reduce costs and create savings by reducing the use of biologics or JAKi. A tangential question might be, “Reduce costs and create savings for whom?” Apparently, the patients will not reap any of the cost savings, as this is proposed to be a shared savings program with the savings going to the physicians and the insurance company. Perhaps the idea is that patients will benefit by reducing unneeded expensive medications.
 

How will it work?

A cost baseline will be established on biologic and JAKi use prior to the start of the program. Once started, there will be a calculation of savings based on biologic/JAKi use going forward. It was stated that physicians would receive 22% of the total costs saved. In one flyer, it was estimated that, with methotrexate optimization, rheumatologists could be paid an average of $1,527 a month per patient per month of delay before starting a biologic or JAKi.

The American College of Rheumatology has guidelines for the treatment of RA and PsA, and while optimizing methotrexate and triple therapy is mentioned, tapering or stopping treatment with biologics or JAKi is not. Additionally, after lack of response at 3 months, the standard of care is to change to a more effective treatment, which for most patients is a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). It could be construed that rheumatologists are being monetarily incentivized to reduce the use of expensive medications through ways that are not included in ACR guidelines and are not standard of care.

What if after the medication holiday the patient cannot recapture control of their disease? Is there a liability concern? Remember, there is no institutional review board or informed patient consent for this VBC data gathering model.

How will a patient feel knowing that their physician was paid to withhold care, or even worse, if a patient is not told of this and then finds out later? Not only are the optics for this suboptimal (at best), where does the liability fall if the patient does not do well and it comes out that their rheumatologist was paid to reduce the care, particularly in a way that is not supported in the guideline. Clearly, this appears to be a clinical study without an institutional review board and without patient consent.

There are also the data that are collected from this voluntary “opportunity.” A valid question would be, “What kind of data will this produce if rheumatologists are paid to delay, reduce, or stop the use of biologics/JAKi?” Is it possible that physicians may subconsciously delay putting patients on a biologic and taper more rapidly because of the reimbursement? This could lead to faulty, biased, AI-generated data that erroneously show this type of care is working. It would not be unheard of to wonder whether this once-voluntary opportunity might evolve into mandatory policy because now, they have “data to prove it.” … only this time there is no shared savings.
 

Low disease activity results in long-term savings

This is not meant to be an indictment of AI in health care, value-based care, or shared savings programs. In reality, AI had very little to do with how poorly this program was presented. Hopefully, it will bring about further discussions on how to achieve savings without sacrificing care. In fact, optimal care in RA and PsA is probably one of the best ways to save money in the long run. Nowhere in this program is there any mention of the high cost associated with uncontrolled disease activity in patients with RA or PsA. The downstream costs can be enormous when long- and short-term sequelae are taken into consideration: joint replacements, cardiovascular disease, certain kinds of malignancies, and all the side effects of increased steroid usage are just a few of the consequences we see with uncontrolled disease activity. It is only recently that we have been able to achieve low disease activity and remission in our patients. The rush to get patients off these medications is not the answer to achieving long-term savings. In addition to the very bad optics of paying rheumatologists to delay, taper, or stop using expensive mediations in their patients, the ultimate data achieved will be biased, and the only real winner will be the health insurance company.

Again, AI machine-learning and shared saving programs are not the guilty parties here. In fact, AI may be helpful in coming up with solutions to long-term health care costs, whether in the realm of economics or scientific research. CSRO and our state member organizations continue to educate the health insurance company on the significant drawbacks to this “volunteer opportunity.” Let’s hope a more reasonable program is put forward with AI-generated data that can be trusted. Hopefully not with a platform named “HAL,” for those of you old enough to remember “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Editor’s note: As of this writing, the following proposed health insurance policy from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is still active. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations and other rheumatology advocacy groups are in ongoing discussions with the health insurer and hope to have major changes to this policy implemented.

While AI has been in our world for years, it is expanding by the minute, perhaps by the nanosecond, within the health care sector. The $6.7 billion dollar health care AI market in 2020 is expected to climb to more than $120 billion by 2028. There are many questions regarding the application of AI in our world. Is it a mere instructional algorithm that computes things in a much faster way, or does it create a new story based on the information it has access to? Does it engender excitement or fear ... or both? Remember HAL? As we have seen throughout history with new inventions and technologies, there are risks and rewards. Even the best can have harmful unintended consequences. AI is no different, particularly when it comes to health care. In this case, AI can get a bad name if it is utilized along with biased data input and bad policy.

Shared savings

Here is where “shared savings” comes into play. A shared savings program starts with a baseline cost analysis of a particular care plan and then tracks costs (performance) going forward after certain changes to the original care plan are instituted. If savings are accrued when compared with baseline spending, those savings are shared with the providers of the care. Depending on how the shared savings program is implemented, the optics can be very bad if it appears as though physicians are being paid to reduce care.

‘The volunteer opportunity’

Recently, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, in partnership with Outcomes Matter Innovations, a data analysis company that uses AI/machine-learning technology, offered rheumatologists a new voluntary shared savings, value-based care (VBC) “opportunity.” Rheumatologists would be able to “utilize a web-based machine-learning technology platform that suggests evidence-based care pathways” in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The VBC/shared savings model uses the AI platform to propose two different pathways. One model would delay the start of biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), and the second model would taper and/or stop biologics or JAKi altogether.

Delaying the start of biologics/JAKi would be achieved through “methotrexate optimization” and/or the use of triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine. The other model would recommend tapering biologic/JAKi dosing in patients in remission or low disease activity and might even suggest a “medication holiday.”

The intention of this 3-year VBC/shared savings program is to reduce costs and create savings by reducing the use of biologics or JAKi. A tangential question might be, “Reduce costs and create savings for whom?” Apparently, the patients will not reap any of the cost savings, as this is proposed to be a shared savings program with the savings going to the physicians and the insurance company. Perhaps the idea is that patients will benefit by reducing unneeded expensive medications.
 

How will it work?

A cost baseline will be established on biologic and JAKi use prior to the start of the program. Once started, there will be a calculation of savings based on biologic/JAKi use going forward. It was stated that physicians would receive 22% of the total costs saved. In one flyer, it was estimated that, with methotrexate optimization, rheumatologists could be paid an average of $1,527 a month per patient per month of delay before starting a biologic or JAKi.

The American College of Rheumatology has guidelines for the treatment of RA and PsA, and while optimizing methotrexate and triple therapy is mentioned, tapering or stopping treatment with biologics or JAKi is not. Additionally, after lack of response at 3 months, the standard of care is to change to a more effective treatment, which for most patients is a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). It could be construed that rheumatologists are being monetarily incentivized to reduce the use of expensive medications through ways that are not included in ACR guidelines and are not standard of care.

What if after the medication holiday the patient cannot recapture control of their disease? Is there a liability concern? Remember, there is no institutional review board or informed patient consent for this VBC data gathering model.

How will a patient feel knowing that their physician was paid to withhold care, or even worse, if a patient is not told of this and then finds out later? Not only are the optics for this suboptimal (at best), where does the liability fall if the patient does not do well and it comes out that their rheumatologist was paid to reduce the care, particularly in a way that is not supported in the guideline. Clearly, this appears to be a clinical study without an institutional review board and without patient consent.

There are also the data that are collected from this voluntary “opportunity.” A valid question would be, “What kind of data will this produce if rheumatologists are paid to delay, reduce, or stop the use of biologics/JAKi?” Is it possible that physicians may subconsciously delay putting patients on a biologic and taper more rapidly because of the reimbursement? This could lead to faulty, biased, AI-generated data that erroneously show this type of care is working. It would not be unheard of to wonder whether this once-voluntary opportunity might evolve into mandatory policy because now, they have “data to prove it.” … only this time there is no shared savings.
 

Low disease activity results in long-term savings

This is not meant to be an indictment of AI in health care, value-based care, or shared savings programs. In reality, AI had very little to do with how poorly this program was presented. Hopefully, it will bring about further discussions on how to achieve savings without sacrificing care. In fact, optimal care in RA and PsA is probably one of the best ways to save money in the long run. Nowhere in this program is there any mention of the high cost associated with uncontrolled disease activity in patients with RA or PsA. The downstream costs can be enormous when long- and short-term sequelae are taken into consideration: joint replacements, cardiovascular disease, certain kinds of malignancies, and all the side effects of increased steroid usage are just a few of the consequences we see with uncontrolled disease activity. It is only recently that we have been able to achieve low disease activity and remission in our patients. The rush to get patients off these medications is not the answer to achieving long-term savings. In addition to the very bad optics of paying rheumatologists to delay, taper, or stop using expensive mediations in their patients, the ultimate data achieved will be biased, and the only real winner will be the health insurance company.

Again, AI machine-learning and shared saving programs are not the guilty parties here. In fact, AI may be helpful in coming up with solutions to long-term health care costs, whether in the realm of economics or scientific research. CSRO and our state member organizations continue to educate the health insurance company on the significant drawbacks to this “volunteer opportunity.” Let’s hope a more reasonable program is put forward with AI-generated data that can be trusted. Hopefully not with a platform named “HAL,” for those of you old enough to remember “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Editor’s note: As of this writing, the following proposed health insurance policy from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is still active. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations and other rheumatology advocacy groups are in ongoing discussions with the health insurer and hope to have major changes to this policy implemented.

While AI has been in our world for years, it is expanding by the minute, perhaps by the nanosecond, within the health care sector. The $6.7 billion dollar health care AI market in 2020 is expected to climb to more than $120 billion by 2028. There are many questions regarding the application of AI in our world. Is it a mere instructional algorithm that computes things in a much faster way, or does it create a new story based on the information it has access to? Does it engender excitement or fear ... or both? Remember HAL? As we have seen throughout history with new inventions and technologies, there are risks and rewards. Even the best can have harmful unintended consequences. AI is no different, particularly when it comes to health care. In this case, AI can get a bad name if it is utilized along with biased data input and bad policy.

Shared savings

Here is where “shared savings” comes into play. A shared savings program starts with a baseline cost analysis of a particular care plan and then tracks costs (performance) going forward after certain changes to the original care plan are instituted. If savings are accrued when compared with baseline spending, those savings are shared with the providers of the care. Depending on how the shared savings program is implemented, the optics can be very bad if it appears as though physicians are being paid to reduce care.

‘The volunteer opportunity’

Recently, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, in partnership with Outcomes Matter Innovations, a data analysis company that uses AI/machine-learning technology, offered rheumatologists a new voluntary shared savings, value-based care (VBC) “opportunity.” Rheumatologists would be able to “utilize a web-based machine-learning technology platform that suggests evidence-based care pathways” in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The VBC/shared savings model uses the AI platform to propose two different pathways. One model would delay the start of biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), and the second model would taper and/or stop biologics or JAKi altogether.

Delaying the start of biologics/JAKi would be achieved through “methotrexate optimization” and/or the use of triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine. The other model would recommend tapering biologic/JAKi dosing in patients in remission or low disease activity and might even suggest a “medication holiday.”

The intention of this 3-year VBC/shared savings program is to reduce costs and create savings by reducing the use of biologics or JAKi. A tangential question might be, “Reduce costs and create savings for whom?” Apparently, the patients will not reap any of the cost savings, as this is proposed to be a shared savings program with the savings going to the physicians and the insurance company. Perhaps the idea is that patients will benefit by reducing unneeded expensive medications.
 

How will it work?

A cost baseline will be established on biologic and JAKi use prior to the start of the program. Once started, there will be a calculation of savings based on biologic/JAKi use going forward. It was stated that physicians would receive 22% of the total costs saved. In one flyer, it was estimated that, with methotrexate optimization, rheumatologists could be paid an average of $1,527 a month per patient per month of delay before starting a biologic or JAKi.

The American College of Rheumatology has guidelines for the treatment of RA and PsA, and while optimizing methotrexate and triple therapy is mentioned, tapering or stopping treatment with biologics or JAKi is not. Additionally, after lack of response at 3 months, the standard of care is to change to a more effective treatment, which for most patients is a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). It could be construed that rheumatologists are being monetarily incentivized to reduce the use of expensive medications through ways that are not included in ACR guidelines and are not standard of care.

What if after the medication holiday the patient cannot recapture control of their disease? Is there a liability concern? Remember, there is no institutional review board or informed patient consent for this VBC data gathering model.

How will a patient feel knowing that their physician was paid to withhold care, or even worse, if a patient is not told of this and then finds out later? Not only are the optics for this suboptimal (at best), where does the liability fall if the patient does not do well and it comes out that their rheumatologist was paid to reduce the care, particularly in a way that is not supported in the guideline. Clearly, this appears to be a clinical study without an institutional review board and without patient consent.

There are also the data that are collected from this voluntary “opportunity.” A valid question would be, “What kind of data will this produce if rheumatologists are paid to delay, reduce, or stop the use of biologics/JAKi?” Is it possible that physicians may subconsciously delay putting patients on a biologic and taper more rapidly because of the reimbursement? This could lead to faulty, biased, AI-generated data that erroneously show this type of care is working. It would not be unheard of to wonder whether this once-voluntary opportunity might evolve into mandatory policy because now, they have “data to prove it.” … only this time there is no shared savings.
 

Low disease activity results in long-term savings

This is not meant to be an indictment of AI in health care, value-based care, or shared savings programs. In reality, AI had very little to do with how poorly this program was presented. Hopefully, it will bring about further discussions on how to achieve savings without sacrificing care. In fact, optimal care in RA and PsA is probably one of the best ways to save money in the long run. Nowhere in this program is there any mention of the high cost associated with uncontrolled disease activity in patients with RA or PsA. The downstream costs can be enormous when long- and short-term sequelae are taken into consideration: joint replacements, cardiovascular disease, certain kinds of malignancies, and all the side effects of increased steroid usage are just a few of the consequences we see with uncontrolled disease activity. It is only recently that we have been able to achieve low disease activity and remission in our patients. The rush to get patients off these medications is not the answer to achieving long-term savings. In addition to the very bad optics of paying rheumatologists to delay, taper, or stop using expensive mediations in their patients, the ultimate data achieved will be biased, and the only real winner will be the health insurance company.

Again, AI machine-learning and shared saving programs are not the guilty parties here. In fact, AI may be helpful in coming up with solutions to long-term health care costs, whether in the realm of economics or scientific research. CSRO and our state member organizations continue to educate the health insurance company on the significant drawbacks to this “volunteer opportunity.” Let’s hope a more reasonable program is put forward with AI-generated data that can be trusted. Hopefully not with a platform named “HAL,” for those of you old enough to remember “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

A patient inquires about whether he or she can use an EpiPen after the expiration date. What should you advise?

A. The EpiPen is unlikely to be effective after the expiration date.

B. The EpiPen may be dangerous to use after the expiration date.

C. The EpiPen is likely to be okay up to 2 years past the expiration date.

I think that choice C is the most accurate and will get to all the evidence shortly. The expiration date is not the date that the drug stops being effective or potentially becomes toxic. It is a date, required by law, that the manufacturer can guarantee greater than 90% original potency of the medication.

Epinephrine is a costly drug and is usually replaced when the Epipen expires. Weir and colleagues studied six epinephrine syringes 30 months past their expiration date.¹ Three of the syringes and one control, nonexpired syringe were analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance to determine epinephrine content. The contents of the other three syringes of epinephrine were cultured for bacteria and fungus, which yielded no microbial growth. The study showed that the content of epinephrine present in the original sample remained unchanged, compared with the control.

Rachid et al. looked at 35 EpiPens 3-36 months past their expiration dates.² The percentage of epinephrine found remained 84%-101%, with all EpiPens less than 24 months past expiration having > 90% of the labeled epinephrine dose. Cantrell and colleagues evaluated a combination of 40 EpiPens and Epipen Jrs that were 1-50 months past expiration.³ These pens had not been kept in ideal conditions, as some had been in cars, outdoor cabins, and other environments without temperature control. Sixty-one percent of the Epipens and 56% of the EpiPen Juniors had > 90% of the labeled epinephrine content. I think expired Epipens can be used as a back-up option – that is, they are safe to use if there is not an Epipen available that is not expired.
 

Shelf life extension program

Lyon and colleagues reported data from the Shelf Life Extension Program (SLEP).⁴ A total of 122 drugs were studied representing 3,005 lots. Based on testing and stability assessment, 88% of the lots were extended at least 1 year beyond their original expiration date for an average extension of 66 months, but the additional stability period was highly variable. Several antibiotics were studied, including ciprofloxacin (mean extension, 55 months), amoxicillin (mean extension, 23 months), and doxycycline (mean extension, 50 months).

What about other drugs not in pill form?

I am frequently asked about the longevity of medication formulations that are not in pill form. For example, I have been asked about using expired eye drops. There are few data on this. Reis at al. studied whether travoprost that was past the expiration date still lowered intraocular pressures.⁵ Intraocular pressures in glaucoma patients treated with travoprost 6 weeks after the seal was broken were compared with pressures when drops were used immediately after the container seal was broken. There was no significant difference in intraocular pressure between the two treatment groups during the study.

I found one case report of harm from using expired eye medications. Use of expired eye drops was associated with a case of bilateral toxic epithelial keratopathy.⁶ Eye drops can be contaminated and cause irritation from the breakdown products of preservatives.

Many people use inhalers for many years. This is especially true for albuterol, which is often used for very intermittent symptoms. I found one recent study on the stability of albuterol. Kutty et al. studied expired albuterol inhalers and solutions up to 20 years past expiration.⁷ Almost all lots of albuterol maintained > 90% of product (73%-103%), many years past their expiration date. Even at 73% retained activity, the dose would likely be effective.
 

Pearl: Expired epinephrine and albuterol appear to retain activity several years past expiration.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He has no conflicts of interest. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Weir WB et al. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018 Jul-Aug;22(4):414-8.

2. Rachid O et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015 Apr;114(4):354-6.

3. Cantrell FL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jun 20;166(12):918-9.

4. Lyon RC et al. J Pharmaceut Sci. 2006;95(7):1549-60.

5. Reis R et al. Clin Ther. 2004 Dec;26(12):2121-7.

6. AlGhadeer H, AlHumaiden A. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022 Dec;47(12):2379-82.

7. Kutty RG et al. Heliyon. 2022 Aug 5;8(8):e10104.

A patient inquires about whether he or she can use an EpiPen after the expiration date. What should you advise?

A. The EpiPen is unlikely to be effective after the expiration date.

B. The EpiPen may be dangerous to use after the expiration date.

C. The EpiPen is likely to be okay up to 2 years past the expiration date.

I think that choice C is the most accurate and will get to all the evidence shortly. The expiration date is not the date that the drug stops being effective or potentially becomes toxic. It is a date, required by law, that the manufacturer can guarantee greater than 90% original potency of the medication.

Epinephrine is a costly drug and is usually replaced when the Epipen expires. Weir and colleagues studied six epinephrine syringes 30 months past their expiration date.¹ Three of the syringes and one control, nonexpired syringe were analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance to determine epinephrine content. The contents of the other three syringes of epinephrine were cultured for bacteria and fungus, which yielded no microbial growth. The study showed that the content of epinephrine present in the original sample remained unchanged, compared with the control.

Rachid et al. looked at 35 EpiPens 3-36 months past their expiration dates.² The percentage of epinephrine found remained 84%-101%, with all EpiPens less than 24 months past expiration having > 90% of the labeled epinephrine dose. Cantrell and colleagues evaluated a combination of 40 EpiPens and Epipen Jrs that were 1-50 months past expiration.³ These pens had not been kept in ideal conditions, as some had been in cars, outdoor cabins, and other environments without temperature control. Sixty-one percent of the Epipens and 56% of the EpiPen Juniors had > 90% of the labeled epinephrine content. I think expired Epipens can be used as a back-up option – that is, they are safe to use if there is not an Epipen available that is not expired.
 

Shelf life extension program

Lyon and colleagues reported data from the Shelf Life Extension Program (SLEP).⁴ A total of 122 drugs were studied representing 3,005 lots. Based on testing and stability assessment, 88% of the lots were extended at least 1 year beyond their original expiration date for an average extension of 66 months, but the additional stability period was highly variable. Several antibiotics were studied, including ciprofloxacin (mean extension, 55 months), amoxicillin (mean extension, 23 months), and doxycycline (mean extension, 50 months).

What about other drugs not in pill form?

I am frequently asked about the longevity of medication formulations that are not in pill form. For example, I have been asked about using expired eye drops. There are few data on this. Reis at al. studied whether travoprost that was past the expiration date still lowered intraocular pressures.⁵ Intraocular pressures in glaucoma patients treated with travoprost 6 weeks after the seal was broken were compared with pressures when drops were used immediately after the container seal was broken. There was no significant difference in intraocular pressure between the two treatment groups during the study.

I found one case report of harm from using expired eye medications. Use of expired eye drops was associated with a case of bilateral toxic epithelial keratopathy.⁶ Eye drops can be contaminated and cause irritation from the breakdown products of preservatives.

Many people use inhalers for many years. This is especially true for albuterol, which is often used for very intermittent symptoms. I found one recent study on the stability of albuterol. Kutty et al. studied expired albuterol inhalers and solutions up to 20 years past expiration.⁷ Almost all lots of albuterol maintained > 90% of product (73%-103%), many years past their expiration date. Even at 73% retained activity, the dose would likely be effective.
 

Pearl: Expired epinephrine and albuterol appear to retain activity several years past expiration.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He has no conflicts of interest. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Weir WB et al. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018 Jul-Aug;22(4):414-8.

2. Rachid O et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015 Apr;114(4):354-6.

3. Cantrell FL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jun 20;166(12):918-9.

4. Lyon RC et al. J Pharmaceut Sci. 2006;95(7):1549-60.

5. Reis R et al. Clin Ther. 2004 Dec;26(12):2121-7.

6. AlGhadeer H, AlHumaiden A. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022 Dec;47(12):2379-82.

7. Kutty RG et al. Heliyon. 2022 Aug 5;8(8):e10104.

A patient inquires about whether he or she can use an EpiPen after the expiration date. What should you advise?

A. The EpiPen is unlikely to be effective after the expiration date.

B. The EpiPen may be dangerous to use after the expiration date.

C. The EpiPen is likely to be okay up to 2 years past the expiration date.

I think that choice C is the most accurate and will get to all the evidence shortly. The expiration date is not the date that the drug stops being effective or potentially becomes toxic. It is a date, required by law, that the manufacturer can guarantee greater than 90% original potency of the medication.

Epinephrine is a costly drug and is usually replaced when the Epipen expires. Weir and colleagues studied six epinephrine syringes 30 months past their expiration date.¹ Three of the syringes and one control, nonexpired syringe were analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance to determine epinephrine content. The contents of the other three syringes of epinephrine were cultured for bacteria and fungus, which yielded no microbial growth. The study showed that the content of epinephrine present in the original sample remained unchanged, compared with the control.

Rachid et al. looked at 35 EpiPens 3-36 months past their expiration dates.² The percentage of epinephrine found remained 84%-101%, with all EpiPens less than 24 months past expiration having > 90% of the labeled epinephrine dose. Cantrell and colleagues evaluated a combination of 40 EpiPens and Epipen Jrs that were 1-50 months past expiration.³ These pens had not been kept in ideal conditions, as some had been in cars, outdoor cabins, and other environments without temperature control. Sixty-one percent of the Epipens and 56% of the EpiPen Juniors had > 90% of the labeled epinephrine content. I think expired Epipens can be used as a back-up option – that is, they are safe to use if there is not an Epipen available that is not expired.
 

Shelf life extension program

Lyon and colleagues reported data from the Shelf Life Extension Program (SLEP).⁴ A total of 122 drugs were studied representing 3,005 lots. Based on testing and stability assessment, 88% of the lots were extended at least 1 year beyond their original expiration date for an average extension of 66 months, but the additional stability period was highly variable. Several antibiotics were studied, including ciprofloxacin (mean extension, 55 months), amoxicillin (mean extension, 23 months), and doxycycline (mean extension, 50 months).

What about other drugs not in pill form?

I am frequently asked about the longevity of medication formulations that are not in pill form. For example, I have been asked about using expired eye drops. There are few data on this. Reis at al. studied whether travoprost that was past the expiration date still lowered intraocular pressures.⁵ Intraocular pressures in glaucoma patients treated with travoprost 6 weeks after the seal was broken were compared with pressures when drops were used immediately after the container seal was broken. There was no significant difference in intraocular pressure between the two treatment groups during the study.

I found one case report of harm from using expired eye medications. Use of expired eye drops was associated with a case of bilateral toxic epithelial keratopathy.⁶ Eye drops can be contaminated and cause irritation from the breakdown products of preservatives.

Many people use inhalers for many years. This is especially true for albuterol, which is often used for very intermittent symptoms. I found one recent study on the stability of albuterol. Kutty et al. studied expired albuterol inhalers and solutions up to 20 years past expiration.⁷ Almost all lots of albuterol maintained > 90% of product (73%-103%), many years past their expiration date. Even at 73% retained activity, the dose would likely be effective.
 

Pearl: Expired epinephrine and albuterol appear to retain activity several years past expiration.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He has no conflicts of interest. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Weir WB et al. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018 Jul-Aug;22(4):414-8.

2. Rachid O et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015 Apr;114(4):354-6.

3. Cantrell FL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jun 20;166(12):918-9.

4. Lyon RC et al. J Pharmaceut Sci. 2006;95(7):1549-60.

5. Reis R et al. Clin Ther. 2004 Dec;26(12):2121-7.

6. AlGhadeer H, AlHumaiden A. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022 Dec;47(12):2379-82.

7. Kutty RG et al. Heliyon. 2022 Aug 5;8(8):e10104.

I wanted to very briefly highlight a truly extraordinary event in my professional experience as a clinical investigator for almost 40 years in the area of the gynecologic malignancies: the simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine of two landmark, paradigm-changing studies involving the management of advanced endometrial cancer.

City of Hope

In my career, of course, I’ve treated endometrial cancer, but the paradigm, the algorithms, and the strategies we’ve used have, for the most part, simply followed what we’ve done for ovarian cancer. If platinums worked in ovarian cancer, they probably worked in endometrial cancer, and that was true. If paclitaxel worked and had activity in ovarian cancer, it probably would in endometrial cancer, and that was true. It took some time, but basically, we use the same frontline chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as we’ve used in ovarian cancer, and on and on.

That world has changed, very much for the positive. Not only have pharmaceutical companies, academic investigators, and individual investigators in the community setting seen endometrial cancer as a major priority, but we have exciting new developments, and very specifically, of course, the immunotherapeutic agents known as checkpoint inhibitors.

One of these two papers was titled “Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer” and the second one was titled “Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.” Obviously, these were separate studies, but both used checkpoint inhibitor plus the chemotherapeutic agents carboplatin-paclitaxel, compared with chemotherapy alone as frontline therapy for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer and demonstrated a statistically significant, and in my opinion, highly clinically meaningful improvement, in progression-free survival in favor of the regimen that included the checkpoint inhibitors.

Clearly, we will need longer follow-up to see both the overall magnitude of the effect of these therapies on overall survival and the duration of the effect – the shape of the curve. Do we cure many more people? Do we delay time to progression and death? That remains to be seen.

But the outcomes we have now are remarkably positive for patients and have absolutely changed the standard of care in the management of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer.

I should note that this includes both patients who have evidence of mismatch repair deficiency and those patients who do not have evidence of deficiency, which is a large patient population. These studies demonstrated the benefit to the entire population of patients.

However, on the basis of the data that we have – not only in endometrial cancer, but in other tumor types – the greatest impact was seen in patients with evidence of mismatch repair deficiency, where the immunotherapy agent has been shown to be most relevant; not exclusively, but most relevant.

These are very important papers. If you have an interest in endometrial cancer or immunotherapy, I would encourage you to read these papers. They change the paradigm of management for advanced endometrial cancer, and they clearly point out directions for future research in the management of this class of gynecologic cancers.

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and the president of Medicine & Science at City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I wanted to very briefly highlight a truly extraordinary event in my professional experience as a clinical investigator for almost 40 years in the area of the gynecologic malignancies: the simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine of two landmark, paradigm-changing studies involving the management of advanced endometrial cancer.

City of Hope

In my career, of course, I’ve treated endometrial cancer, but the paradigm, the algorithms, and the strategies we’ve used have, for the most part, simply followed what we’ve done for ovarian cancer. If platinums worked in ovarian cancer, they probably worked in endometrial cancer, and that was true. If paclitaxel worked and had activity in ovarian cancer, it probably would in endometrial cancer, and that was true. It took some time, but basically, we use the same frontline chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as we’ve used in ovarian cancer, and on and on.

That world has changed, very much for the positive. Not only have pharmaceutical companies, academic investigators, and individual investigators in the community setting seen endometrial cancer as a major priority, but we have exciting new developments, and very specifically, of course, the immunotherapeutic agents known as checkpoint inhibitors.

One of these two papers was titled “Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer” and the second one was titled “Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.” Obviously, these were separate studies, but both used checkpoint inhibitor plus the chemotherapeutic agents carboplatin-paclitaxel, compared with chemotherapy alone as frontline therapy for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer and demonstrated a statistically significant, and in my opinion, highly clinically meaningful improvement, in progression-free survival in favor of the regimen that included the checkpoint inhibitors.

Clearly, we will need longer follow-up to see both the overall magnitude of the effect of these therapies on overall survival and the duration of the effect – the shape of the curve. Do we cure many more people? Do we delay time to progression and death? That remains to be seen.

But the outcomes we have now are remarkably positive for patients and have absolutely changed the standard of care in the management of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer.

I should note that this includes both patients who have evidence of mismatch repair deficiency and those patients who do not have evidence of deficiency, which is a large patient population. These studies demonstrated the benefit to the entire population of patients.

However, on the basis of the data that we have – not only in endometrial cancer, but in other tumor types – the greatest impact was seen in patients with evidence of mismatch repair deficiency, where the immunotherapy agent has been shown to be most relevant; not exclusively, but most relevant.

These are very important papers. If you have an interest in endometrial cancer or immunotherapy, I would encourage you to read these papers. They change the paradigm of management for advanced endometrial cancer, and they clearly point out directions for future research in the management of this class of gynecologic cancers.

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and the president of Medicine & Science at City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I wanted to very briefly highlight a truly extraordinary event in my professional experience as a clinical investigator for almost 40 years in the area of the gynecologic malignancies: the simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine of two landmark, paradigm-changing studies involving the management of advanced endometrial cancer.

City of Hope

In my career, of course, I’ve treated endometrial cancer, but the paradigm, the algorithms, and the strategies we’ve used have, for the most part, simply followed what we’ve done for ovarian cancer. If platinums worked in ovarian cancer, they probably worked in endometrial cancer, and that was true. If paclitaxel worked and had activity in ovarian cancer, it probably would in endometrial cancer, and that was true. It took some time, but basically, we use the same frontline chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as we’ve used in ovarian cancer, and on and on.

That world has changed, very much for the positive. Not only have pharmaceutical companies, academic investigators, and individual investigators in the community setting seen endometrial cancer as a major priority, but we have exciting new developments, and very specifically, of course, the immunotherapeutic agents known as checkpoint inhibitors.

One of these two papers was titled “Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Endometrial Cancer” and the second one was titled “Dostarlimab for Primary Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.” Obviously, these were separate studies, but both used checkpoint inhibitor plus the chemotherapeutic agents carboplatin-paclitaxel, compared with chemotherapy alone as frontline therapy for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer and demonstrated a statistically significant, and in my opinion, highly clinically meaningful improvement, in progression-free survival in favor of the regimen that included the checkpoint inhibitors.

Clearly, we will need longer follow-up to see both the overall magnitude of the effect of these therapies on overall survival and the duration of the effect – the shape of the curve. Do we cure many more people? Do we delay time to progression and death? That remains to be seen.

But the outcomes we have now are remarkably positive for patients and have absolutely changed the standard of care in the management of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer.

I should note that this includes both patients who have evidence of mismatch repair deficiency and those patients who do not have evidence of deficiency, which is a large patient population. These studies demonstrated the benefit to the entire population of patients.

However, on the basis of the data that we have – not only in endometrial cancer, but in other tumor types – the greatest impact was seen in patients with evidence of mismatch repair deficiency, where the immunotherapy agent has been shown to be most relevant; not exclusively, but most relevant.

These are very important papers. If you have an interest in endometrial cancer or immunotherapy, I would encourage you to read these papers. They change the paradigm of management for advanced endometrial cancer, and they clearly point out directions for future research in the management of this class of gynecologic cancers.

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and the president of Medicine & Science at City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I am a healthy 43-year old man. Nevertheless, I am interested in getting my vitamin D level checked. My primary care doc says it’s unnecessary, but that doesn’t matter because a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies will do it without a doctor’s prescription – for a fee of course.

Is that okay? Should I be able to get the test?

What if instead of my vitamin D level, I want to test my testosterone level, or my PSA, or my cadmium level, or my Lyme disease antibodies, or even have a full-body MRI scan? All of these tests are available from a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies. If I am willing to pay, should I be able to get those too?

These questions are becoming more and more common, because the direct-to-consumer testing market is exploding.

We’re talking about direct-to-consumer testing, thanks to this paper: Policies of US Companies Offering Direct-to-Consumer Laboratory Tests, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which characterizes the testing practices of direct-to-consumer testing companies.

But before we get to the study, a word on this market. Direct-to-consumer lab testing is projected to be a $2 billion industry by 2025, and lab testing megacorporations Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are both jumping headlong into this space.

Why is this happening? A couple of reasons, I think. First, the increasing cost of health care has led payers to place significant restrictions on what tests can be ordered and under what circumstances. Physicians are all too familiar with the “prior authorization” system that seeks to limit even the tests we think would benefit our patients.

Frustrated with such a system, it’s no wonder that patients are increasingly deciding to go it on their own. Sure, insurance won’t cover these tests, but the prices are transparent and competition actually keeps them somewhat reasonable. So, is this a win-win? Shouldn’t we allow people to get the tests they want, at least if they are willing to pay for it?

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. If the tests are normal, or negative, then sure – no harm, no foul. But when they are positive, everything changes. What happens when the PSA test I got myself via a direct-to-consumer testing company comes back elevated? Well, at that point, I am right back into the traditional mode of medicine – seeing my doctor, probably getting repeat testing, biopsies, etc., – and some payer will be on the hook for that, which is to say that all of us will be on the hook for that.

One other reason direct-to-consumer testing is getting more popular is a more difficult-to-characterize phenomenon which I might call postpandemic individualism. I’ve seen this across several domains, but I think in some ways the pandemic led people to focus more attention on themselves, perhaps because we were so isolated from each other. Optimizing health through data – whether using a fitness tracking watch, meticulously counting macronutrient intake, or ordering your own lab tests – may be a form of exerting control over a universe that feels increasingly chaotic. But what do I know? I’m not a psychologist.

The study characterizes a total of 21 direct-to-consumer testing companies. They offer a variety of services, as you can see here, with the majority in the endocrine space: thyroid, diabetes, men’s and women’s health. A smattering of companies offer more esoteric testing, such as heavy metals and Lyme disease.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I am a healthy 43-year old man. Nevertheless, I am interested in getting my vitamin D level checked. My primary care doc says it’s unnecessary, but that doesn’t matter because a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies will do it without a doctor’s prescription – for a fee of course.

Is that okay? Should I be able to get the test?

What if instead of my vitamin D level, I want to test my testosterone level, or my PSA, or my cadmium level, or my Lyme disease antibodies, or even have a full-body MRI scan? All of these tests are available from a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies. If I am willing to pay, should I be able to get those too?

These questions are becoming more and more common, because the direct-to-consumer testing market is exploding.

We’re talking about direct-to-consumer testing, thanks to this paper: Policies of US Companies Offering Direct-to-Consumer Laboratory Tests, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which characterizes the testing practices of direct-to-consumer testing companies.

But before we get to the study, a word on this market. Direct-to-consumer lab testing is projected to be a $2 billion industry by 2025, and lab testing megacorporations Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are both jumping headlong into this space.

Why is this happening? A couple of reasons, I think. First, the increasing cost of health care has led payers to place significant restrictions on what tests can be ordered and under what circumstances. Physicians are all too familiar with the “prior authorization” system that seeks to limit even the tests we think would benefit our patients.

Frustrated with such a system, it’s no wonder that patients are increasingly deciding to go it on their own. Sure, insurance won’t cover these tests, but the prices are transparent and competition actually keeps them somewhat reasonable. So, is this a win-win? Shouldn’t we allow people to get the tests they want, at least if they are willing to pay for it?

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. If the tests are normal, or negative, then sure – no harm, no foul. But when they are positive, everything changes. What happens when the PSA test I got myself via a direct-to-consumer testing company comes back elevated? Well, at that point, I am right back into the traditional mode of medicine – seeing my doctor, probably getting repeat testing, biopsies, etc., – and some payer will be on the hook for that, which is to say that all of us will be on the hook for that.

One other reason direct-to-consumer testing is getting more popular is a more difficult-to-characterize phenomenon which I might call postpandemic individualism. I’ve seen this across several domains, but I think in some ways the pandemic led people to focus more attention on themselves, perhaps because we were so isolated from each other. Optimizing health through data – whether using a fitness tracking watch, meticulously counting macronutrient intake, or ordering your own lab tests – may be a form of exerting control over a universe that feels increasingly chaotic. But what do I know? I’m not a psychologist.

The study characterizes a total of 21 direct-to-consumer testing companies. They offer a variety of services, as you can see here, with the majority in the endocrine space: thyroid, diabetes, men’s and women’s health. A smattering of companies offer more esoteric testing, such as heavy metals and Lyme disease.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I am a healthy 43-year old man. Nevertheless, I am interested in getting my vitamin D level checked. My primary care doc says it’s unnecessary, but that doesn’t matter because a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies will do it without a doctor’s prescription – for a fee of course.

Is that okay? Should I be able to get the test?

What if instead of my vitamin D level, I want to test my testosterone level, or my PSA, or my cadmium level, or my Lyme disease antibodies, or even have a full-body MRI scan? All of these tests are available from a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies. If I am willing to pay, should I be able to get those too?

These questions are becoming more and more common, because the direct-to-consumer testing market is exploding.

We’re talking about direct-to-consumer testing, thanks to this paper: Policies of US Companies Offering Direct-to-Consumer Laboratory Tests, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which characterizes the testing practices of direct-to-consumer testing companies.

But before we get to the study, a word on this market. Direct-to-consumer lab testing is projected to be a $2 billion industry by 2025, and lab testing megacorporations Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are both jumping headlong into this space.

Why is this happening? A couple of reasons, I think. First, the increasing cost of health care has led payers to place significant restrictions on what tests can be ordered and under what circumstances. Physicians are all too familiar with the “prior authorization” system that seeks to limit even the tests we think would benefit our patients.

Frustrated with such a system, it’s no wonder that patients are increasingly deciding to go it on their own. Sure, insurance won’t cover these tests, but the prices are transparent and competition actually keeps them somewhat reasonable. So, is this a win-win? Shouldn’t we allow people to get the tests they want, at least if they are willing to pay for it?

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. If the tests are normal, or negative, then sure – no harm, no foul. But when they are positive, everything changes. What happens when the PSA test I got myself via a direct-to-consumer testing company comes back elevated? Well, at that point, I am right back into the traditional mode of medicine – seeing my doctor, probably getting repeat testing, biopsies, etc., – and some payer will be on the hook for that, which is to say that all of us will be on the hook for that.

One other reason direct-to-consumer testing is getting more popular is a more difficult-to-characterize phenomenon which I might call postpandemic individualism. I’ve seen this across several domains, but I think in some ways the pandemic led people to focus more attention on themselves, perhaps because we were so isolated from each other. Optimizing health through data – whether using a fitness tracking watch, meticulously counting macronutrient intake, or ordering your own lab tests – may be a form of exerting control over a universe that feels increasingly chaotic. But what do I know? I’m not a psychologist.

The study characterizes a total of 21 direct-to-consumer testing companies. They offer a variety of services, as you can see here, with the majority in the endocrine space: thyroid, diabetes, men’s and women’s health. A smattering of companies offer more esoteric testing, such as heavy metals and Lyme disease.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

If you are a pediatrician, babies are your bread and butter. In fact, they are the whole enchilada. Without them you are going to starve. Even if you are an adolescent medicine specialist, the pipeline feeding your business begins with babies. The number of babies entering the conveyor belt that eventually ends up in your office is something that should interest you. It probably doesn’t surprise you to learn that the fertility rate in this country has fallen. In fact, it has now dipped below the “replacement” threshold of 2.1%.

Another number that might interest you is ideal family size. In others words, the number of children American adults consider when they are envisioning the ideal family. You may be surprised to learn that despite the downward dip on the fertility rate during the 2007-2009 recession and the pandemic, a significant number of Americans still believe that the ideal family includes three children. Looking at the broader population, the ideal family is around 2.5 children, which is a number that is up a little from the 1990s but has scarcely changed over the last 5 decades. Obviously, there is a gap between what the population as a whole believes and the reality of how many children the fertile population is producing. And, there is research that suggests that this gap between personal intention and ideal family size is growing. In other words, people may be saying they believe bigger families are a good thing ... if everything is going well in their life.

What is behind this gap and why is it growing? As people are delaying building their families, realities and expectations collide. Some examples? The impact of their student loans is greater than they anticipated. Climate change and news stories focused on political uncertainty can be unsettling. A person may end up marrying someone who doesn’t concur with their view of an ideal family. Fertility problems crop up with advancing age. The first child may have presented more of a challenge both physically, emotionally, and economically than new parents had expected.

If we agree that the fertility rate is an important number for our survival as a profession, can we agree that because of this vested interest we should become involved in helping families widen this growing gap between their view of the ideal family size and the realities of actually producing that family?

Maybe we don’t need to get involved. When the national climate – meteorologically, politically, and economically – improves families will start making more babies. Right now maybe the better option is to adjust our business model to the fluctuations in demand.

On the other hand, we could ask the American Academy of Pediatrics to join with the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and hire a big name advertising agency to launch an ad campaign encouraging young and not so young adults to have more children. However, this might appear rather transparent and self-serving.

The best option is probably to continue to do what we are already doing, but try to do it better. If the challenges of having a first child are a major deterrent to having a second child, we should redouble our efforts toward making, if only in retrospect, that first parenting experience rewarding and enjoyable. That could come in the form of speaking out for parental leave, breastfeeding-friendly workplaces, and more affordable daycare. But it could also come in those scores of encounters we have every day in the office where we give solid, realistic, and compassionate advice on breastfeeding, sleep hygiene, and behavior management. If we can make those tough first 6 months of parenting go more smoothly and make the twos seem less terrible, we may see the average family size in our practice grow before our eyes.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

If you are a pediatrician, babies are your bread and butter. In fact, they are the whole enchilada. Without them you are going to starve. Even if you are an adolescent medicine specialist, the pipeline feeding your business begins with babies. The number of babies entering the conveyor belt that eventually ends up in your office is something that should interest you. It probably doesn’t surprise you to learn that the fertility rate in this country has fallen. In fact, it has now dipped below the “replacement” threshold of 2.1%.

Another number that might interest you is ideal family size. In others words, the number of children American adults consider when they are envisioning the ideal family. You may be surprised to learn that despite the downward dip on the fertility rate during the 2007-2009 recession and the pandemic, a significant number of Americans still believe that the ideal family includes three children. Looking at the broader population, the ideal family is around 2.5 children, which is a number that is up a little from the 1990s but has scarcely changed over the last 5 decades. Obviously, there is a gap between what the population as a whole believes and the reality of how many children the fertile population is producing. And, there is research that suggests that this gap between personal intention and ideal family size is growing. In other words, people may be saying they believe bigger families are a good thing ... if everything is going well in their life.

What is behind this gap and why is it growing? As people are delaying building their families, realities and expectations collide. Some examples? The impact of their student loans is greater than they anticipated. Climate change and news stories focused on political uncertainty can be unsettling. A person may end up marrying someone who doesn’t concur with their view of an ideal family. Fertility problems crop up with advancing age. The first child may have presented more of a challenge both physically, emotionally, and economically than new parents had expected.

If we agree that the fertility rate is an important number for our survival as a profession, can we agree that because of this vested interest we should become involved in helping families widen this growing gap between their view of the ideal family size and the realities of actually producing that family?

Maybe we don’t need to get involved. When the national climate – meteorologically, politically, and economically – improves families will start making more babies. Right now maybe the better option is to adjust our business model to the fluctuations in demand.

On the other hand, we could ask the American Academy of Pediatrics to join with the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and hire a big name advertising agency to launch an ad campaign encouraging young and not so young adults to have more children. However, this might appear rather transparent and self-serving.

The best option is probably to continue to do what we are already doing, but try to do it better. If the challenges of having a first child are a major deterrent to having a second child, we should redouble our efforts toward making, if only in retrospect, that first parenting experience rewarding and enjoyable. That could come in the form of speaking out for parental leave, breastfeeding-friendly workplaces, and more affordable daycare. But it could also come in those scores of encounters we have every day in the office where we give solid, realistic, and compassionate advice on breastfeeding, sleep hygiene, and behavior management. If we can make those tough first 6 months of parenting go more smoothly and make the twos seem less terrible, we may see the average family size in our practice grow before our eyes.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

If you are a pediatrician, babies are your bread and butter. In fact, they are the whole enchilada. Without them you are going to starve. Even if you are an adolescent medicine specialist, the pipeline feeding your business begins with babies. The number of babies entering the conveyor belt that eventually ends up in your office is something that should interest you. It probably doesn’t surprise you to learn that the fertility rate in this country has fallen. In fact, it has now dipped below the “replacement” threshold of 2.1%.

Another number that might interest you is ideal family size. In others words, the number of children American adults consider when they are envisioning the ideal family. You may be surprised to learn that despite the downward dip on the fertility rate during the 2007-2009 recession and the pandemic, a significant number of Americans still believe that the ideal family includes three children. Looking at the broader population, the ideal family is around 2.5 children, which is a number that is up a little from the 1990s but has scarcely changed over the last 5 decades. Obviously, there is a gap between what the population as a whole believes and the reality of how many children the fertile population is producing. And, there is research that suggests that this gap between personal intention and ideal family size is growing. In other words, people may be saying they believe bigger families are a good thing ... if everything is going well in their life.

What is behind this gap and why is it growing? As people are delaying building their families, realities and expectations collide. Some examples? The impact of their student loans is greater than they anticipated. Climate change and news stories focused on political uncertainty can be unsettling. A person may end up marrying someone who doesn’t concur with their view of an ideal family. Fertility problems crop up with advancing age. The first child may have presented more of a challenge both physically, emotionally, and economically than new parents had expected.

If we agree that the fertility rate is an important number for our survival as a profession, can we agree that because of this vested interest we should become involved in helping families widen this growing gap between their view of the ideal family size and the realities of actually producing that family?

Maybe we don’t need to get involved. When the national climate – meteorologically, politically, and economically – improves families will start making more babies. Right now maybe the better option is to adjust our business model to the fluctuations in demand.

On the other hand, we could ask the American Academy of Pediatrics to join with the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and hire a big name advertising agency to launch an ad campaign encouraging young and not so young adults to have more children. However, this might appear rather transparent and self-serving.

The best option is probably to continue to do what we are already doing, but try to do it better. If the challenges of having a first child are a major deterrent to having a second child, we should redouble our efforts toward making, if only in retrospect, that first parenting experience rewarding and enjoyable. That could come in the form of speaking out for parental leave, breastfeeding-friendly workplaces, and more affordable daycare. But it could also come in those scores of encounters we have every day in the office where we give solid, realistic, and compassionate advice on breastfeeding, sleep hygiene, and behavior management. If we can make those tough first 6 months of parenting go more smoothly and make the twos seem less terrible, we may see the average family size in our practice grow before our eyes.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I’m a creature of habit. I suspect most of us are.

One can of Diet Coke on the drive to my office. Turn on the WiFi and air conditioning. Fire up the computer and unload my briefcase. Then do online refills, check the Astronomy Picture of the Day, look over the day’s schedule, turn on the Keurig, and make one cup of coffee. And so on.

I’m sure most of us have similar routines. Our brains are probably wired that way for survival, though the reasons aren’t the same anymore. Once it was get up, look outside the cave for predators, make sure the tribe is all accounted for, go to the stream for water, look for berries.

The fact is that automatic habits are critical for everything we do. Driving a car is really a series of repetitive tasks. Being able to put most of the ride on our brain’s autopilot allows us to move our attention to scanning the surroundings for changes, and to think about other items such as wonder what to do for dinner and if I remembered to turn off theWiFi and Keurig.

The practice of medicine is similar. Some things are internalized. Watching patients walk back to my office, looking at their hands as they fill out forms, hearing them introduce themselves, and other things that we subconsciously process as part of the exam before we’ve even officially begun the appointment. I quietly file such things away to be used later in the visit.

It certainly wasn’t always that way. In training we learn to filter out signal from noise, because the information available is huge. We all read tests of some sort. When I began reading EEGs, the images and lines were overwhelming, but with time and experience I became skilled at whittling down the mass of information into the things that really needed to be noted so I could turn pages faster (yes, youngsters, EEGs used to be on paper). Now, scanning the screen becomes a background habit, with the brain focusing more on things that stand out (or going back to thinking about what to do for dinner).

Over the millennia we’ve changed daily routines from something critical for survival to what we need for individual success in a chosen field. The brain in this way is the ultimate Swiss Army Knife – many tools available, but how we adapt and use them for our individual needs is variable.

Which is pretty impressive, actually. In the era of AI and computers, we each come with a (roughly) 2.5-petabyte hard drive that’s not only capable of storing all that information, but figuring out how to use it when we need to. The process is so smooth that we’re rarely aware of it. But what a marvel it is.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m a creature of habit. I suspect most of us are.

One can of Diet Coke on the drive to my office. Turn on the WiFi and air conditioning. Fire up the computer and unload my briefcase. Then do online refills, check the Astronomy Picture of the Day, look over the day’s schedule, turn on the Keurig, and make one cup of coffee. And so on.

I’m sure most of us have similar routines. Our brains are probably wired that way for survival, though the reasons aren’t the same anymore. Once it was get up, look outside the cave for predators, make sure the tribe is all accounted for, go to the stream for water, look for berries.

The fact is that automatic habits are critical for everything we do. Driving a car is really a series of repetitive tasks. Being able to put most of the ride on our brain’s autopilot allows us to move our attention to scanning the surroundings for changes, and to think about other items such as wonder what to do for dinner and if I remembered to turn off theWiFi and Keurig.

The practice of medicine is similar. Some things are internalized. Watching patients walk back to my office, looking at their hands as they fill out forms, hearing them introduce themselves, and other things that we subconsciously process as part of the exam before we’ve even officially begun the appointment. I quietly file such things away to be used later in the visit.

It certainly wasn’t always that way. In training we learn to filter out signal from noise, because the information available is huge. We all read tests of some sort. When I began reading EEGs, the images and lines were overwhelming, but with time and experience I became skilled at whittling down the mass of information into the things that really needed to be noted so I could turn pages faster (yes, youngsters, EEGs used to be on paper). Now, scanning the screen becomes a background habit, with the brain focusing more on things that stand out (or going back to thinking about what to do for dinner).

Over the millennia we’ve changed daily routines from something critical for survival to what we need for individual success in a chosen field. The brain in this way is the ultimate Swiss Army Knife – many tools available, but how we adapt and use them for our individual needs is variable.

Which is pretty impressive, actually. In the era of AI and computers, we each come with a (roughly) 2.5-petabyte hard drive that’s not only capable of storing all that information, but figuring out how to use it when we need to. The process is so smooth that we’re rarely aware of it. But what a marvel it is.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m a creature of habit. I suspect most of us are.

One can of Diet Coke on the drive to my office. Turn on the WiFi and air conditioning. Fire up the computer and unload my briefcase. Then do online refills, check the Astronomy Picture of the Day, look over the day’s schedule, turn on the Keurig, and make one cup of coffee. And so on.

I’m sure most of us have similar routines. Our brains are probably wired that way for survival, though the reasons aren’t the same anymore. Once it was get up, look outside the cave for predators, make sure the tribe is all accounted for, go to the stream for water, look for berries.

The fact is that automatic habits are critical for everything we do. Driving a car is really a series of repetitive tasks. Being able to put most of the ride on our brain’s autopilot allows us to move our attention to scanning the surroundings for changes, and to think about other items such as wonder what to do for dinner and if I remembered to turn off theWiFi and Keurig.

The practice of medicine is similar. Some things are internalized. Watching patients walk back to my office, looking at their hands as they fill out forms, hearing them introduce themselves, and other things that we subconsciously process as part of the exam before we’ve even officially begun the appointment. I quietly file such things away to be used later in the visit.

It certainly wasn’t always that way. In training we learn to filter out signal from noise, because the information available is huge. We all read tests of some sort. When I began reading EEGs, the images and lines were overwhelming, but with time and experience I became skilled at whittling down the mass of information into the things that really needed to be noted so I could turn pages faster (yes, youngsters, EEGs used to be on paper). Now, scanning the screen becomes a background habit, with the brain focusing more on things that stand out (or going back to thinking about what to do for dinner).

Over the millennia we’ve changed daily routines from something critical for survival to what we need for individual success in a chosen field. The brain in this way is the ultimate Swiss Army Knife – many tools available, but how we adapt and use them for our individual needs is variable.

Which is pretty impressive, actually. In the era of AI and computers, we each come with a (roughly) 2.5-petabyte hard drive that’s not only capable of storing all that information, but figuring out how to use it when we need to. The process is so smooth that we’re rarely aware of it. But what a marvel it is.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

David Nichols, PhD, a leading expert in the field of psychedelic research and the founding president of the Heffter Research Institute, often answers the question, “What is a psychedelic?” by saying, “The scientific definition I always use is that they are substances that produce changes in thought, mood, and affect, which only occur during dreaming or religious exaltation.”^1,2 However, this definition does not account for the experiences of naturally occurring psychoses, such as those seen in schizophrenia.

Lasha Khetsuriani

The phenomenology of psychotic experiences between drug-induced and naturally occurring psychoses differs, and the use of psychedelics does not necessarily replicate or simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia. For example, drug induced hallucinations are often described as more intense and vivid, while those associated with schizophrenia are described as more persistent and distressing.³

An altered state of consciousness is a hallmark of a psychedelic trip, but not a characteristic of schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia who have used psychedelics typically report that their experiences under the influence of these drugs are distinct from their usual experiences with the condition. Additionally, according to many experts, the underlying neurobiological mechanisms are different, with psychedelics affecting serotonin receptors and schizophrenia thought to be linked more to dopamine dysregulation, among other factors.

However, there are some instances of naturally occurring psychoses that are difficult to distinguish from the experiences reported by those who take psychedelics. This article explores the similarities between psychedelic experiences induced by serotonergic psychedelics, 5-HT2A agonists, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, and a rare psychiatric disorder known as the “oneiroid state.”
 

Origins and definitions

The term “oneiroia” is derived from the Greek words for “sleep” and “similar,” referring to the dreamlike character of the condition. It is widely acknowledged that psychedelics can temporarily induce dreamlike states,⁴ but this article focuses specifically on the naturally occurring, endogenous dreamlike state.

Oneiroid state was first described by German psychiatrist Wilhelm Mayer-Gross in the early 20th century and was once well-known among European psychiatrists. Some classified it as a part of schizophrenia, others saw it as an unusual manifestation of affective disorder, and still others considered it an atypical psychosis. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has received limited attention in American psychiatric journals.

The key characteristic of this condition is a distinctive state of consciousness marked by vivid and florid hallucinations, and a succession of constantly shifting dreamlike or surrealistic visuals and imagery often similar to mystical or cosmic experiences. Self-awareness and orientation in time and place are often disturbed, and delusions are experienced within this altered state.⁵

To gain a better understanding of the oneiroid state, it may be helpful to turn to European or other schools of psychiatry with a history of studying this phenomenon, as American psychiatry has limited knowledge in this area.

As described in the “Handbook of Psychiatry” by Russian psychiatrist A.V. Snezhnevsky, published in 1983, oneiroid state, also known as oneiroid syndrome, is a dreamlike and imaginative state characterized by a bizarre combination of reality and vivid phantasmagoric imaginations.⁶ In this state, individuals are completely detached from their surroundings and experience a change in self-awareness, often displaying either a lack of movement or senseless excitement.

Patients often experience the oneiroid state as active participants, as if they are in a movie theater, not only watching the story, but also being part of it, reacting to it with either “external immobility” or senseless excitement, completely detached from their surroundings. This is similar to the portrayal of the emotions of the characters in Steven Spielberg’s film “Ready Player One.”

The entry in Dr. Snezhnevsky’s “Handbook” states: “Some patients in Oneiroid State experience travels to other worlds, such as interacting with inhabitants on Mars, collecting gems on the moon, exploring invisible cities, participating in conspiracies and insurrections, fighting with pirates, chasing The Flying Dutchman, wandering through ancient Rome, and even visiting heaven or hell. At times, the patient’s imagination reaches a state of mystical contemplation.”⁶

In contrast to delirium, which never impairs self-awareness, oneiroid state is marked by drastic changes in the sense of self. The memory of the subjective experience during the oneiroia is much more vivid and consistent than in delirium. Patients who have experienced the oneiroid state often have complete recall of their experience, as if they have just woken up from a dream.

It was commonly thought that oneiroid state was part of the group of functional psychoses, rather than organic psychoses, and was not considered to be a result of mind-altering psychedelics. It was not considered a manifestation of epilepsy either. Oneiroid state could last for weeks or even months, making it unlikely to be related to an epileptic seizure. Furthermore, EEG results did not show any seizurelike activity during the state.

An excellent case study on oneiroid state was published in Israel in 2000. The authors described two patients who experienced the oneiroid state for several days or even weeks.⁷ One of the patients reported that during the illness, he experienced himself aboard a spaceship as a cosmonaut, heading for a different universe. On another occasion, the patient perceived himself as a person living 2,000 years ago and being guilty of Christ’s death.

The second patient reported that everything around her appeared “like in the movies,” and she saw others as characters from comic strips. Both patients alternated between catatonic excitement and sluggishness and would sometimes come back to reality for a few minutes to respond to questions. Physical exams, laboratory tests, neurological tests, and a brain scan were all normal in both cases.
 

Conclusions

As mentioned earlier, oneiroid state is not widely discussed in American psychiatric journals and is now considered a rare condition globally, despite being a common occurrence in the past century. A diagnosis similar to oneiroid state, known as bouffée délirante, is still in use in some French-speaking countries, with a noticeable decline in frequency.^2,8 The widespread acceptance of international classification systems such as the ICD-10, which does not recognize the diagnosis, is likely one of the reasons for this decline.

However, the decrease in the prevalence of the oneiroid state is not unique, as other forms of mental illness, such as the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia, are also becoming less prevalent. The cause of this decline is uncertain. Could changes in the way mental disorders affect 5HT2A receptors be a contributing factor?

In conclusion, as the field of psychedelic research experiences a resurgence, this little-known manifestation of mental illness, oneiroid state, may be worth reexamining.

With the expected approval and regulation of psilocybin and MDMA by the FDA, and classical psychedelics widely regarded as nonaddictive and safer than other recreational drugs, the phenomenological similarity between the naturally occurring impaired consciousness of the oneiroid state and the altered states of consciousness brought about by entheogenic substances should be seen as a possibility for enhanced understanding, rather than as a cause for concern.

Dr. Khetsuriani is a supervising psychiatrist at the Bronx Psychiatric Center in Bronx, N.Y., and has a private psychiatric practice located in Manhattan, N.Y.

References

1. Nichols DE. Keynote address, 39th Telluride Mushroom Festival, Aug. 15-18, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlDCM5JQzRk.

2. Nichols DE. Psychedelics. Pharmacol Rev. 2016 Apr;68(2):264-355. doi: 10.1124/pr.115.011478.

3. Leptourgos P et al. Hallucinations Under Psychedelics and in the Schizophrenia Spectrum: An Interdisciplinary and Multiscale Comparison. Schizophr Bull. 2020 Dec 1;46(6):1396-1408. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa117.

4. Kraehenmann R. Dreams and Psychedelics: Neurophenomenological Comparison and Therapeutic Implications. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017;15(7):1032-42. doi: 10.2174/1573413713666170619092629.

5. Henri EY et al. “Acute Delusional Psychosis” in Hirsch SR and Shepherd M, eds. Themes and variations in European psychiatry: An anthology. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974.

6. Snezhnevsky A, ed. Handbook of Psychiatry. Moscow: Meditsina, 1983.

7. Kaptsan A et al. Oneiroid syndrome: A concept of use for Western psychiatry. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2000;37(4):278-85.

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouff%C3%A9e_d%C3%A9lirante.

David Nichols, PhD, a leading expert in the field of psychedelic research and the founding president of the Heffter Research Institute, often answers the question, “What is a psychedelic?” by saying, “The scientific definition I always use is that they are substances that produce changes in thought, mood, and affect, which only occur during dreaming or religious exaltation.”^1,2 However, this definition does not account for the experiences of naturally occurring psychoses, such as those seen in schizophrenia.

Lasha Khetsuriani

The phenomenology of psychotic experiences between drug-induced and naturally occurring psychoses differs, and the use of psychedelics does not necessarily replicate or simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia. For example, drug induced hallucinations are often described as more intense and vivid, while those associated with schizophrenia are described as more persistent and distressing.³

An altered state of consciousness is a hallmark of a psychedelic trip, but not a characteristic of schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia who have used psychedelics typically report that their experiences under the influence of these drugs are distinct from their usual experiences with the condition. Additionally, according to many experts, the underlying neurobiological mechanisms are different, with psychedelics affecting serotonin receptors and schizophrenia thought to be linked more to dopamine dysregulation, among other factors.

However, there are some instances of naturally occurring psychoses that are difficult to distinguish from the experiences reported by those who take psychedelics. This article explores the similarities between psychedelic experiences induced by serotonergic psychedelics, 5-HT2A agonists, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, and a rare psychiatric disorder known as the “oneiroid state.”
 

Origins and definitions

The term “oneiroia” is derived from the Greek words for “sleep” and “similar,” referring to the dreamlike character of the condition. It is widely acknowledged that psychedelics can temporarily induce dreamlike states,⁴ but this article focuses specifically on the naturally occurring, endogenous dreamlike state.

Oneiroid state was first described by German psychiatrist Wilhelm Mayer-Gross in the early 20th century and was once well-known among European psychiatrists. Some classified it as a part of schizophrenia, others saw it as an unusual manifestation of affective disorder, and still others considered it an atypical psychosis. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has received limited attention in American psychiatric journals.

The key characteristic of this condition is a distinctive state of consciousness marked by vivid and florid hallucinations, and a succession of constantly shifting dreamlike or surrealistic visuals and imagery often similar to mystical or cosmic experiences. Self-awareness and orientation in time and place are often disturbed, and delusions are experienced within this altered state.⁵

To gain a better understanding of the oneiroid state, it may be helpful to turn to European or other schools of psychiatry with a history of studying this phenomenon, as American psychiatry has limited knowledge in this area.

As described in the “Handbook of Psychiatry” by Russian psychiatrist A.V. Snezhnevsky, published in 1983, oneiroid state, also known as oneiroid syndrome, is a dreamlike and imaginative state characterized by a bizarre combination of reality and vivid phantasmagoric imaginations.⁶ In this state, individuals are completely detached from their surroundings and experience a change in self-awareness, often displaying either a lack of movement or senseless excitement.

Patients often experience the oneiroid state as active participants, as if they are in a movie theater, not only watching the story, but also being part of it, reacting to it with either “external immobility” or senseless excitement, completely detached from their surroundings. This is similar to the portrayal of the emotions of the characters in Steven Spielberg’s film “Ready Player One.”

The entry in Dr. Snezhnevsky’s “Handbook” states: “Some patients in Oneiroid State experience travels to other worlds, such as interacting with inhabitants on Mars, collecting gems on the moon, exploring invisible cities, participating in conspiracies and insurrections, fighting with pirates, chasing The Flying Dutchman, wandering through ancient Rome, and even visiting heaven or hell. At times, the patient’s imagination reaches a state of mystical contemplation.”⁶

In contrast to delirium, which never impairs self-awareness, oneiroid state is marked by drastic changes in the sense of self. The memory of the subjective experience during the oneiroia is much more vivid and consistent than in delirium. Patients who have experienced the oneiroid state often have complete recall of their experience, as if they have just woken up from a dream.

It was commonly thought that oneiroid state was part of the group of functional psychoses, rather than organic psychoses, and was not considered to be a result of mind-altering psychedelics. It was not considered a manifestation of epilepsy either. Oneiroid state could last for weeks or even months, making it unlikely to be related to an epileptic seizure. Furthermore, EEG results did not show any seizurelike activity during the state.

An excellent case study on oneiroid state was published in Israel in 2000. The authors described two patients who experienced the oneiroid state for several days or even weeks.⁷ One of the patients reported that during the illness, he experienced himself aboard a spaceship as a cosmonaut, heading for a different universe. On another occasion, the patient perceived himself as a person living 2,000 years ago and being guilty of Christ’s death.

The second patient reported that everything around her appeared “like in the movies,” and she saw others as characters from comic strips. Both patients alternated between catatonic excitement and sluggishness and would sometimes come back to reality for a few minutes to respond to questions. Physical exams, laboratory tests, neurological tests, and a brain scan were all normal in both cases.
 

Conclusions

As mentioned earlier, oneiroid state is not widely discussed in American psychiatric journals and is now considered a rare condition globally, despite being a common occurrence in the past century. A diagnosis similar to oneiroid state, known as bouffée délirante, is still in use in some French-speaking countries, with a noticeable decline in frequency.^2,8 The widespread acceptance of international classification systems such as the ICD-10, which does not recognize the diagnosis, is likely one of the reasons for this decline.

However, the decrease in the prevalence of the oneiroid state is not unique, as other forms of mental illness, such as the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia, are also becoming less prevalent. The cause of this decline is uncertain. Could changes in the way mental disorders affect 5HT2A receptors be a contributing factor?

In conclusion, as the field of psychedelic research experiences a resurgence, this little-known manifestation of mental illness, oneiroid state, may be worth reexamining.

With the expected approval and regulation of psilocybin and MDMA by the FDA, and classical psychedelics widely regarded as nonaddictive and safer than other recreational drugs, the phenomenological similarity between the naturally occurring impaired consciousness of the oneiroid state and the altered states of consciousness brought about by entheogenic substances should be seen as a possibility for enhanced understanding, rather than as a cause for concern.

Dr. Khetsuriani is a supervising psychiatrist at the Bronx Psychiatric Center in Bronx, N.Y., and has a private psychiatric practice located in Manhattan, N.Y.

References

1. Nichols DE. Keynote address, 39th Telluride Mushroom Festival, Aug. 15-18, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlDCM5JQzRk.

2. Nichols DE. Psychedelics. Pharmacol Rev. 2016 Apr;68(2):264-355. doi: 10.1124/pr.115.011478.

3. Leptourgos P et al. Hallucinations Under Psychedelics and in the Schizophrenia Spectrum: An Interdisciplinary and Multiscale Comparison. Schizophr Bull. 2020 Dec 1;46(6):1396-1408. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa117.

4. Kraehenmann R. Dreams and Psychedelics: Neurophenomenological Comparison and Therapeutic Implications. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017;15(7):1032-42. doi: 10.2174/1573413713666170619092629.

5. Henri EY et al. “Acute Delusional Psychosis” in Hirsch SR and Shepherd M, eds. Themes and variations in European psychiatry: An anthology. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974.

6. Snezhnevsky A, ed. Handbook of Psychiatry. Moscow: Meditsina, 1983.

7. Kaptsan A et al. Oneiroid syndrome: A concept of use for Western psychiatry. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2000;37(4):278-85.

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouff%C3%A9e_d%C3%A9lirante.

David Nichols, PhD, a leading expert in the field of psychedelic research and the founding president of the Heffter Research Institute, often answers the question, “What is a psychedelic?” by saying, “The scientific definition I always use is that they are substances that produce changes in thought, mood, and affect, which only occur during dreaming or religious exaltation.”^1,2 However, this definition does not account for the experiences of naturally occurring psychoses, such as those seen in schizophrenia.

Lasha Khetsuriani

The phenomenology of psychotic experiences between drug-induced and naturally occurring psychoses differs, and the use of psychedelics does not necessarily replicate or simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia. For example, drug induced hallucinations are often described as more intense and vivid, while those associated with schizophrenia are described as more persistent and distressing.³

An altered state of consciousness is a hallmark of a psychedelic trip, but not a characteristic of schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia who have used psychedelics typically report that their experiences under the influence of these drugs are distinct from their usual experiences with the condition. Additionally, according to many experts, the underlying neurobiological mechanisms are different, with psychedelics affecting serotonin receptors and schizophrenia thought to be linked more to dopamine dysregulation, among other factors.

However, there are some instances of naturally occurring psychoses that are difficult to distinguish from the experiences reported by those who take psychedelics. This article explores the similarities between psychedelic experiences induced by serotonergic psychedelics, 5-HT2A agonists, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, and a rare psychiatric disorder known as the “oneiroid state.”
 

Origins and definitions

The term “oneiroia” is derived from the Greek words for “sleep” and “similar,” referring to the dreamlike character of the condition. It is widely acknowledged that psychedelics can temporarily induce dreamlike states,⁴ but this article focuses specifically on the naturally occurring, endogenous dreamlike state.

Oneiroid state was first described by German psychiatrist Wilhelm Mayer-Gross in the early 20th century and was once well-known among European psychiatrists. Some classified it as a part of schizophrenia, others saw it as an unusual manifestation of affective disorder, and still others considered it an atypical psychosis. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has received limited attention in American psychiatric journals.

The key characteristic of this condition is a distinctive state of consciousness marked by vivid and florid hallucinations, and a succession of constantly shifting dreamlike or surrealistic visuals and imagery often similar to mystical or cosmic experiences. Self-awareness and orientation in time and place are often disturbed, and delusions are experienced within this altered state.⁵

To gain a better understanding of the oneiroid state, it may be helpful to turn to European or other schools of psychiatry with a history of studying this phenomenon, as American psychiatry has limited knowledge in this area.

As described in the “Handbook of Psychiatry” by Russian psychiatrist A.V. Snezhnevsky, published in 1983, oneiroid state, also known as oneiroid syndrome, is a dreamlike and imaginative state characterized by a bizarre combination of reality and vivid phantasmagoric imaginations.⁶ In this state, individuals are completely detached from their surroundings and experience a change in self-awareness, often displaying either a lack of movement or senseless excitement.

Patients often experience the oneiroid state as active participants, as if they are in a movie theater, not only watching the story, but also being part of it, reacting to it with either “external immobility” or senseless excitement, completely detached from their surroundings. This is similar to the portrayal of the emotions of the characters in Steven Spielberg’s film “Ready Player One.”

The entry in Dr. Snezhnevsky’s “Handbook” states: “Some patients in Oneiroid State experience travels to other worlds, such as interacting with inhabitants on Mars, collecting gems on the moon, exploring invisible cities, participating in conspiracies and insurrections, fighting with pirates, chasing The Flying Dutchman, wandering through ancient Rome, and even visiting heaven or hell. At times, the patient’s imagination reaches a state of mystical contemplation.”⁶

In contrast to delirium, which never impairs self-awareness, oneiroid state is marked by drastic changes in the sense of self. The memory of the subjective experience during the oneiroia is much more vivid and consistent than in delirium. Patients who have experienced the oneiroid state often have complete recall of their experience, as if they have just woken up from a dream.

It was commonly thought that oneiroid state was part of the group of functional psychoses, rather than organic psychoses, and was not considered to be a result of mind-altering psychedelics. It was not considered a manifestation of epilepsy either. Oneiroid state could last for weeks or even months, making it unlikely to be related to an epileptic seizure. Furthermore, EEG results did not show any seizurelike activity during the state.

An excellent case study on oneiroid state was published in Israel in 2000. The authors described two patients who experienced the oneiroid state for several days or even weeks.⁷ One of the patients reported that during the illness, he experienced himself aboard a spaceship as a cosmonaut, heading for a different universe. On another occasion, the patient perceived himself as a person living 2,000 years ago and being guilty of Christ’s death.

The second patient reported that everything around her appeared “like in the movies,” and she saw others as characters from comic strips. Both patients alternated between catatonic excitement and sluggishness and would sometimes come back to reality for a few minutes to respond to questions. Physical exams, laboratory tests, neurological tests, and a brain scan were all normal in both cases.
 

Conclusions

As mentioned earlier, oneiroid state is not widely discussed in American psychiatric journals and is now considered a rare condition globally, despite being a common occurrence in the past century. A diagnosis similar to oneiroid state, known as bouffée délirante, is still in use in some French-speaking countries, with a noticeable decline in frequency.^2,8 The widespread acceptance of international classification systems such as the ICD-10, which does not recognize the diagnosis, is likely one of the reasons for this decline.

However, the decrease in the prevalence of the oneiroid state is not unique, as other forms of mental illness, such as the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia, are also becoming less prevalent. The cause of this decline is uncertain. Could changes in the way mental disorders affect 5HT2A receptors be a contributing factor?

In conclusion, as the field of psychedelic research experiences a resurgence, this little-known manifestation of mental illness, oneiroid state, may be worth reexamining.

With the expected approval and regulation of psilocybin and MDMA by the FDA, and classical psychedelics widely regarded as nonaddictive and safer than other recreational drugs, the phenomenological similarity between the naturally occurring impaired consciousness of the oneiroid state and the altered states of consciousness brought about by entheogenic substances should be seen as a possibility for enhanced understanding, rather than as a cause for concern.

Dr. Khetsuriani is a supervising psychiatrist at the Bronx Psychiatric Center in Bronx, N.Y., and has a private psychiatric practice located in Manhattan, N.Y.

References

1. Nichols DE. Keynote address, 39th Telluride Mushroom Festival, Aug. 15-18, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlDCM5JQzRk.

2. Nichols DE. Psychedelics. Pharmacol Rev. 2016 Apr;68(2):264-355. doi: 10.1124/pr.115.011478.

3. Leptourgos P et al. Hallucinations Under Psychedelics and in the Schizophrenia Spectrum: An Interdisciplinary and Multiscale Comparison. Schizophr Bull. 2020 Dec 1;46(6):1396-1408. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa117.

4. Kraehenmann R. Dreams and Psychedelics: Neurophenomenological Comparison and Therapeutic Implications. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017;15(7):1032-42. doi: 10.2174/1573413713666170619092629.

5. Henri EY et al. “Acute Delusional Psychosis” in Hirsch SR and Shepherd M, eds. Themes and variations in European psychiatry: An anthology. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974.

6. Snezhnevsky A, ed. Handbook of Psychiatry. Moscow: Meditsina, 1983.

7. Kaptsan A et al. Oneiroid syndrome: A concept of use for Western psychiatry. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2000;37(4):278-85.

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouff%C3%A9e_d%C3%A9lirante.