Opinion

Many of the personnel questions I receive concern the dreaded “marginal employee” – a person who has never done anything truly heinous to merit firing, but neither anything special to merit continued employment. I advise getting rid of such people and then changing the hiring criteria that bring you marginal employees in the first place.

katleho Seisa/Getty Images

Most bad hires come about because employers do not have a clear vision of the kind of employee they want. Many office manuals do not contain detailed job descriptions. If you don’t know exactly what you are looking for, your entire selection process will be inadequate from initial screening of applicants through assessments of their skills and personalities. Many physicians compound the problem with poor interview techniques and inadequate verification.

So now is the time, before a job vacancy occurs, to reevaluate your entire hiring process.. Take a hard look at your job descriptions, and update them if necessary. A good job description lists the major responsibilities of the position, with the relative importance of each duty and the critical knowledge, skills, and education levels necessary for each function. In other words, it describes, accurately and in detail, exactly what you expect from the employee you will hire to perform that job.

Once you have a clear job description in mind (and in print), take all the time you need to find the best possible match for it. This is not a place to cut corners. Screen your candidates carefully and avoid lowering your expectations. This is the point at which it might be tempting to settle for a marginal candidate, just to get the process over with.

It also is tempting to hire the candidate that you have the “best feeling” about, even though he or she is a poor match for the job, and then try to mold the job to that person. Every doctor knows that hunches are no substitute for hard data.


Be alert for red flags in résumés: significant time gaps between jobs; positions at companies that are no longer in business, or are otherwise impossible to verify; job titles that don’t make sense, given the applicant’s qualifications.

Background checks are a dicey subject, but publicly available information can be found, cheaply or free, on multiple websites created for that purpose. Be sure to tell applicants that you will be verifying facts in their résumés; it’s usually wise to get their written consent to do so.

Many employers skip the essential step of verification; many applicants know that. (I once actually overheard a new hire say, “I won’t be here long if they check my references.” And by golly, she was right!) If a reference is reluctant to tell you anything substantive, ask, “Would you hire this person again?” You can interpret a lot from the answer – or lack of one.

Interviews often get short shrift as well. Many doctors tend to do all the talking. The purpose of an interview is to allow you to size up the prospective employee, not to deliver a lecture on the sterling attributes of your office. Important interview topics include educational background, skills, experience, and unrelated job history.

By law, you cannot ask an applicant’s age, date of birth, sex, creed, color, religion, or national origin. Other forbidden subjects include disabilities, marital status, military record, number of children (or who cares for them), addiction history, citizenship, criminal record, psychiatric history, absenteeism, or workers’ compensation.

There are acceptable alternatives to some of those questions, however: You can ask if applicants have ever gone by another name (for your background check), for example. You can ask if they are legally authorized to work in this country, and whether they will be physically able to perform the duties specified in the job description. While past addictions are off limits, you do have a right to know about current addictions to illegal substances.

Once you have hired people whose skills and personalities best fit your needs, train them well, and then give them the opportunity to succeed. “The best executive,” wrote Theodore Roosevelt, “is the one who has sense enough to pick good [people] to do what he [or she] wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Many of the personnel questions I receive concern the dreaded “marginal employee” – a person who has never done anything truly heinous to merit firing, but neither anything special to merit continued employment. I advise getting rid of such people and then changing the hiring criteria that bring you marginal employees in the first place.

katleho Seisa/Getty Images

Most bad hires come about because employers do not have a clear vision of the kind of employee they want. Many office manuals do not contain detailed job descriptions. If you don’t know exactly what you are looking for, your entire selection process will be inadequate from initial screening of applicants through assessments of their skills and personalities. Many physicians compound the problem with poor interview techniques and inadequate verification.

So now is the time, before a job vacancy occurs, to reevaluate your entire hiring process.. Take a hard look at your job descriptions, and update them if necessary. A good job description lists the major responsibilities of the position, with the relative importance of each duty and the critical knowledge, skills, and education levels necessary for each function. In other words, it describes, accurately and in detail, exactly what you expect from the employee you will hire to perform that job.

Once you have a clear job description in mind (and in print), take all the time you need to find the best possible match for it. This is not a place to cut corners. Screen your candidates carefully and avoid lowering your expectations. This is the point at which it might be tempting to settle for a marginal candidate, just to get the process over with.

It also is tempting to hire the candidate that you have the “best feeling” about, even though he or she is a poor match for the job, and then try to mold the job to that person. Every doctor knows that hunches are no substitute for hard data.


Be alert for red flags in résumés: significant time gaps between jobs; positions at companies that are no longer in business, or are otherwise impossible to verify; job titles that don’t make sense, given the applicant’s qualifications.

Background checks are a dicey subject, but publicly available information can be found, cheaply or free, on multiple websites created for that purpose. Be sure to tell applicants that you will be verifying facts in their résumés; it’s usually wise to get their written consent to do so.

Many employers skip the essential step of verification; many applicants know that. (I once actually overheard a new hire say, “I won’t be here long if they check my references.” And by golly, she was right!) If a reference is reluctant to tell you anything substantive, ask, “Would you hire this person again?” You can interpret a lot from the answer – or lack of one.

Interviews often get short shrift as well. Many doctors tend to do all the talking. The purpose of an interview is to allow you to size up the prospective employee, not to deliver a lecture on the sterling attributes of your office. Important interview topics include educational background, skills, experience, and unrelated job history.

By law, you cannot ask an applicant’s age, date of birth, sex, creed, color, religion, or national origin. Other forbidden subjects include disabilities, marital status, military record, number of children (or who cares for them), addiction history, citizenship, criminal record, psychiatric history, absenteeism, or workers’ compensation.

There are acceptable alternatives to some of those questions, however: You can ask if applicants have ever gone by another name (for your background check), for example. You can ask if they are legally authorized to work in this country, and whether they will be physically able to perform the duties specified in the job description. While past addictions are off limits, you do have a right to know about current addictions to illegal substances.

Once you have hired people whose skills and personalities best fit your needs, train them well, and then give them the opportunity to succeed. “The best executive,” wrote Theodore Roosevelt, “is the one who has sense enough to pick good [people] to do what he [or she] wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Many of the personnel questions I receive concern the dreaded “marginal employee” – a person who has never done anything truly heinous to merit firing, but neither anything special to merit continued employment. I advise getting rid of such people and then changing the hiring criteria that bring you marginal employees in the first place.

katleho Seisa/Getty Images

Most bad hires come about because employers do not have a clear vision of the kind of employee they want. Many office manuals do not contain detailed job descriptions. If you don’t know exactly what you are looking for, your entire selection process will be inadequate from initial screening of applicants through assessments of their skills and personalities. Many physicians compound the problem with poor interview techniques and inadequate verification.

So now is the time, before a job vacancy occurs, to reevaluate your entire hiring process.. Take a hard look at your job descriptions, and update them if necessary. A good job description lists the major responsibilities of the position, with the relative importance of each duty and the critical knowledge, skills, and education levels necessary for each function. In other words, it describes, accurately and in detail, exactly what you expect from the employee you will hire to perform that job.

Once you have a clear job description in mind (and in print), take all the time you need to find the best possible match for it. This is not a place to cut corners. Screen your candidates carefully and avoid lowering your expectations. This is the point at which it might be tempting to settle for a marginal candidate, just to get the process over with.

It also is tempting to hire the candidate that you have the “best feeling” about, even though he or she is a poor match for the job, and then try to mold the job to that person. Every doctor knows that hunches are no substitute for hard data.


Be alert for red flags in résumés: significant time gaps between jobs; positions at companies that are no longer in business, or are otherwise impossible to verify; job titles that don’t make sense, given the applicant’s qualifications.

Background checks are a dicey subject, but publicly available information can be found, cheaply or free, on multiple websites created for that purpose. Be sure to tell applicants that you will be verifying facts in their résumés; it’s usually wise to get their written consent to do so.

Many employers skip the essential step of verification; many applicants know that. (I once actually overheard a new hire say, “I won’t be here long if they check my references.” And by golly, she was right!) If a reference is reluctant to tell you anything substantive, ask, “Would you hire this person again?” You can interpret a lot from the answer – or lack of one.

Interviews often get short shrift as well. Many doctors tend to do all the talking. The purpose of an interview is to allow you to size up the prospective employee, not to deliver a lecture on the sterling attributes of your office. Important interview topics include educational background, skills, experience, and unrelated job history.

By law, you cannot ask an applicant’s age, date of birth, sex, creed, color, religion, or national origin. Other forbidden subjects include disabilities, marital status, military record, number of children (or who cares for them), addiction history, citizenship, criminal record, psychiatric history, absenteeism, or workers’ compensation.

There are acceptable alternatives to some of those questions, however: You can ask if applicants have ever gone by another name (for your background check), for example. You can ask if they are legally authorized to work in this country, and whether they will be physically able to perform the duties specified in the job description. While past addictions are off limits, you do have a right to know about current addictions to illegal substances.

Once you have hired people whose skills and personalities best fit your needs, train them well, and then give them the opportunity to succeed. “The best executive,” wrote Theodore Roosevelt, “is the one who has sense enough to pick good [people] to do what he [or she] wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

 

What would you do if a 17-year-old patient ran out of a therapy group you were leading, went into a bathroom, and superficially cut her wrists?

You might be surprised by child psychiatrist’s Mike Shooter’s response revealed in his book, “Growing Pains: Making Sense of Childhood: A Psychiatrist’s Story”(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2018). Rather than hospitalizing this patient, as was done many times before, he makes a bold decision to listen to the group members, who help the patient develop a plan that ultimately leads to greater resiliency.

Dr. Shooter shares many stories about the power of therapy to heal, often visiting patients at their homes to better understand the dynamics of their distress. Stories themselves heal: “It is the job of the therapist to encourage them to reveal their story, to listen to it, and to help them find a better outcome.”

From these stories, we learn about Dr. Shooter’s passion and commitment to his relationship with the child – listening, fostering autonomy, recognizing the power of family systems, working with a multidisciplinary team, and using his own experiences with depression to better help his patients.

Dr. Shooter closes the distance between himself and readers by sharing his own story – his difficult relationship with his strict father, his own uncertainty about his future profession, the deep depression that could have derailed his family life and career, and the treatment that got him back on track.

This book is an excellent read for psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, whether they work with children or adults. It is especially valuable to psychiatrists like me who work with college students – transitional-age youth at the border between childhood and adulthood. Dr. Shooter beautifully describes the societal ills that have contributed to a global rise in child and adolescent mental health problems:

“We live in an ever-more competitive world. To the normal pressures of growing up are added the educational demands to pass more and more exams, a gloominess about the future, and a loss of faith in political processes to put it right; private catastrophes at home and global catastrophes beamed in from all over the world; and a media that’s in love with how to be popular, how to look attractive, and how to be a success.”

The general public would also find this book an interesting glimpse into the world of child psychiatry. The public as well as politicians would benefit from knowing the value child psychiatry can provide at a time when services are underfunded in many countries, including the United States.

This book uses the words of children to highlight the challenges young people face – from bereavement to bullying to abuse. He writes about children on the “margins of margins.” As I read the book, Dr. Shooter reminded me of psychiatrist and author Robert Coles, who taught my favorite college class and wrote about children in crisis from the Appalachians to Africa.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Shooter describes spending time with Dr. Coles at a conference on bereavement. He adheres to the advice Dr. Coles offered, which was to “Listen to what the children say, not what the adults say about them. ... Follow what your gut tells you, not your head.”

In addition to listening to the patient and your gut, Dr. Shooter describes offering hope as another essential element to treatment. He describes giving hope to children of parents who die by suicide, as these children often fear they will meet their parents’ fate. “And they need to know, too, that suicide is not inevitable. … Help is ready and available to stop the children and young people ever getting to that state.”

One element of treatment Dr. Shooter minimally addresses is psychopharmacology, and mostly in a negative way. While he acknowledges that some children genuinely do have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or depression, he feels they are overdiagnosed and thus overtreated with medication. I would have liked to hear more about the times he prescribed medication and how it was integrated into comprehensive care that included therapy and lifestyle changes. I would not want parents reading this book to feel badly if they have supported having their child take medication for a mental health disorder.

Dr. Shooter does make the important point that therapy is often left on the sidelines in current medical systems. Therapy can benefit people of all ages as we face our own “growing pains.” He highlights the “opportunity for growth” that challenges provide, and indeed gives us a great sense of hope in our lives and our work as psychiatrists.

Dr. Morris is an associate professor of psychiatry and associate program director for student health psychiatry at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She is the author of “The Campus Cure: A Parent’s Guide to Mental Health and Wellness for College Students” (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield of Lanham, 2018).

 

What would you do if a 17-year-old patient ran out of a therapy group you were leading, went into a bathroom, and superficially cut her wrists?

You might be surprised by child psychiatrist’s Mike Shooter’s response revealed in his book, “Growing Pains: Making Sense of Childhood: A Psychiatrist’s Story”(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2018). Rather than hospitalizing this patient, as was done many times before, he makes a bold decision to listen to the group members, who help the patient develop a plan that ultimately leads to greater resiliency.

Dr. Shooter shares many stories about the power of therapy to heal, often visiting patients at their homes to better understand the dynamics of their distress. Stories themselves heal: “It is the job of the therapist to encourage them to reveal their story, to listen to it, and to help them find a better outcome.”

From these stories, we learn about Dr. Shooter’s passion and commitment to his relationship with the child – listening, fostering autonomy, recognizing the power of family systems, working with a multidisciplinary team, and using his own experiences with depression to better help his patients.

Dr. Shooter closes the distance between himself and readers by sharing his own story – his difficult relationship with his strict father, his own uncertainty about his future profession, the deep depression that could have derailed his family life and career, and the treatment that got him back on track.

This book is an excellent read for psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, whether they work with children or adults. It is especially valuable to psychiatrists like me who work with college students – transitional-age youth at the border between childhood and adulthood. Dr. Shooter beautifully describes the societal ills that have contributed to a global rise in child and adolescent mental health problems:

“We live in an ever-more competitive world. To the normal pressures of growing up are added the educational demands to pass more and more exams, a gloominess about the future, and a loss of faith in political processes to put it right; private catastrophes at home and global catastrophes beamed in from all over the world; and a media that’s in love with how to be popular, how to look attractive, and how to be a success.”

The general public would also find this book an interesting glimpse into the world of child psychiatry. The public as well as politicians would benefit from knowing the value child psychiatry can provide at a time when services are underfunded in many countries, including the United States.

This book uses the words of children to highlight the challenges young people face – from bereavement to bullying to abuse. He writes about children on the “margins of margins.” As I read the book, Dr. Shooter reminded me of psychiatrist and author Robert Coles, who taught my favorite college class and wrote about children in crisis from the Appalachians to Africa.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Shooter describes spending time with Dr. Coles at a conference on bereavement. He adheres to the advice Dr. Coles offered, which was to “Listen to what the children say, not what the adults say about them. ... Follow what your gut tells you, not your head.”

In addition to listening to the patient and your gut, Dr. Shooter describes offering hope as another essential element to treatment. He describes giving hope to children of parents who die by suicide, as these children often fear they will meet their parents’ fate. “And they need to know, too, that suicide is not inevitable. … Help is ready and available to stop the children and young people ever getting to that state.”

One element of treatment Dr. Shooter minimally addresses is psychopharmacology, and mostly in a negative way. While he acknowledges that some children genuinely do have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or depression, he feels they are overdiagnosed and thus overtreated with medication. I would have liked to hear more about the times he prescribed medication and how it was integrated into comprehensive care that included therapy and lifestyle changes. I would not want parents reading this book to feel badly if they have supported having their child take medication for a mental health disorder.

Dr. Shooter does make the important point that therapy is often left on the sidelines in current medical systems. Therapy can benefit people of all ages as we face our own “growing pains.” He highlights the “opportunity for growth” that challenges provide, and indeed gives us a great sense of hope in our lives and our work as psychiatrists.

Dr. Morris is an associate professor of psychiatry and associate program director for student health psychiatry at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She is the author of “The Campus Cure: A Parent’s Guide to Mental Health and Wellness for College Students” (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield of Lanham, 2018).

 

What would you do if a 17-year-old patient ran out of a therapy group you were leading, went into a bathroom, and superficially cut her wrists?

You might be surprised by child psychiatrist’s Mike Shooter’s response revealed in his book, “Growing Pains: Making Sense of Childhood: A Psychiatrist’s Story”(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2018). Rather than hospitalizing this patient, as was done many times before, he makes a bold decision to listen to the group members, who help the patient develop a plan that ultimately leads to greater resiliency.

Dr. Shooter shares many stories about the power of therapy to heal, often visiting patients at their homes to better understand the dynamics of their distress. Stories themselves heal: “It is the job of the therapist to encourage them to reveal their story, to listen to it, and to help them find a better outcome.”

From these stories, we learn about Dr. Shooter’s passion and commitment to his relationship with the child – listening, fostering autonomy, recognizing the power of family systems, working with a multidisciplinary team, and using his own experiences with depression to better help his patients.

Dr. Shooter closes the distance between himself and readers by sharing his own story – his difficult relationship with his strict father, his own uncertainty about his future profession, the deep depression that could have derailed his family life and career, and the treatment that got him back on track.

This book is an excellent read for psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, whether they work with children or adults. It is especially valuable to psychiatrists like me who work with college students – transitional-age youth at the border between childhood and adulthood. Dr. Shooter beautifully describes the societal ills that have contributed to a global rise in child and adolescent mental health problems:

“We live in an ever-more competitive world. To the normal pressures of growing up are added the educational demands to pass more and more exams, a gloominess about the future, and a loss of faith in political processes to put it right; private catastrophes at home and global catastrophes beamed in from all over the world; and a media that’s in love with how to be popular, how to look attractive, and how to be a success.”

The general public would also find this book an interesting glimpse into the world of child psychiatry. The public as well as politicians would benefit from knowing the value child psychiatry can provide at a time when services are underfunded in many countries, including the United States.

This book uses the words of children to highlight the challenges young people face – from bereavement to bullying to abuse. He writes about children on the “margins of margins.” As I read the book, Dr. Shooter reminded me of psychiatrist and author Robert Coles, who taught my favorite college class and wrote about children in crisis from the Appalachians to Africa.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Shooter describes spending time with Dr. Coles at a conference on bereavement. He adheres to the advice Dr. Coles offered, which was to “Listen to what the children say, not what the adults say about them. ... Follow what your gut tells you, not your head.”

In addition to listening to the patient and your gut, Dr. Shooter describes offering hope as another essential element to treatment. He describes giving hope to children of parents who die by suicide, as these children often fear they will meet their parents’ fate. “And they need to know, too, that suicide is not inevitable. … Help is ready and available to stop the children and young people ever getting to that state.”

One element of treatment Dr. Shooter minimally addresses is psychopharmacology, and mostly in a negative way. While he acknowledges that some children genuinely do have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or depression, he feels they are overdiagnosed and thus overtreated with medication. I would have liked to hear more about the times he prescribed medication and how it was integrated into comprehensive care that included therapy and lifestyle changes. I would not want parents reading this book to feel badly if they have supported having their child take medication for a mental health disorder.

Dr. Shooter does make the important point that therapy is often left on the sidelines in current medical systems. Therapy can benefit people of all ages as we face our own “growing pains.” He highlights the “opportunity for growth” that challenges provide, and indeed gives us a great sense of hope in our lives and our work as psychiatrists.

Dr. Morris is an associate professor of psychiatry and associate program director for student health psychiatry at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She is the author of “The Campus Cure: A Parent’s Guide to Mental Health and Wellness for College Students” (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield of Lanham, 2018).

 

On June 10, 2019, a rainy, foggy day, there was a news flash that a plane had crashed into a building in the middle of New York City. I first saw this notification on my iPhone and my immediate thought was: Could this be a redo of Sept. 11?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers file photo

I was especially concerned because I knew the area fairly well, in that a clinic I had worked in for more than 10 years was only a few blocks away. However, my memory bank brought me back to that day almost 18 years ago when, from a hospital window, many of us doctors, nurses, social workers, and patients saw the fire in the north tower and then saw the second plane crash into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Once we all knew what happened, we spent that night at the hospital awaiting the arrival of people in need of care. Unfortunately, very few arrived.

On this past June day, before anyone really knew the facts, what we heard and saw on TV was buildings being evacuated in midtown Manhattan, people running and moving in all directions with police officers directing people and diverting traffic, firemen entering the building, and EMT first responders in place. What mayhem!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo got to the scene very quickly and assured us that the incident did not appear to be a terrorist attack. Furthermore, he thoughtfully pointed out, we in New York City all seem to have a version or a form of posttraumatic stress disorder taking us back to Sept. 11, 2001. From my point of view, Gov. Cuomo could not have been more correct in his short, televised talk to a nervous public. The incident, and the governor’s reaction to it, started me thinking about how easily triggered the memories and flashbacks of PTSD can be.

It became clear very soon that a pilot had lost control of the helicopter on that foggy, rainy June day and had tried to make an emergency landing on the roof of a Manhattan high-rise. The roof landing did not go well; the helicopter crashed on the roof; and the lone pilot died.

As it turned out, mental health care workers treated many PTSD sufferers at the Bellevue and Mount Sinai hospital programs set up after Sept. 11, including those who were part of the rescue as well as the clean-up. In addition, it appears that many who witnessed the disaster also were vulnerable to PTSD and were additionally treated in various programs. I have seen and interviewed many of those people over the last 10 years.

PTSD is defined mainly in terms of experiencing a traumatic event during a man-made or natural disaster: torture, assaults, the tragedies of war, or any event that causes physical or psychological injury. According to research, it can occur right after the event or years later. Besides those major traumatic events, I’ve seen PTSD occur from much lesser traumas; much depends on how individuals process what is happening around them. For example, in some people, I’ve seen PTSD occur after job loss, where identity and persona are lost and the brain experiences the psychological shock consistent with more dangerously threatening aspects of PTSD. I’ve seen dog bites, auto accidents, even “fender benders” and emotional break-ups bring out the symptoms of PTSD (J Adv Nurs. 2005 Oct;52[1]:22-30). Luckily, in most of those cases, treatment or time itself can heal the problems.

Going back to that June day, for a few brief moments, my memory was jogged back to Sept. 11. A few people I spoke with about the event last month also reported being taken back to that fateful day (Am Psychol. 2011 Sep;66[6]:429-46).

For some experiencing PTSD, flashbacks to the physically threatening or psychologically shocking event occur as opposed to memory alone. During a flashback, the person actually relives the experience as if it were in the present. Flashbacks are quite different from recall alone. In my experience, the flashback is not unlike age regression, where an individual actually relives an event as opposed to having a memory of an event.

PTSD is a serious emotional problem, and I believe that much of it is undiagnosed in society – partly because we tend to look for the disorder after major traumatic events, such as physical and psychological effects of war or disaster, man-made and natural disasters, as well as assaults and torture. As we know in medicine and mental health care, there are certain vulnerabilities to some disorders. I believe that, whether through education, environment, or genetics, we have vulnerabilities to PTSD (Brain Behav Immun. 2013 May;30:12-21); (Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Nov;32[7]:630-41), not only from major disastrous physical and psychological shocks but less obvious events in life that might create the same clinical picture we see in more traditional cases of PTSD.

Some PTSD survivors will improve and get better with time. Others do well after getting treatments with interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and prolonged exposure therapy, both of which are fairly short term in many instances. Medication management might be helpful for some, but I believe it should be combined with CBT or exposure therapy – or at least some form of talk therapy. An ongoing relationship with a supportive therapist or friends and family is extremely important, in order to keep PTSD survivors from isolating and endlessly “living in their heads” as they relive the experience and face the multiple symptom complexes of PTSD.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including CBT and guided imagery. He recently published a book called “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2018).

 

On June 10, 2019, a rainy, foggy day, there was a news flash that a plane had crashed into a building in the middle of New York City. I first saw this notification on my iPhone and my immediate thought was: Could this be a redo of Sept. 11?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers file photo

I was especially concerned because I knew the area fairly well, in that a clinic I had worked in for more than 10 years was only a few blocks away. However, my memory bank brought me back to that day almost 18 years ago when, from a hospital window, many of us doctors, nurses, social workers, and patients saw the fire in the north tower and then saw the second plane crash into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Once we all knew what happened, we spent that night at the hospital awaiting the arrival of people in need of care. Unfortunately, very few arrived.

On this past June day, before anyone really knew the facts, what we heard and saw on TV was buildings being evacuated in midtown Manhattan, people running and moving in all directions with police officers directing people and diverting traffic, firemen entering the building, and EMT first responders in place. What mayhem!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo got to the scene very quickly and assured us that the incident did not appear to be a terrorist attack. Furthermore, he thoughtfully pointed out, we in New York City all seem to have a version or a form of posttraumatic stress disorder taking us back to Sept. 11, 2001. From my point of view, Gov. Cuomo could not have been more correct in his short, televised talk to a nervous public. The incident, and the governor’s reaction to it, started me thinking about how easily triggered the memories and flashbacks of PTSD can be.

It became clear very soon that a pilot had lost control of the helicopter on that foggy, rainy June day and had tried to make an emergency landing on the roof of a Manhattan high-rise. The roof landing did not go well; the helicopter crashed on the roof; and the lone pilot died.

As it turned out, mental health care workers treated many PTSD sufferers at the Bellevue and Mount Sinai hospital programs set up after Sept. 11, including those who were part of the rescue as well as the clean-up. In addition, it appears that many who witnessed the disaster also were vulnerable to PTSD and were additionally treated in various programs. I have seen and interviewed many of those people over the last 10 years.

PTSD is defined mainly in terms of experiencing a traumatic event during a man-made or natural disaster: torture, assaults, the tragedies of war, or any event that causes physical or psychological injury. According to research, it can occur right after the event or years later. Besides those major traumatic events, I’ve seen PTSD occur from much lesser traumas; much depends on how individuals process what is happening around them. For example, in some people, I’ve seen PTSD occur after job loss, where identity and persona are lost and the brain experiences the psychological shock consistent with more dangerously threatening aspects of PTSD. I’ve seen dog bites, auto accidents, even “fender benders” and emotional break-ups bring out the symptoms of PTSD (J Adv Nurs. 2005 Oct;52[1]:22-30). Luckily, in most of those cases, treatment or time itself can heal the problems.

Going back to that June day, for a few brief moments, my memory was jogged back to Sept. 11. A few people I spoke with about the event last month also reported being taken back to that fateful day (Am Psychol. 2011 Sep;66[6]:429-46).

For some experiencing PTSD, flashbacks to the physically threatening or psychologically shocking event occur as opposed to memory alone. During a flashback, the person actually relives the experience as if it were in the present. Flashbacks are quite different from recall alone. In my experience, the flashback is not unlike age regression, where an individual actually relives an event as opposed to having a memory of an event.

PTSD is a serious emotional problem, and I believe that much of it is undiagnosed in society – partly because we tend to look for the disorder after major traumatic events, such as physical and psychological effects of war or disaster, man-made and natural disasters, as well as assaults and torture. As we know in medicine and mental health care, there are certain vulnerabilities to some disorders. I believe that, whether through education, environment, or genetics, we have vulnerabilities to PTSD (Brain Behav Immun. 2013 May;30:12-21); (Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Nov;32[7]:630-41), not only from major disastrous physical and psychological shocks but less obvious events in life that might create the same clinical picture we see in more traditional cases of PTSD.

Some PTSD survivors will improve and get better with time. Others do well after getting treatments with interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and prolonged exposure therapy, both of which are fairly short term in many instances. Medication management might be helpful for some, but I believe it should be combined with CBT or exposure therapy – or at least some form of talk therapy. An ongoing relationship with a supportive therapist or friends and family is extremely important, in order to keep PTSD survivors from isolating and endlessly “living in their heads” as they relive the experience and face the multiple symptom complexes of PTSD.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including CBT and guided imagery. He recently published a book called “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2018).

 

On June 10, 2019, a rainy, foggy day, there was a news flash that a plane had crashed into a building in the middle of New York City. I first saw this notification on my iPhone and my immediate thought was: Could this be a redo of Sept. 11?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers file photo

I was especially concerned because I knew the area fairly well, in that a clinic I had worked in for more than 10 years was only a few blocks away. However, my memory bank brought me back to that day almost 18 years ago when, from a hospital window, many of us doctors, nurses, social workers, and patients saw the fire in the north tower and then saw the second plane crash into the south tower of the World Trade Center. Once we all knew what happened, we spent that night at the hospital awaiting the arrival of people in need of care. Unfortunately, very few arrived.

On this past June day, before anyone really knew the facts, what we heard and saw on TV was buildings being evacuated in midtown Manhattan, people running and moving in all directions with police officers directing people and diverting traffic, firemen entering the building, and EMT first responders in place. What mayhem!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo got to the scene very quickly and assured us that the incident did not appear to be a terrorist attack. Furthermore, he thoughtfully pointed out, we in New York City all seem to have a version or a form of posttraumatic stress disorder taking us back to Sept. 11, 2001. From my point of view, Gov. Cuomo could not have been more correct in his short, televised talk to a nervous public. The incident, and the governor’s reaction to it, started me thinking about how easily triggered the memories and flashbacks of PTSD can be.

It became clear very soon that a pilot had lost control of the helicopter on that foggy, rainy June day and had tried to make an emergency landing on the roof of a Manhattan high-rise. The roof landing did not go well; the helicopter crashed on the roof; and the lone pilot died.

As it turned out, mental health care workers treated many PTSD sufferers at the Bellevue and Mount Sinai hospital programs set up after Sept. 11, including those who were part of the rescue as well as the clean-up. In addition, it appears that many who witnessed the disaster also were vulnerable to PTSD and were additionally treated in various programs. I have seen and interviewed many of those people over the last 10 years.

PTSD is defined mainly in terms of experiencing a traumatic event during a man-made or natural disaster: torture, assaults, the tragedies of war, or any event that causes physical or psychological injury. According to research, it can occur right after the event or years later. Besides those major traumatic events, I’ve seen PTSD occur from much lesser traumas; much depends on how individuals process what is happening around them. For example, in some people, I’ve seen PTSD occur after job loss, where identity and persona are lost and the brain experiences the psychological shock consistent with more dangerously threatening aspects of PTSD. I’ve seen dog bites, auto accidents, even “fender benders” and emotional break-ups bring out the symptoms of PTSD (J Adv Nurs. 2005 Oct;52[1]:22-30). Luckily, in most of those cases, treatment or time itself can heal the problems.

Going back to that June day, for a few brief moments, my memory was jogged back to Sept. 11. A few people I spoke with about the event last month also reported being taken back to that fateful day (Am Psychol. 2011 Sep;66[6]:429-46).

For some experiencing PTSD, flashbacks to the physically threatening or psychologically shocking event occur as opposed to memory alone. During a flashback, the person actually relives the experience as if it were in the present. Flashbacks are quite different from recall alone. In my experience, the flashback is not unlike age regression, where an individual actually relives an event as opposed to having a memory of an event.

PTSD is a serious emotional problem, and I believe that much of it is undiagnosed in society – partly because we tend to look for the disorder after major traumatic events, such as physical and psychological effects of war or disaster, man-made and natural disasters, as well as assaults and torture. As we know in medicine and mental health care, there are certain vulnerabilities to some disorders. I believe that, whether through education, environment, or genetics, we have vulnerabilities to PTSD (Brain Behav Immun. 2013 May;30:12-21); (Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Nov;32[7]:630-41), not only from major disastrous physical and psychological shocks but less obvious events in life that might create the same clinical picture we see in more traditional cases of PTSD.

Some PTSD survivors will improve and get better with time. Others do well after getting treatments with interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and prolonged exposure therapy, both of which are fairly short term in many instances. Medication management might be helpful for some, but I believe it should be combined with CBT or exposure therapy – or at least some form of talk therapy. An ongoing relationship with a supportive therapist or friends and family is extremely important, in order to keep PTSD survivors from isolating and endlessly “living in their heads” as they relive the experience and face the multiple symptom complexes of PTSD.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including CBT and guided imagery. He recently published a book called “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2018).

Being in stressful situations is part of being a hospitalist. During a hospitalist’s work shift, one of the key determinants of stress is adequate staffing. With use of survey data from 569 hospital medicine groups (HMGs) across the nation, one of the topics examined in the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report is how HMGs cope with unfilled hospitalist physician positions.

The survey presented five options for covering unfilled hospitalist physician positions: use of locum tenens, use of moonlighters, use of voluntary extra shifts by the HMG’s existing hospitalists, use of required extra shifts, and leaving some shifts uncovered. Recipients were instructed to select all options that applied, so totals exceeded 100%. The data is organized according to HMGs that serve adults only, children only, and both adults and children.

For all three types of HMGs, the most common tactic to fill coverage gaps is through voluntary extra shifts by existing clinicians, reportedly used by 70.3% of HMGs that cover adults only, 66.7% by those that cover children only, and 76.9% by those that cover both adults and children. Data for adults-only HMGs was further broken down by geographic region, academic status, teaching status, group size, and employment model. Among adults-only HMGs, there is a direct correlation between group size and having members voluntarily work extra shifts, with 91.1% of groups with 30 or more full-time equivalent positions employing this tactic.

For HMGs that cover adults only and those that cover children only, the second most common tactic is to use moonlighters (57.4% and 53.3% respectively), while use of moonlighters is the third most commonly employed surveyed tactic for HMGs that cover both adults and children (53.8%).

HMGs that serve both adults and children were much more likely to utilize locum tenens to cover unfilled positions (69.2%) than were groups that serve adults only (44.0%) or children only (26.7%). The variability in the use of locum tenens is likely because of the willingness and/or ability of the respective groups to afford this option because it is generally the most expensive option of those surveyed.

Requiring that members of the group work extra shifts is the least popular staffing method among adults-only HMGs (10.0%) and HMGs serving both children and adults (7.7%). This strategy is unpopular, especially when there is little advance warning. Surprisingly, 40.0% of HMGs that see children only require members to work extra shifts to cover unfilled slots. This could be because pediatric HMGs are often smaller, and it would be more difficult to absorb the work if the shift is left uncovered. In fact, many pediatric HMGs staff with only one clinician at a time, so there may be no option besides requiring someone else in the group to come in and work.Of the options surveyed, perhaps the most uncomfortable for those hospitalist physicians on duty is to leave some shifts uncovered. The rapid growth and development of the specialty of hospital medicine has made it difficult for HMGs to continuously hire qualified hospitalists fast enough to meet demand. The survey found 46.2% of HMGs that serve both adults and children and 31.4% of groups that serve adults only have employed the staffing model of going short-staffed for at least some shifts. HMGs serving children-only are much less likely to go short-staffed (20.0%).

I work with a large HMG that has more than 70 members, and when it has been short-staffed, it tries to ensure a full complement of evening and night staff as the top priority because these shifts are typically more stressful. Since we have more hospitalist capacity during the day to absorb the loss of a physician, we pull staff from their daytime rounding schedules to execute this strategy. While going short-staffed is not ideal, this option has worked for many groups out of sheer necessity.

Dr. Stephan is a hospitalist at Allina Health’s Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis and is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

Being in stressful situations is part of being a hospitalist. During a hospitalist’s work shift, one of the key determinants of stress is adequate staffing. With use of survey data from 569 hospital medicine groups (HMGs) across the nation, one of the topics examined in the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report is how HMGs cope with unfilled hospitalist physician positions.

The survey presented five options for covering unfilled hospitalist physician positions: use of locum tenens, use of moonlighters, use of voluntary extra shifts by the HMG’s existing hospitalists, use of required extra shifts, and leaving some shifts uncovered. Recipients were instructed to select all options that applied, so totals exceeded 100%. The data is organized according to HMGs that serve adults only, children only, and both adults and children.

For all three types of HMGs, the most common tactic to fill coverage gaps is through voluntary extra shifts by existing clinicians, reportedly used by 70.3% of HMGs that cover adults only, 66.7% by those that cover children only, and 76.9% by those that cover both adults and children. Data for adults-only HMGs was further broken down by geographic region, academic status, teaching status, group size, and employment model. Among adults-only HMGs, there is a direct correlation between group size and having members voluntarily work extra shifts, with 91.1% of groups with 30 or more full-time equivalent positions employing this tactic.

For HMGs that cover adults only and those that cover children only, the second most common tactic is to use moonlighters (57.4% and 53.3% respectively), while use of moonlighters is the third most commonly employed surveyed tactic for HMGs that cover both adults and children (53.8%).

HMGs that serve both adults and children were much more likely to utilize locum tenens to cover unfilled positions (69.2%) than were groups that serve adults only (44.0%) or children only (26.7%). The variability in the use of locum tenens is likely because of the willingness and/or ability of the respective groups to afford this option because it is generally the most expensive option of those surveyed.

Requiring that members of the group work extra shifts is the least popular staffing method among adults-only HMGs (10.0%) and HMGs serving both children and adults (7.7%). This strategy is unpopular, especially when there is little advance warning. Surprisingly, 40.0% of HMGs that see children only require members to work extra shifts to cover unfilled slots. This could be because pediatric HMGs are often smaller, and it would be more difficult to absorb the work if the shift is left uncovered. In fact, many pediatric HMGs staff with only one clinician at a time, so there may be no option besides requiring someone else in the group to come in and work.Of the options surveyed, perhaps the most uncomfortable for those hospitalist physicians on duty is to leave some shifts uncovered. The rapid growth and development of the specialty of hospital medicine has made it difficult for HMGs to continuously hire qualified hospitalists fast enough to meet demand. The survey found 46.2% of HMGs that serve both adults and children and 31.4% of groups that serve adults only have employed the staffing model of going short-staffed for at least some shifts. HMGs serving children-only are much less likely to go short-staffed (20.0%).

I work with a large HMG that has more than 70 members, and when it has been short-staffed, it tries to ensure a full complement of evening and night staff as the top priority because these shifts are typically more stressful. Since we have more hospitalist capacity during the day to absorb the loss of a physician, we pull staff from their daytime rounding schedules to execute this strategy. While going short-staffed is not ideal, this option has worked for many groups out of sheer necessity.

Dr. Stephan is a hospitalist at Allina Health’s Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis and is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

Being in stressful situations is part of being a hospitalist. During a hospitalist’s work shift, one of the key determinants of stress is adequate staffing. With use of survey data from 569 hospital medicine groups (HMGs) across the nation, one of the topics examined in the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report is how HMGs cope with unfilled hospitalist physician positions.

The survey presented five options for covering unfilled hospitalist physician positions: use of locum tenens, use of moonlighters, use of voluntary extra shifts by the HMG’s existing hospitalists, use of required extra shifts, and leaving some shifts uncovered. Recipients were instructed to select all options that applied, so totals exceeded 100%. The data is organized according to HMGs that serve adults only, children only, and both adults and children.

For all three types of HMGs, the most common tactic to fill coverage gaps is through voluntary extra shifts by existing clinicians, reportedly used by 70.3% of HMGs that cover adults only, 66.7% by those that cover children only, and 76.9% by those that cover both adults and children. Data for adults-only HMGs was further broken down by geographic region, academic status, teaching status, group size, and employment model. Among adults-only HMGs, there is a direct correlation between group size and having members voluntarily work extra shifts, with 91.1% of groups with 30 or more full-time equivalent positions employing this tactic.

For HMGs that cover adults only and those that cover children only, the second most common tactic is to use moonlighters (57.4% and 53.3% respectively), while use of moonlighters is the third most commonly employed surveyed tactic for HMGs that cover both adults and children (53.8%).

HMGs that serve both adults and children were much more likely to utilize locum tenens to cover unfilled positions (69.2%) than were groups that serve adults only (44.0%) or children only (26.7%). The variability in the use of locum tenens is likely because of the willingness and/or ability of the respective groups to afford this option because it is generally the most expensive option of those surveyed.

Requiring that members of the group work extra shifts is the least popular staffing method among adults-only HMGs (10.0%) and HMGs serving both children and adults (7.7%). This strategy is unpopular, especially when there is little advance warning. Surprisingly, 40.0% of HMGs that see children only require members to work extra shifts to cover unfilled slots. This could be because pediatric HMGs are often smaller, and it would be more difficult to absorb the work if the shift is left uncovered. In fact, many pediatric HMGs staff with only one clinician at a time, so there may be no option besides requiring someone else in the group to come in and work.Of the options surveyed, perhaps the most uncomfortable for those hospitalist physicians on duty is to leave some shifts uncovered. The rapid growth and development of the specialty of hospital medicine has made it difficult for HMGs to continuously hire qualified hospitalists fast enough to meet demand. The survey found 46.2% of HMGs that serve both adults and children and 31.4% of groups that serve adults only have employed the staffing model of going short-staffed for at least some shifts. HMGs serving children-only are much less likely to go short-staffed (20.0%).

I work with a large HMG that has more than 70 members, and when it has been short-staffed, it tries to ensure a full complement of evening and night staff as the top priority because these shifts are typically more stressful. Since we have more hospitalist capacity during the day to absorb the loss of a physician, we pull staff from their daytime rounding schedules to execute this strategy. While going short-staffed is not ideal, this option has worked for many groups out of sheer necessity.

Dr. Stephan is a hospitalist at Allina Health’s Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis and is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

 

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at recent studies that examined ways to predict important outcomes in two very different settings, acute leukemia and advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They share the virtue of helping cancer specialists to increase their vigilance for clinically relevant complications and situations and to educate patients and families.

VTE risk in acute leukemia

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients depends upon multiple patient-, tumor-, anatomic-, and treatment-related factors. The Khorana score has become an accepted standard for predicting the risks of VTE and assessing the relative value of various anticoagulants in cancer patients. However, the only hematologic malignancy that is specifically listed among the primary cancer sites in the Khorana score is “lymphoma.” VTE can develop during treatment for acute leukemia, especially among patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

At the 2019 annual congress of the European Hematology Association, Alejandro Lazo-Langer, MD, and his colleagues proposed a scoring system to quantify the risks of VTE based on a retrospective cohort study of more than 500 acute leukemia patients, diagnosed from 2006-2017. They identified 77 patients with a VTE event, with a median time from diagnosis to VTE of 64 days. Among 20 possible predictive factors, 3 emerged in the final multivariate model – platelet count greater than 50,000 (1 point), ALL (2 points), and prior history of VTE (3 points).

Over a period of 12 months, patients with a score of more than 3 points had a cumulative incidence of VTE of 44%, in comparison with 10.5% among patients with lower scores. They were unable to discern whether particular antineoplastic regimens or drugs enhanced the risk.

The authors proposed that, if verified in a validation cohort study, the scoring system could lead to better patient education about signs and symptoms, more intensive surveillance for high-risk patients, and preventive interventions.

What this means in practice

Although a large number of patient records were reviewed for Dr. Lazo-Langer’s study, there were just 74 ALL patients, and it is unclear whether particular treatment regimens or drugs (such as L-asparaginase in ALL) enhance risk. Further study with a validation cohort (as was performed for the Khorana score for patients with other malignancies), is warranted. The study is thought provoking, but for now, in my opinion, standard clinical vigilance, surveillance, and education regarding VTE in leukemia patients remain appropriate.

Steroid impact in NSCLC with ICI therapy

Patients with autoimmune disease and individuals requiring active treatment with steroids (prednisone at 10 mg/day or more or the equivalent) were excluded from clinical trials that led to Food and Drug Administration approval of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents. Recently published data indicate that treatment with 10 mg or more of daily prednisone correlates with poor outcome in NSCLC patients receiving ICI therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2872-8; J Thoracic Oncol. 2018;13:1771-5). However, at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, analyses of the CancerLinQ database showed that, among NSCLC patients, autoimmune disease and treatment for autoimmune disease are surprisingly prevalent. Should oncologists refuse to treat these patients with ICI agents, alone and in combination with chemotherapy or CTLA4 inhibitors?

 

Biagio Ricciuti, MD, and colleagues published a retrospective, single-institution record review of 650 advanced NSCLC patients who were treated with ICI plus or minus CTLA-4 inhibition on a correlative intramural research study. Patients who received ICI with concurrent cytotoxic chemotherapy were excluded. They gathered clinical-pathologic information about whether patients received concurrent corticosteroids (10 mg/day or more vs. less than 10 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent) and the reason for steroid use (oncologic vs. cancer-unrelated indications).

Importantly, they gathered information about programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion scores and tumor mutational burden.

Among the 14.3% patients receiving prednisone 10 mg/day or more at the start of ICI therapy, progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly worse – but only among the 66 patients who needed steroids for oncologic reasons (pain, brain metastases, anorexia, cancer-associated dyspnea). Among the 27 patients who received steroids for cancer-unrelated reasons (autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis), progression-free and overall survival were no different than for patients on prednisone 0-9 mg/day. Imbalances in PD-L1 tumor proportion scores among the groups analyzed did not clearly account for the differences in survival.

What this means in practice

The potential for great treatment outcomes with single-agent ICIs in a subset of advanced NSCLC patients, coupled with the lack of an air-tight biomarker for benefit, has changed the timing of discussions between oncologists and patients about stopping antineoplastic treatment. Since we cannot identify the patients for whom ICI use is futile, the default position has been lenient on using these expensive and potentially toxic therapies.

If verified in a multi-institutional setting, with larger numbers of NSCLC patients receiving steroids for cancer-unrelated reasons, the observations of Dr. Ricciuti and colleagues could help clinicians confidently identify the time to focus discussions on supportive care only. In patients with short survival and strong rationale for maximizing supportive care, analyses like this one could help us deliver more appropriate treatment, instead of more treatment, thereby furthering the goals of personalized cancer patient management.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

 

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at recent studies that examined ways to predict important outcomes in two very different settings, acute leukemia and advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They share the virtue of helping cancer specialists to increase their vigilance for clinically relevant complications and situations and to educate patients and families.

VTE risk in acute leukemia

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients depends upon multiple patient-, tumor-, anatomic-, and treatment-related factors. The Khorana score has become an accepted standard for predicting the risks of VTE and assessing the relative value of various anticoagulants in cancer patients. However, the only hematologic malignancy that is specifically listed among the primary cancer sites in the Khorana score is “lymphoma.” VTE can develop during treatment for acute leukemia, especially among patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

At the 2019 annual congress of the European Hematology Association, Alejandro Lazo-Langer, MD, and his colleagues proposed a scoring system to quantify the risks of VTE based on a retrospective cohort study of more than 500 acute leukemia patients, diagnosed from 2006-2017. They identified 77 patients with a VTE event, with a median time from diagnosis to VTE of 64 days. Among 20 possible predictive factors, 3 emerged in the final multivariate model – platelet count greater than 50,000 (1 point), ALL (2 points), and prior history of VTE (3 points).

Over a period of 12 months, patients with a score of more than 3 points had a cumulative incidence of VTE of 44%, in comparison with 10.5% among patients with lower scores. They were unable to discern whether particular antineoplastic regimens or drugs enhanced the risk.

The authors proposed that, if verified in a validation cohort study, the scoring system could lead to better patient education about signs and symptoms, more intensive surveillance for high-risk patients, and preventive interventions.

What this means in practice

Although a large number of patient records were reviewed for Dr. Lazo-Langer’s study, there were just 74 ALL patients, and it is unclear whether particular treatment regimens or drugs (such as L-asparaginase in ALL) enhance risk. Further study with a validation cohort (as was performed for the Khorana score for patients with other malignancies), is warranted. The study is thought provoking, but for now, in my opinion, standard clinical vigilance, surveillance, and education regarding VTE in leukemia patients remain appropriate.

Steroid impact in NSCLC with ICI therapy

Patients with autoimmune disease and individuals requiring active treatment with steroids (prednisone at 10 mg/day or more or the equivalent) were excluded from clinical trials that led to Food and Drug Administration approval of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents. Recently published data indicate that treatment with 10 mg or more of daily prednisone correlates with poor outcome in NSCLC patients receiving ICI therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2872-8; J Thoracic Oncol. 2018;13:1771-5). However, at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, analyses of the CancerLinQ database showed that, among NSCLC patients, autoimmune disease and treatment for autoimmune disease are surprisingly prevalent. Should oncologists refuse to treat these patients with ICI agents, alone and in combination with chemotherapy or CTLA4 inhibitors?

 

Biagio Ricciuti, MD, and colleagues published a retrospective, single-institution record review of 650 advanced NSCLC patients who were treated with ICI plus or minus CTLA-4 inhibition on a correlative intramural research study. Patients who received ICI with concurrent cytotoxic chemotherapy were excluded. They gathered clinical-pathologic information about whether patients received concurrent corticosteroids (10 mg/day or more vs. less than 10 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent) and the reason for steroid use (oncologic vs. cancer-unrelated indications).

Importantly, they gathered information about programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion scores and tumor mutational burden.

Among the 14.3% patients receiving prednisone 10 mg/day or more at the start of ICI therapy, progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly worse – but only among the 66 patients who needed steroids for oncologic reasons (pain, brain metastases, anorexia, cancer-associated dyspnea). Among the 27 patients who received steroids for cancer-unrelated reasons (autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis), progression-free and overall survival were no different than for patients on prednisone 0-9 mg/day. Imbalances in PD-L1 tumor proportion scores among the groups analyzed did not clearly account for the differences in survival.

What this means in practice

The potential for great treatment outcomes with single-agent ICIs in a subset of advanced NSCLC patients, coupled with the lack of an air-tight biomarker for benefit, has changed the timing of discussions between oncologists and patients about stopping antineoplastic treatment. Since we cannot identify the patients for whom ICI use is futile, the default position has been lenient on using these expensive and potentially toxic therapies.

If verified in a multi-institutional setting, with larger numbers of NSCLC patients receiving steroids for cancer-unrelated reasons, the observations of Dr. Ricciuti and colleagues could help clinicians confidently identify the time to focus discussions on supportive care only. In patients with short survival and strong rationale for maximizing supportive care, analyses like this one could help us deliver more appropriate treatment, instead of more treatment, thereby furthering the goals of personalized cancer patient management.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

 

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at recent studies that examined ways to predict important outcomes in two very different settings, acute leukemia and advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They share the virtue of helping cancer specialists to increase their vigilance for clinically relevant complications and situations and to educate patients and families.

VTE risk in acute leukemia

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients depends upon multiple patient-, tumor-, anatomic-, and treatment-related factors. The Khorana score has become an accepted standard for predicting the risks of VTE and assessing the relative value of various anticoagulants in cancer patients. However, the only hematologic malignancy that is specifically listed among the primary cancer sites in the Khorana score is “lymphoma.” VTE can develop during treatment for acute leukemia, especially among patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

At the 2019 annual congress of the European Hematology Association, Alejandro Lazo-Langer, MD, and his colleagues proposed a scoring system to quantify the risks of VTE based on a retrospective cohort study of more than 500 acute leukemia patients, diagnosed from 2006-2017. They identified 77 patients with a VTE event, with a median time from diagnosis to VTE of 64 days. Among 20 possible predictive factors, 3 emerged in the final multivariate model – platelet count greater than 50,000 (1 point), ALL (2 points), and prior history of VTE (3 points).

Over a period of 12 months, patients with a score of more than 3 points had a cumulative incidence of VTE of 44%, in comparison with 10.5% among patients with lower scores. They were unable to discern whether particular antineoplastic regimens or drugs enhanced the risk.

The authors proposed that, if verified in a validation cohort study, the scoring system could lead to better patient education about signs and symptoms, more intensive surveillance for high-risk patients, and preventive interventions.

What this means in practice

Although a large number of patient records were reviewed for Dr. Lazo-Langer’s study, there were just 74 ALL patients, and it is unclear whether particular treatment regimens or drugs (such as L-asparaginase in ALL) enhance risk. Further study with a validation cohort (as was performed for the Khorana score for patients with other malignancies), is warranted. The study is thought provoking, but for now, in my opinion, standard clinical vigilance, surveillance, and education regarding VTE in leukemia patients remain appropriate.

Steroid impact in NSCLC with ICI therapy

Patients with autoimmune disease and individuals requiring active treatment with steroids (prednisone at 10 mg/day or more or the equivalent) were excluded from clinical trials that led to Food and Drug Administration approval of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents. Recently published data indicate that treatment with 10 mg or more of daily prednisone correlates with poor outcome in NSCLC patients receiving ICI therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2872-8; J Thoracic Oncol. 2018;13:1771-5). However, at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, analyses of the CancerLinQ database showed that, among NSCLC patients, autoimmune disease and treatment for autoimmune disease are surprisingly prevalent. Should oncologists refuse to treat these patients with ICI agents, alone and in combination with chemotherapy or CTLA4 inhibitors?

 

Biagio Ricciuti, MD, and colleagues published a retrospective, single-institution record review of 650 advanced NSCLC patients who were treated with ICI plus or minus CTLA-4 inhibition on a correlative intramural research study. Patients who received ICI with concurrent cytotoxic chemotherapy were excluded. They gathered clinical-pathologic information about whether patients received concurrent corticosteroids (10 mg/day or more vs. less than 10 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent) and the reason for steroid use (oncologic vs. cancer-unrelated indications).

Importantly, they gathered information about programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion scores and tumor mutational burden.

Among the 14.3% patients receiving prednisone 10 mg/day or more at the start of ICI therapy, progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly worse – but only among the 66 patients who needed steroids for oncologic reasons (pain, brain metastases, anorexia, cancer-associated dyspnea). Among the 27 patients who received steroids for cancer-unrelated reasons (autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis), progression-free and overall survival were no different than for patients on prednisone 0-9 mg/day. Imbalances in PD-L1 tumor proportion scores among the groups analyzed did not clearly account for the differences in survival.

What this means in practice

The potential for great treatment outcomes with single-agent ICIs in a subset of advanced NSCLC patients, coupled with the lack of an air-tight biomarker for benefit, has changed the timing of discussions between oncologists and patients about stopping antineoplastic treatment. Since we cannot identify the patients for whom ICI use is futile, the default position has been lenient on using these expensive and potentially toxic therapies.

If verified in a multi-institutional setting, with larger numbers of NSCLC patients receiving steroids for cancer-unrelated reasons, the observations of Dr. Ricciuti and colleagues could help clinicians confidently identify the time to focus discussions on supportive care only. In patients with short survival and strong rationale for maximizing supportive care, analyses like this one could help us deliver more appropriate treatment, instead of more treatment, thereby furthering the goals of personalized cancer patient management.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Bakuchiol [(1E,3S)-3-ethenyl-3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-1-yl]phenol, a prenylated phenolic monoterpene found in the seeds and leaves of various plants, particularly Psoralea corylifolia, has been used to treat a broad array of disorders, including skin conditions, in the traditional medical practices of China, Japan, and Korea, as well as Ayurvedic medicine in India.^1-6 Specifically, the seeds of Psoralea corylifolia have also been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat leukoderma, psoriasis, vitiligo, chronic graft-versus-host disease, and other skin disorders, as well as cardiovascular diseases, nephritis, osteoporosis, and cancer.^7-9

Anna Gorbacheva / iStock / Getty Images Plus

This primary active ingredient is reputed to exert antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antiaging, and estrogen-like functions, and recent data suggest anticancer activity, including activity against skin cancer. Its antiaging properties manifest via preservation of cutaneous collagen.⁴ The plant itself has displayed a wide range of biological functions, such as antibacterial, anticancer, cytotoxic, cardiac, diaphoretic, diuretic, stimulant, aphrodisiac, and tonifying activities.^8,9 A 2016 quantitative analysis of Psoralea corylifolia and seven of its standard constituents (psoralen, angelicin, neobavaisoflavone, psoralidin, isobavachalcone, bavachinin, and bakuchiol) using high-performance liquid chromatography revealed that bakuchiol is the strongest phytochemical ingredient in the plant, which the investigators found also confers neuroprotective and antineuroinflammatory benefits.³

Other species contain bakuchiol, and its biological activities have been harnessed in other folk medical traditions. The monoterpene is an important constituent found in Ulmus davidiana var. japonica, which is used for its anti-inflammatory properties in traditional Korean medicine.¹⁰ Further, bakuchiol and 3-hydroxy-bakuchiol have been identified as key components isolated from Psoralea glandulosa, which is a shrub used in Chilean folk medicine to treat cutaneous disorders engendered by bacteria and fungus.¹¹ Topical applications of bakuchiol have been demonstrated to confer antiaging benefits.¹² This column briefly identifies some of the various uses emerging for this compelling botanical agent.
 

Antiaging activities

In 2014, Yu et al. found that bakuchiol may impart antiaging benefits by supporting the cellular activity of the expression level of human skin fibroblasts (ESF-1), as well as production of collagen types I and III, while reducing the matrix metalloproteinase-1 mRNA expression.¹³

The same year, Chaudhuri et al. compared the skin care–related activities of retinol and bakuchiol, finding their gene expression profiles very similar. In addition, they observed that bakuchiol up-regulated collagen types I and IV in a DNA microarray study and stimulated type III collagen production in a model of mature fibroblasts. Further, the investigators formulated bakuchiol into a skin care product and tested it clinically, with twice daily applications over 12 weeks yielding significant amelioration in lines and wrinkles, pigmentation, elasticity, and firmness, as well as overall diminished photodamage without provoking redness. They concluded that bakuchiol can act as an antiaging agent through regulation of gene expression comparable to retinol.¹

Retinoids without reactions?

In 2017, Ma et al. set out to synthesize and test in psoriatic cytokine–treated cultures of keratinocytes and organotypic skin substitutes a new substance created by combining two skin-active compounds (bakuchiol and salicylic acid) into bakuchiol salicylate (bakusylan), with the intention of rendering a novel functional retinoid. The researchers reported that the gene expression profile showed elimination of various retinoid-like proinflammatory responses, without a loss of normalizing activity. They concluded that their work may result in a new class of functional retinoids.¹⁴

 

Early this year, Dhaliwal et al. reported on a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of 44 patients who applied either bakuchiol 0.5% cream twice daily or retinol 0.5% cream daily. Facial photographs were evaluated at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and a blinded dermatologist rated pigmentation and erythema. Side effects were also noted by subjects in tolerability assessment questionnaires. Both compounds significantly reduced wrinkles and hyperpigmentation, with no statistical variance found between the two. More facial skin scaling and stinging was experienced by the retinol group. The investigators concluded that bakuchiol exhibits photoaging activity comparable with retinol and appears to be an emerging alternative to retinol because it is better tolerated.¹² Notably, there is one report to date of an allergic reaction to topical bakuchiol.¹⁵
 

Topical combination therapies for hyperpigmentation, photodamage, and acne

Bakuchiol was a key ingredient incorporated into a 0.5% retinol treatment evaluated in a 12-week, open-label, single-center clinical-usage trial of 44 women with mild to moderate hyperpigmentation and photodamaged facial skin who took a dual product regimen. This 2016 study showed that the retinol and vitamin C facial regimen yielded a statistically significant amelioration in clinical grading of all parameters.¹⁶

A 2015 randomized controlled clinical trial in 111 subjects evaluated the use of adapalene 0.1% gel and a formulation containing bakuchiol, Ginkgo biloba extract, and mannitol in patients with acne. Patients were randomized to the adapalene and botanical formulation or adapalene and vehicle cream for 2 months. Both treatment groups experienced improvements according to all measured outcomes. The botanical formulation was associated with a statistically significant edge over the vehicle combination in reducing inflammatory lesions, investigator global assessment, and intensity of seborrhea. Quality of life was also perceived to be better with the combination of adapalene and the bakuchiol-containing product, which was deemed to be safe with good local tolerability.¹⁷

A subsequent evaluation by a different team also considered the antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidative potential of this combination product via in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical studies. The work by Trompezinski et al. revealed that bakuchiol displays nearly twice the antioxidative potential asthat of vitamin E. The bakuchiol-containing cream was shown in acne patients to successfully regulate sebum composition by raising linolenic and sapienic acid levels while lowering oleic acid levels. Its efficacy against Propionibacterium acnes was also suggested by a decrease in the number of skin surface porphyrins. The investigators concluded that the formulation serves as an effective adjuvant acne treatment by attacking inflammation, dysseborrhea, and proliferation of Propionibacterium acnes.¹⁸
 

Anticancer activity

In 2016, Kim et al. demonstrated that bakuchiol exhibits chemopreventive activity by hindering epidermal growth factor (EGF)–induced neoplastic cell transformation. In what was the first mechanistic study to reveal molecular targets for the anticancer activity of this substance, the investigators found that bakuchiol also reduced the viability and suppressed anchorage-independent growth of A431 human epithelial carcinoma cells. They identified Hck, Blk, and p38 MAPK as the molecular targets of what they identified as a potent anticancer compound.²

Skin-whitening potential

 

In 2010, Ohno et al. found that bakuchiol, along with other ingredients, isolated from Piper longum demonstrated strong suppressive activity against melanin production in B16 mouse melanoma cells and may have potential to affect melanin synthesis in human skin.¹⁹ Further, with use of a new method for screening tyrosinase, Cheng et al. found in 2017 that four substances used in traditional Chinese medicine (quercetin, kaempferol, bavachinin, and bakuchiol) displayed the potential for inhibiting tyrosinase.²⁰

Conclusion

A compound that acts like a retinoid – yielding antiacne and antiaging effects – without provoking irritation? Most dermatologists and their patients would say, sign me up. Bakuchiol, an active ingredient in various plants, especially Psoralea corylifolia, seems to present that kind of profile. While more research is necessary, experience with this herbal ingredient in traditional medicine and an increasing body of research, including clinical results, provides reasons for optimism that this ingredient may have a versatile role to play in topical skin care, particularly in its retinoid-like functions.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Chaudhuri RK et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2014 Jun;36(3):221-30.

2. Kim JE et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 22;7(12):14616-27.

3. Kim YJ et al. Molecules. 2016 Aug 17. doi: 10.3390/molecules21081076.

4. Xin Z et al. Pharmacol Res. 2019 Mar;141:208-13.

5. Lev-Tov H. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;180(2):253-4.

6. Shrestha S et al. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2018 Jul - Sep; 9(3):209-12.

7. Li CC et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/8108643.

8. Hu C et al. Fitoterapia. 2015 Oct;106:129-34.

9. Yan DM et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Apr 21;128(3):697-702.

10. Choi SY et al. J Med Food. 2010 Aug;13(4):1019-23.

11. Madrid A et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Dec 18;144(3):809-11.

12. Dhaliwal S et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;180(2):289-96.

13. Yu Q et al. Zhong Yao Cai. 2014 Apr;37(4):632-5.

14. Ma S et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2017 Apr;42(3):251-60.

15. Malinauskiene L et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):398-9.

16. Herndon JH Jr, et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016 Apr;15(4):476-82.

17. Poláková K et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2015 Apr 10;8:187-91.

18. Trompezinski S et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2016 Aug 31;9:233-9.

19. Ohno O et al. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2010;74(7):1504-6.

20. Cheng M et al. Electrophoresis. 2017 Feb;38(3-4):486-93.

Bakuchiol [(1E,3S)-3-ethenyl-3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-1-yl]phenol, a prenylated phenolic monoterpene found in the seeds and leaves of various plants, particularly Psoralea corylifolia, has been used to treat a broad array of disorders, including skin conditions, in the traditional medical practices of China, Japan, and Korea, as well as Ayurvedic medicine in India.^1-6 Specifically, the seeds of Psoralea corylifolia have also been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat leukoderma, psoriasis, vitiligo, chronic graft-versus-host disease, and other skin disorders, as well as cardiovascular diseases, nephritis, osteoporosis, and cancer.^7-9

Anna Gorbacheva / iStock / Getty Images Plus

This primary active ingredient is reputed to exert antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antiaging, and estrogen-like functions, and recent data suggest anticancer activity, including activity against skin cancer. Its antiaging properties manifest via preservation of cutaneous collagen.⁴ The plant itself has displayed a wide range of biological functions, such as antibacterial, anticancer, cytotoxic, cardiac, diaphoretic, diuretic, stimulant, aphrodisiac, and tonifying activities.^8,9 A 2016 quantitative analysis of Psoralea corylifolia and seven of its standard constituents (psoralen, angelicin, neobavaisoflavone, psoralidin, isobavachalcone, bavachinin, and bakuchiol) using high-performance liquid chromatography revealed that bakuchiol is the strongest phytochemical ingredient in the plant, which the investigators found also confers neuroprotective and antineuroinflammatory benefits.³

Other species contain bakuchiol, and its biological activities have been harnessed in other folk medical traditions. The monoterpene is an important constituent found in Ulmus davidiana var. japonica, which is used for its anti-inflammatory properties in traditional Korean medicine.¹⁰ Further, bakuchiol and 3-hydroxy-bakuchiol have been identified as key components isolated from Psoralea glandulosa, which is a shrub used in Chilean folk medicine to treat cutaneous disorders engendered by bacteria and fungus.¹¹ Topical applications of bakuchiol have been demonstrated to confer antiaging benefits.¹² This column briefly identifies some of the various uses emerging for this compelling botanical agent.
 

Antiaging activities

In 2014, Yu et al. found that bakuchiol may impart antiaging benefits by supporting the cellular activity of the expression level of human skin fibroblasts (ESF-1), as well as production of collagen types I and III, while reducing the matrix metalloproteinase-1 mRNA expression.¹³

The same year, Chaudhuri et al. compared the skin care–related activities of retinol and bakuchiol, finding their gene expression profiles very similar. In addition, they observed that bakuchiol up-regulated collagen types I and IV in a DNA microarray study and stimulated type III collagen production in a model of mature fibroblasts. Further, the investigators formulated bakuchiol into a skin care product and tested it clinically, with twice daily applications over 12 weeks yielding significant amelioration in lines and wrinkles, pigmentation, elasticity, and firmness, as well as overall diminished photodamage without provoking redness. They concluded that bakuchiol can act as an antiaging agent through regulation of gene expression comparable to retinol.¹

Retinoids without reactions?

In 2017, Ma et al. set out to synthesize and test in psoriatic cytokine–treated cultures of keratinocytes and organotypic skin substitutes a new substance created by combining two skin-active compounds (bakuchiol and salicylic acid) into bakuchiol salicylate (bakusylan), with the intention of rendering a novel functional retinoid. The researchers reported that the gene expression profile showed elimination of various retinoid-like proinflammatory responses, without a loss of normalizing activity. They concluded that their work may result in a new class of functional retinoids.¹⁴

 

Early this year, Dhaliwal et al. reported on a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of 44 patients who applied either bakuchiol 0.5% cream twice daily or retinol 0.5% cream daily. Facial photographs were evaluated at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and a blinded dermatologist rated pigmentation and erythema. Side effects were also noted by subjects in tolerability assessment questionnaires. Both compounds significantly reduced wrinkles and hyperpigmentation, with no statistical variance found between the two. More facial skin scaling and stinging was experienced by the retinol group. The investigators concluded that bakuchiol exhibits photoaging activity comparable with retinol and appears to be an emerging alternative to retinol because it is better tolerated.¹² Notably, there is one report to date of an allergic reaction to topical bakuchiol.¹⁵
 

Topical combination therapies for hyperpigmentation, photodamage, and acne

Bakuchiol was a key ingredient incorporated into a 0.5% retinol treatment evaluated in a 12-week, open-label, single-center clinical-usage trial of 44 women with mild to moderate hyperpigmentation and photodamaged facial skin who took a dual product regimen. This 2016 study showed that the retinol and vitamin C facial regimen yielded a statistically significant amelioration in clinical grading of all parameters.¹⁶

A 2015 randomized controlled clinical trial in 111 subjects evaluated the use of adapalene 0.1% gel and a formulation containing bakuchiol, Ginkgo biloba extract, and mannitol in patients with acne. Patients were randomized to the adapalene and botanical formulation or adapalene and vehicle cream for 2 months. Both treatment groups experienced improvements according to all measured outcomes. The botanical formulation was associated with a statistically significant edge over the vehicle combination in reducing inflammatory lesions, investigator global assessment, and intensity of seborrhea. Quality of life was also perceived to be better with the combination of adapalene and the bakuchiol-containing product, which was deemed to be safe with good local tolerability.¹⁷

A subsequent evaluation by a different team also considered the antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidative potential of this combination product via in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical studies. The work by Trompezinski et al. revealed that bakuchiol displays nearly twice the antioxidative potential asthat of vitamin E. The bakuchiol-containing cream was shown in acne patients to successfully regulate sebum composition by raising linolenic and sapienic acid levels while lowering oleic acid levels. Its efficacy against Propionibacterium acnes was also suggested by a decrease in the number of skin surface porphyrins. The investigators concluded that the formulation serves as an effective adjuvant acne treatment by attacking inflammation, dysseborrhea, and proliferation of Propionibacterium acnes.¹⁸
 

Anticancer activity

In 2016, Kim et al. demonstrated that bakuchiol exhibits chemopreventive activity by hindering epidermal growth factor (EGF)–induced neoplastic cell transformation. In what was the first mechanistic study to reveal molecular targets for the anticancer activity of this substance, the investigators found that bakuchiol also reduced the viability and suppressed anchorage-independent growth of A431 human epithelial carcinoma cells. They identified Hck, Blk, and p38 MAPK as the molecular targets of what they identified as a potent anticancer compound.²

Skin-whitening potential

 

In 2010, Ohno et al. found that bakuchiol, along with other ingredients, isolated from Piper longum demonstrated strong suppressive activity against melanin production in B16 mouse melanoma cells and may have potential to affect melanin synthesis in human skin.¹⁹ Further, with use of a new method for screening tyrosinase, Cheng et al. found in 2017 that four substances used in traditional Chinese medicine (quercetin, kaempferol, bavachinin, and bakuchiol) displayed the potential for inhibiting tyrosinase.²⁰

Conclusion

A compound that acts like a retinoid – yielding antiacne and antiaging effects – without provoking irritation? Most dermatologists and their patients would say, sign me up. Bakuchiol, an active ingredient in various plants, especially Psoralea corylifolia, seems to present that kind of profile. While more research is necessary, experience with this herbal ingredient in traditional medicine and an increasing body of research, including clinical results, provides reasons for optimism that this ingredient may have a versatile role to play in topical skin care, particularly in its retinoid-like functions.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Chaudhuri RK et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2014 Jun;36(3):221-30.

2. Kim JE et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 22;7(12):14616-27.

3. Kim YJ et al. Molecules. 2016 Aug 17. doi: 10.3390/molecules21081076.

4. Xin Z et al. Pharmacol Res. 2019 Mar;141:208-13.

5. Lev-Tov H. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;180(2):253-4.

6. Shrestha S et al. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2018 Jul - Sep; 9(3):209-12.

7. Li CC et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/8108643.

8. Hu C et al. Fitoterapia. 2015 Oct;106:129-34.

9. Yan DM et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Apr 21;128(3):697-702.

10. Choi SY et al. J Med Food. 2010 Aug;13(4):1019-23.

11. Madrid A et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Dec 18;144(3):809-11.

12. Dhaliwal S et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;180(2):289-96.

13. Yu Q et al. Zhong Yao Cai. 2014 Apr;37(4):632-5.

14. Ma S et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2017 Apr;42(3):251-60.

15. Malinauskiene L et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):398-9.

16. Herndon JH Jr, et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016 Apr;15(4):476-82.

17. Poláková K et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2015 Apr 10;8:187-91.

18. Trompezinski S et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2016 Aug 31;9:233-9.

19. Ohno O et al. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2010;74(7):1504-6.

20. Cheng M et al. Electrophoresis. 2017 Feb;38(3-4):486-93.

Bakuchiol [(1E,3S)-3-ethenyl-3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-1-yl]phenol, a prenylated phenolic monoterpene found in the seeds and leaves of various plants, particularly Psoralea corylifolia, has been used to treat a broad array of disorders, including skin conditions, in the traditional medical practices of China, Japan, and Korea, as well as Ayurvedic medicine in India.^1-6 Specifically, the seeds of Psoralea corylifolia have also been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat leukoderma, psoriasis, vitiligo, chronic graft-versus-host disease, and other skin disorders, as well as cardiovascular diseases, nephritis, osteoporosis, and cancer.^7-9

Anna Gorbacheva / iStock / Getty Images Plus

This primary active ingredient is reputed to exert antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antiaging, and estrogen-like functions, and recent data suggest anticancer activity, including activity against skin cancer. Its antiaging properties manifest via preservation of cutaneous collagen.⁴ The plant itself has displayed a wide range of biological functions, such as antibacterial, anticancer, cytotoxic, cardiac, diaphoretic, diuretic, stimulant, aphrodisiac, and tonifying activities.^8,9 A 2016 quantitative analysis of Psoralea corylifolia and seven of its standard constituents (psoralen, angelicin, neobavaisoflavone, psoralidin, isobavachalcone, bavachinin, and bakuchiol) using high-performance liquid chromatography revealed that bakuchiol is the strongest phytochemical ingredient in the plant, which the investigators found also confers neuroprotective and antineuroinflammatory benefits.³

Other species contain bakuchiol, and its biological activities have been harnessed in other folk medical traditions. The monoterpene is an important constituent found in Ulmus davidiana var. japonica, which is used for its anti-inflammatory properties in traditional Korean medicine.¹⁰ Further, bakuchiol and 3-hydroxy-bakuchiol have been identified as key components isolated from Psoralea glandulosa, which is a shrub used in Chilean folk medicine to treat cutaneous disorders engendered by bacteria and fungus.¹¹ Topical applications of bakuchiol have been demonstrated to confer antiaging benefits.¹² This column briefly identifies some of the various uses emerging for this compelling botanical agent.
 

Antiaging activities

In 2014, Yu et al. found that bakuchiol may impart antiaging benefits by supporting the cellular activity of the expression level of human skin fibroblasts (ESF-1), as well as production of collagen types I and III, while reducing the matrix metalloproteinase-1 mRNA expression.¹³

The same year, Chaudhuri et al. compared the skin care–related activities of retinol and bakuchiol, finding their gene expression profiles very similar. In addition, they observed that bakuchiol up-regulated collagen types I and IV in a DNA microarray study and stimulated type III collagen production in a model of mature fibroblasts. Further, the investigators formulated bakuchiol into a skin care product and tested it clinically, with twice daily applications over 12 weeks yielding significant amelioration in lines and wrinkles, pigmentation, elasticity, and firmness, as well as overall diminished photodamage without provoking redness. They concluded that bakuchiol can act as an antiaging agent through regulation of gene expression comparable to retinol.¹

Retinoids without reactions?

In 2017, Ma et al. set out to synthesize and test in psoriatic cytokine–treated cultures of keratinocytes and organotypic skin substitutes a new substance created by combining two skin-active compounds (bakuchiol and salicylic acid) into bakuchiol salicylate (bakusylan), with the intention of rendering a novel functional retinoid. The researchers reported that the gene expression profile showed elimination of various retinoid-like proinflammatory responses, without a loss of normalizing activity. They concluded that their work may result in a new class of functional retinoids.¹⁴

 

Early this year, Dhaliwal et al. reported on a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of 44 patients who applied either bakuchiol 0.5% cream twice daily or retinol 0.5% cream daily. Facial photographs were evaluated at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and a blinded dermatologist rated pigmentation and erythema. Side effects were also noted by subjects in tolerability assessment questionnaires. Both compounds significantly reduced wrinkles and hyperpigmentation, with no statistical variance found between the two. More facial skin scaling and stinging was experienced by the retinol group. The investigators concluded that bakuchiol exhibits photoaging activity comparable with retinol and appears to be an emerging alternative to retinol because it is better tolerated.¹² Notably, there is one report to date of an allergic reaction to topical bakuchiol.¹⁵
 

Topical combination therapies for hyperpigmentation, photodamage, and acne

Bakuchiol was a key ingredient incorporated into a 0.5% retinol treatment evaluated in a 12-week, open-label, single-center clinical-usage trial of 44 women with mild to moderate hyperpigmentation and photodamaged facial skin who took a dual product regimen. This 2016 study showed that the retinol and vitamin C facial regimen yielded a statistically significant amelioration in clinical grading of all parameters.¹⁶

A 2015 randomized controlled clinical trial in 111 subjects evaluated the use of adapalene 0.1% gel and a formulation containing bakuchiol, Ginkgo biloba extract, and mannitol in patients with acne. Patients were randomized to the adapalene and botanical formulation or adapalene and vehicle cream for 2 months. Both treatment groups experienced improvements according to all measured outcomes. The botanical formulation was associated with a statistically significant edge over the vehicle combination in reducing inflammatory lesions, investigator global assessment, and intensity of seborrhea. Quality of life was also perceived to be better with the combination of adapalene and the bakuchiol-containing product, which was deemed to be safe with good local tolerability.¹⁷

A subsequent evaluation by a different team also considered the antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidative potential of this combination product via in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical studies. The work by Trompezinski et al. revealed that bakuchiol displays nearly twice the antioxidative potential asthat of vitamin E. The bakuchiol-containing cream was shown in acne patients to successfully regulate sebum composition by raising linolenic and sapienic acid levels while lowering oleic acid levels. Its efficacy against Propionibacterium acnes was also suggested by a decrease in the number of skin surface porphyrins. The investigators concluded that the formulation serves as an effective adjuvant acne treatment by attacking inflammation, dysseborrhea, and proliferation of Propionibacterium acnes.¹⁸
 

Anticancer activity

In 2016, Kim et al. demonstrated that bakuchiol exhibits chemopreventive activity by hindering epidermal growth factor (EGF)–induced neoplastic cell transformation. In what was the first mechanistic study to reveal molecular targets for the anticancer activity of this substance, the investigators found that bakuchiol also reduced the viability and suppressed anchorage-independent growth of A431 human epithelial carcinoma cells. They identified Hck, Blk, and p38 MAPK as the molecular targets of what they identified as a potent anticancer compound.²

Skin-whitening potential

 

In 2010, Ohno et al. found that bakuchiol, along with other ingredients, isolated from Piper longum demonstrated strong suppressive activity against melanin production in B16 mouse melanoma cells and may have potential to affect melanin synthesis in human skin.¹⁹ Further, with use of a new method for screening tyrosinase, Cheng et al. found in 2017 that four substances used in traditional Chinese medicine (quercetin, kaempferol, bavachinin, and bakuchiol) displayed the potential for inhibiting tyrosinase.²⁰

Conclusion

A compound that acts like a retinoid – yielding antiacne and antiaging effects – without provoking irritation? Most dermatologists and their patients would say, sign me up. Bakuchiol, an active ingredient in various plants, especially Psoralea corylifolia, seems to present that kind of profile. While more research is necessary, experience with this herbal ingredient in traditional medicine and an increasing body of research, including clinical results, provides reasons for optimism that this ingredient may have a versatile role to play in topical skin care, particularly in its retinoid-like functions.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Chaudhuri RK et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2014 Jun;36(3):221-30.

2. Kim JE et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 22;7(12):14616-27.

3. Kim YJ et al. Molecules. 2016 Aug 17. doi: 10.3390/molecules21081076.

4. Xin Z et al. Pharmacol Res. 2019 Mar;141:208-13.

5. Lev-Tov H. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;180(2):253-4.

6. Shrestha S et al. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2018 Jul - Sep; 9(3):209-12.

7. Li CC et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/8108643.

8. Hu C et al. Fitoterapia. 2015 Oct;106:129-34.

9. Yan DM et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Apr 21;128(3):697-702.

10. Choi SY et al. J Med Food. 2010 Aug;13(4):1019-23.

11. Madrid A et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Dec 18;144(3):809-11.

12. Dhaliwal S et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;180(2):289-96.

13. Yu Q et al. Zhong Yao Cai. 2014 Apr;37(4):632-5.

14. Ma S et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2017 Apr;42(3):251-60.

15. Malinauskiene L et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):398-9.

16. Herndon JH Jr, et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016 Apr;15(4):476-82.

17. Poláková K et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2015 Apr 10;8:187-91.

18. Trompezinski S et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2016 Aug 31;9:233-9.

19. Ohno O et al. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2010;74(7):1504-6.

20. Cheng M et al. Electrophoresis. 2017 Feb;38(3-4):486-93.

 

Along with terminal care and inflated drug prices, the excessive number of “inappropriate” ED visits often is cited as a major driver of health care costs in the United States. Why do so many patients choose to go to the ED for complaints that might be better or more economically treated in another setting?

Thinkstock

A report by two researchers in the division of emergency medicine at the Boston Children’s Hospital that appeared in the June 2019 Pediatrics suggests that, at least for pediatric patients, “increased insurance coverage neither drove nor counteracted” the recent trends in ED visits. (“Trends in Pediatric Emergency Department Use After the Affordable Care Act,” Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3542).

I guess it’s not surprising – and somewhat comforting – to learn that, when parents believe their child has an emergent condition they give little thought to the cost of care. Is the trend of increasing ED use a result of an evolving definition of an “emergency”? Your grandparents, or certainly your great grandparents, might claim that, when they were young most minor injuries were handled at home, or at least in the neighborhood by someone with first aid experience who wasn’t put off by the sight of blood. However, a trend away from self-reliance in everything from food preparation to auto repair, combined with media overexposure to the serious complications of apparently minor illness and injury, has left most parents feeling fearful and helpless in the face of adversity.

We have to accept as a given that many parents are going to interpret their child’s situation as emergent, even though you and I might not. But what are the factors that prompt a concerned parent to take his child to the ED instead of a physician’s office? It may simply be the path of least resistance. The parent’s past experience may include frustrating and time-consuming attempts to navigate a clunky phone system only to be met by a receptionist or triage nurse who seems more committed to deflecting calls and protecting the physician’s schedule than getting the patient seen.

The call may miraculously get through to someone with a caring voice and the patience to listen, but the parent then learns that the office doesn’t do minor wound care or he is told that the physician almost certainly will want to do an x-ray of any injured extremity and that the ED is a better choice. It doesn’t take very many scenarios like this to prompt a parent to make his first and only call to the ED. To some extent, physician behavior has helped mold parents’ definition of an emergency. “If they can’t see us in the office, it must be an emergency.”

We are encouraged to make our offices a “medical home.” However, it appears the medical home model is one that is built around chronic conditions and behavioral problems and gives little attention to the acute complaints. When you came running into the house with a skinned knee, did your mother tell to you go across the street to the neighbor’s house because blood made her squeamish and she didn’t have any bandages?

There are ways to structure an office and a schedule which are more welcoming to patients with minor emergencies, and I know it is a difficult sell to physicians who are handcuffed by their EHRs and already overwhelmed by patients with time-consuming behavioral complaints. However, if your practice is facing competition from pop-up urgent care centers or if you are increasingly troubled that your patients are receiving fragmented care, it may not be too late to make your practice into a true medical home that welcomes minor emergencies.

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.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

 

Along with terminal care and inflated drug prices, the excessive number of “inappropriate” ED visits often is cited as a major driver of health care costs in the United States. Why do so many patients choose to go to the ED for complaints that might be better or more economically treated in another setting?

Thinkstock

A report by two researchers in the division of emergency medicine at the Boston Children’s Hospital that appeared in the June 2019 Pediatrics suggests that, at least for pediatric patients, “increased insurance coverage neither drove nor counteracted” the recent trends in ED visits. (“Trends in Pediatric Emergency Department Use After the Affordable Care Act,” Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3542).

I guess it’s not surprising – and somewhat comforting – to learn that, when parents believe their child has an emergent condition they give little thought to the cost of care. Is the trend of increasing ED use a result of an evolving definition of an “emergency”? Your grandparents, or certainly your great grandparents, might claim that, when they were young most minor injuries were handled at home, or at least in the neighborhood by someone with first aid experience who wasn’t put off by the sight of blood. However, a trend away from self-reliance in everything from food preparation to auto repair, combined with media overexposure to the serious complications of apparently minor illness and injury, has left most parents feeling fearful and helpless in the face of adversity.

We have to accept as a given that many parents are going to interpret their child’s situation as emergent, even though you and I might not. But what are the factors that prompt a concerned parent to take his child to the ED instead of a physician’s office? It may simply be the path of least resistance. The parent’s past experience may include frustrating and time-consuming attempts to navigate a clunky phone system only to be met by a receptionist or triage nurse who seems more committed to deflecting calls and protecting the physician’s schedule than getting the patient seen.

The call may miraculously get through to someone with a caring voice and the patience to listen, but the parent then learns that the office doesn’t do minor wound care or he is told that the physician almost certainly will want to do an x-ray of any injured extremity and that the ED is a better choice. It doesn’t take very many scenarios like this to prompt a parent to make his first and only call to the ED. To some extent, physician behavior has helped mold parents’ definition of an emergency. “If they can’t see us in the office, it must be an emergency.”

We are encouraged to make our offices a “medical home.” However, it appears the medical home model is one that is built around chronic conditions and behavioral problems and gives little attention to the acute complaints. When you came running into the house with a skinned knee, did your mother tell to you go across the street to the neighbor’s house because blood made her squeamish and she didn’t have any bandages?

There are ways to structure an office and a schedule which are more welcoming to patients with minor emergencies, and I know it is a difficult sell to physicians who are handcuffed by their EHRs and already overwhelmed by patients with time-consuming behavioral complaints. However, if your practice is facing competition from pop-up urgent care centers or if you are increasingly troubled that your patients are receiving fragmented care, it may not be too late to make your practice into a true medical home that welcomes minor emergencies.

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.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

 

Along with terminal care and inflated drug prices, the excessive number of “inappropriate” ED visits often is cited as a major driver of health care costs in the United States. Why do so many patients choose to go to the ED for complaints that might be better or more economically treated in another setting?

Thinkstock

A report by two researchers in the division of emergency medicine at the Boston Children’s Hospital that appeared in the June 2019 Pediatrics suggests that, at least for pediatric patients, “increased insurance coverage neither drove nor counteracted” the recent trends in ED visits. (“Trends in Pediatric Emergency Department Use After the Affordable Care Act,” Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3542).

I guess it’s not surprising – and somewhat comforting – to learn that, when parents believe their child has an emergent condition they give little thought to the cost of care. Is the trend of increasing ED use a result of an evolving definition of an “emergency”? Your grandparents, or certainly your great grandparents, might claim that, when they were young most minor injuries were handled at home, or at least in the neighborhood by someone with first aid experience who wasn’t put off by the sight of blood. However, a trend away from self-reliance in everything from food preparation to auto repair, combined with media overexposure to the serious complications of apparently minor illness and injury, has left most parents feeling fearful and helpless in the face of adversity.

We have to accept as a given that many parents are going to interpret their child’s situation as emergent, even though you and I might not. But what are the factors that prompt a concerned parent to take his child to the ED instead of a physician’s office? It may simply be the path of least resistance. The parent’s past experience may include frustrating and time-consuming attempts to navigate a clunky phone system only to be met by a receptionist or triage nurse who seems more committed to deflecting calls and protecting the physician’s schedule than getting the patient seen.

The call may miraculously get through to someone with a caring voice and the patience to listen, but the parent then learns that the office doesn’t do minor wound care or he is told that the physician almost certainly will want to do an x-ray of any injured extremity and that the ED is a better choice. It doesn’t take very many scenarios like this to prompt a parent to make his first and only call to the ED. To some extent, physician behavior has helped mold parents’ definition of an emergency. “If they can’t see us in the office, it must be an emergency.”

We are encouraged to make our offices a “medical home.” However, it appears the medical home model is one that is built around chronic conditions and behavioral problems and gives little attention to the acute complaints. When you came running into the house with a skinned knee, did your mother tell to you go across the street to the neighbor’s house because blood made her squeamish and she didn’t have any bandages?

There are ways to structure an office and a schedule which are more welcoming to patients with minor emergencies, and I know it is a difficult sell to physicians who are handcuffed by their EHRs and already overwhelmed by patients with time-consuming behavioral complaints. However, if your practice is facing competition from pop-up urgent care centers or if you are increasingly troubled that your patients are receiving fragmented care, it may not be too late to make your practice into a true medical home that welcomes minor emergencies.

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.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

 

Incarceration versus treatment takes center stage in a new analysis of U.S. data from researchers in the United Kingdom.

The researchers performed an observational study looking at rates of incarceration, income, and drug-related deaths from 1983 to 2014 in the United States. They found a strong association between incarceration rates and drug-related deaths. Also, a very strong association was found between lower household income and drug-related deaths. Strikingly, in the counties with the highest incarceration rates, there was a 50% higher rate of drug deaths, reported Elias Nosrati, PhD, and associates (Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33). It is clearer every day that our opioid epidemic was in part wrought by a zealous push to change protocols on treating chronic pain. The epidemic also appears tied to well-meaning but overprescribing doctors and allegedly unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and distributors. What we are learning through this most recent study is that another factor tied to the opioid and overdose epidemic could be incarceration.

According to the study, an increase in crime rates combined with sentencing reforms led the number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons to soar from less than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1 million in 1995. Furthermore, Dr. Nosrati and associates wrote, “Incarceration is directly associated with stigma, discrimination, poor mental health, and chronic economic hardship, all of which are linked to drug use disorders.”

Treatment for drug addiction in prison systems is rare, as is adequate mental health treatment. However, treatment for this population would likely help reduce drug overdose deaths and improve the quality of life for people who are incarcerated and their families. In the Philadelphia prison system, for example, treatment for inmates is available for opioid addiction, both with methadone and now more recently with buprenorphine (Suboxone). The Philadelphia Department of Prisons also provides cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Florida, Chapter 397 of the Florida statutes – known as the Marchman Act – provides for the involuntary (and voluntary) treatment of individuals with substance abuse problems.

The court systems in South Florida have a robust drug-diversion program, aimed at directing people facing incarceration for drug offenses into treatment instead. North Carolina has studied this issue specifically and found through a model simulation that diverting 10% of drug-abusing offenders out of incarceration into treatment would save $4.8 billion in legal costs for North Carolina counties and state legal systems. Diverting 40% of individuals would close to triple that savings.

There are striking data from programs treating individuals who are leveraged into treatment in order to maintain professional licenses. These such individuals, many of whom are physicians, airline pilots, and nurses, have a rate of sobriety of 90% or greater after 5 years. This data show that leveraged treatment has teeth and that those success rates are close to double the rates found within the general population.

In addition to the potential reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as the financial savings, why is treatment important? Because of societal costs. When parents or family members are put in jail for a drug charge or other charge, they leave behind a community, family, and very often children who are affected economically, emotionally, and socially. Those children in particular have higher risks of depression and PTSD. Diverting an offender into treatment or treating an incarcerated person for drug and mental health problems can change the life of a child or family member, and ultimately can change society.

Dr. Jorandby is chief medical officer of Lakeview Health in Jacksonville, Fla. She trained in addiction psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

 

Incarceration versus treatment takes center stage in a new analysis of U.S. data from researchers in the United Kingdom.

The researchers performed an observational study looking at rates of incarceration, income, and drug-related deaths from 1983 to 2014 in the United States. They found a strong association between incarceration rates and drug-related deaths. Also, a very strong association was found between lower household income and drug-related deaths. Strikingly, in the counties with the highest incarceration rates, there was a 50% higher rate of drug deaths, reported Elias Nosrati, PhD, and associates (Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33). It is clearer every day that our opioid epidemic was in part wrought by a zealous push to change protocols on treating chronic pain. The epidemic also appears tied to well-meaning but overprescribing doctors and allegedly unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and distributors. What we are learning through this most recent study is that another factor tied to the opioid and overdose epidemic could be incarceration.

According to the study, an increase in crime rates combined with sentencing reforms led the number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons to soar from less than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1 million in 1995. Furthermore, Dr. Nosrati and associates wrote, “Incarceration is directly associated with stigma, discrimination, poor mental health, and chronic economic hardship, all of which are linked to drug use disorders.”

Treatment for drug addiction in prison systems is rare, as is adequate mental health treatment. However, treatment for this population would likely help reduce drug overdose deaths and improve the quality of life for people who are incarcerated and their families. In the Philadelphia prison system, for example, treatment for inmates is available for opioid addiction, both with methadone and now more recently with buprenorphine (Suboxone). The Philadelphia Department of Prisons also provides cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Florida, Chapter 397 of the Florida statutes – known as the Marchman Act – provides for the involuntary (and voluntary) treatment of individuals with substance abuse problems.

The court systems in South Florida have a robust drug-diversion program, aimed at directing people facing incarceration for drug offenses into treatment instead. North Carolina has studied this issue specifically and found through a model simulation that diverting 10% of drug-abusing offenders out of incarceration into treatment would save $4.8 billion in legal costs for North Carolina counties and state legal systems. Diverting 40% of individuals would close to triple that savings.

There are striking data from programs treating individuals who are leveraged into treatment in order to maintain professional licenses. These such individuals, many of whom are physicians, airline pilots, and nurses, have a rate of sobriety of 90% or greater after 5 years. This data show that leveraged treatment has teeth and that those success rates are close to double the rates found within the general population.

In addition to the potential reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as the financial savings, why is treatment important? Because of societal costs. When parents or family members are put in jail for a drug charge or other charge, they leave behind a community, family, and very often children who are affected economically, emotionally, and socially. Those children in particular have higher risks of depression and PTSD. Diverting an offender into treatment or treating an incarcerated person for drug and mental health problems can change the life of a child or family member, and ultimately can change society.

Dr. Jorandby is chief medical officer of Lakeview Health in Jacksonville, Fla. She trained in addiction psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

 

Incarceration versus treatment takes center stage in a new analysis of U.S. data from researchers in the United Kingdom.

The researchers performed an observational study looking at rates of incarceration, income, and drug-related deaths from 1983 to 2014 in the United States. They found a strong association between incarceration rates and drug-related deaths. Also, a very strong association was found between lower household income and drug-related deaths. Strikingly, in the counties with the highest incarceration rates, there was a 50% higher rate of drug deaths, reported Elias Nosrati, PhD, and associates (Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33). It is clearer every day that our opioid epidemic was in part wrought by a zealous push to change protocols on treating chronic pain. The epidemic also appears tied to well-meaning but overprescribing doctors and allegedly unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and distributors. What we are learning through this most recent study is that another factor tied to the opioid and overdose epidemic could be incarceration.

According to the study, an increase in crime rates combined with sentencing reforms led the number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons to soar from less than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1 million in 1995. Furthermore, Dr. Nosrati and associates wrote, “Incarceration is directly associated with stigma, discrimination, poor mental health, and chronic economic hardship, all of which are linked to drug use disorders.”

Treatment for drug addiction in prison systems is rare, as is adequate mental health treatment. However, treatment for this population would likely help reduce drug overdose deaths and improve the quality of life for people who are incarcerated and their families. In the Philadelphia prison system, for example, treatment for inmates is available for opioid addiction, both with methadone and now more recently with buprenorphine (Suboxone). The Philadelphia Department of Prisons also provides cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Florida, Chapter 397 of the Florida statutes – known as the Marchman Act – provides for the involuntary (and voluntary) treatment of individuals with substance abuse problems.

The court systems in South Florida have a robust drug-diversion program, aimed at directing people facing incarceration for drug offenses into treatment instead. North Carolina has studied this issue specifically and found through a model simulation that diverting 10% of drug-abusing offenders out of incarceration into treatment would save $4.8 billion in legal costs for North Carolina counties and state legal systems. Diverting 40% of individuals would close to triple that savings.

There are striking data from programs treating individuals who are leveraged into treatment in order to maintain professional licenses. These such individuals, many of whom are physicians, airline pilots, and nurses, have a rate of sobriety of 90% or greater after 5 years. This data show that leveraged treatment has teeth and that those success rates are close to double the rates found within the general population.

In addition to the potential reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as the financial savings, why is treatment important? Because of societal costs. When parents or family members are put in jail for a drug charge or other charge, they leave behind a community, family, and very often children who are affected economically, emotionally, and socially. Those children in particular have higher risks of depression and PTSD. Diverting an offender into treatment or treating an incarcerated person for drug and mental health problems can change the life of a child or family member, and ultimately can change society.

Dr. Jorandby is chief medical officer of Lakeview Health in Jacksonville, Fla. She trained in addiction psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

 

About once a week, along with all the other junk mail, I get a glossy brochure for some university’s online courses to “become a leader in medicine.”

phototechno/Thinkstock

They extol the virtues of their programs: How they equip me to “change the health care system,” “harness market forces to improve medical care,” “empower the next generation of physicians,” and other statements that were almost certainly not written by a doctor.

I’m sure some people are interested in this sort of thing. Maybe they’re ready for a career change from the exam room to the boardroom. But me? I have, pretty much, zero desire to do that. I don’t want to be a corporate leader in medicine. I didn’t come here to sit at a table and watch PowerPoint slides. I didn’t work to get into, and through, medical school, residency, and fellowship to debate earnings ratios and procedure costs with accountants.

I’m here for the patients. I’m sure there are some who became attending physicians, realized this wasn’t for them, and went off to do something else. That’s fine. I have nothing against it.

But, after 20 years in practice, I’m happy where I am. Like most others, I wish I made more money, or that my overhead was less, but I’m overall content with my little world. I have a great staff, a relaxed office, and the majority of my patients are good people.

I have no interest in trading that to be a leader in medicine. In the game of trying to make the world a better place, I’ve found my calling. I can do good for others far more effectively at my second-floor office than in a corporate tower.

And if doing my best for patients day in and day out doesn’t make me a leader in medicine, I don’t know what does.

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

 

About once a week, along with all the other junk mail, I get a glossy brochure for some university’s online courses to “become a leader in medicine.”

phototechno/Thinkstock

They extol the virtues of their programs: How they equip me to “change the health care system,” “harness market forces to improve medical care,” “empower the next generation of physicians,” and other statements that were almost certainly not written by a doctor.

I’m sure some people are interested in this sort of thing. Maybe they’re ready for a career change from the exam room to the boardroom. But me? I have, pretty much, zero desire to do that. I don’t want to be a corporate leader in medicine. I didn’t come here to sit at a table and watch PowerPoint slides. I didn’t work to get into, and through, medical school, residency, and fellowship to debate earnings ratios and procedure costs with accountants.

I’m here for the patients. I’m sure there are some who became attending physicians, realized this wasn’t for them, and went off to do something else. That’s fine. I have nothing against it.

But, after 20 years in practice, I’m happy where I am. Like most others, I wish I made more money, or that my overhead was less, but I’m overall content with my little world. I have a great staff, a relaxed office, and the majority of my patients are good people.

I have no interest in trading that to be a leader in medicine. In the game of trying to make the world a better place, I’ve found my calling. I can do good for others far more effectively at my second-floor office than in a corporate tower.

And if doing my best for patients day in and day out doesn’t make me a leader in medicine, I don’t know what does.

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

 

About once a week, along with all the other junk mail, I get a glossy brochure for some university’s online courses to “become a leader in medicine.”

phototechno/Thinkstock

They extol the virtues of their programs: How they equip me to “change the health care system,” “harness market forces to improve medical care,” “empower the next generation of physicians,” and other statements that were almost certainly not written by a doctor.

I’m sure some people are interested in this sort of thing. Maybe they’re ready for a career change from the exam room to the boardroom. But me? I have, pretty much, zero desire to do that. I don’t want to be a corporate leader in medicine. I didn’t come here to sit at a table and watch PowerPoint slides. I didn’t work to get into, and through, medical school, residency, and fellowship to debate earnings ratios and procedure costs with accountants.

I’m here for the patients. I’m sure there are some who became attending physicians, realized this wasn’t for them, and went off to do something else. That’s fine. I have nothing against it.

But, after 20 years in practice, I’m happy where I am. Like most others, I wish I made more money, or that my overhead was less, but I’m overall content with my little world. I have a great staff, a relaxed office, and the majority of my patients are good people.

I have no interest in trading that to be a leader in medicine. In the game of trying to make the world a better place, I’ve found my calling. I can do good for others far more effectively at my second-floor office than in a corporate tower.

And if doing my best for patients day in and day out doesn’t make me a leader in medicine, I don’t know what does.

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

Let’s begin with a brief case. A 25-year-old patient with a history of injection heroin use is in your care. He is admitted for treatment of endocarditis and will remain in the hospital for intravenous antibiotics for several weeks. Over the first few days of hospitalization, he frequently asks for pain medicine, stating that he is in severe pain, withdrawal, and having opioid cravings. On day 3, he leaves the hospital against medical advice. After 2 weeks, he presents to the ED in septic shock and spends several weeks in the ICU. Or, alternatively, he is found down in the community and pronounced dead from a heroin overdose.

These cases occur all too often, and hospitalists across the nation are actively building knowledge and programs to improve care for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is evident that opioid misuse is the public health crisis of our time. In 2017, over 70,000 patients died from an overdose, and over 2 million patients in the United States have a diagnosis of OUD.^1,2 Many of these patients interact with the hospital at some point during the course of their illness for management of overdose, withdrawal, and other complications of OUD, including endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and skin and soft tissue infections. Moreover, just 20% of the 580,000 patients hospitalized with OUD in 2015 presented as a direct sequelae of the disease.³ Patients with OUD are often admitted for unrelated reasons, but their addiction goes unaddressed.

Opioid use disorder, like many of the other conditions we see, is a chronic relapsing remitting medical disease and a risk factor for premature mortality. When a patient with diabetes is admitted with cellulitis, we might check an A_1C, provide diabetic counseling, and offer evidence-based diabetes treatment, including medications like insulin. We rarely build similar systems of care within the walls of our hospitals to treat OUD like we do for diabetes or other commonly encountered diseases like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

We should be intentional about separating prevention from treatment. Significant work has gone into reducing the availability of prescription opioids and increasing utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs. As a result, the average morphine milligram equivalent per opioid prescription has decreased since 2010.⁴ An unintended consequence of restricting legal opioids is potentially pushing patients with opioid addiction towards heroin and fentanyl. Limiting opioid prescriptions alone will only decrease opioid overdose mortality by 5% through 2025.⁵ Thus, treatment of OUD is critical and something that hospitalists should be trained and engaged in.

Food and Drug Administration–approved OUD treatment includes buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone. Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist that treats withdrawal and cravings. Buprenorphine started in the hospital reduces mortality, increases time spent in outpatient treatment after discharge, and reduces opioid-related 30-day readmissions by over 50%.^6-8 The number needed to treat with buprenorphine to prevent return to illicit opioid use is two.⁹ While physicians require an 8-hour “x-waiver” training (physician assistants and nurse practitioners require a 24-hour training) to prescribe buprenorphine for the outpatient treatment of OUD, such certification is not required to order the medication as part of an acute hospitalization.

Hospitalization represents a reachable moment and unique opportunity to start treatment for OUD. Patients are away from triggering environments and surrounded by supportive staff. Unfortunately, up to 30% of these patients leave the hospital against medical advice because of inadequately treated withdrawal, unaddressed cravings, and fear of mistreatment.¹⁰ Buprenorphine therapy may help tackle the physiological piece of hospital-based treatment, but we also must work on shifting the culture of our institutions. Importantly, OUD is a medical diagnosis. These patients must receive the same dignity, autonomy, and meaningful care afforded to patients with other medical diagnoses. Patients with OUD are not “addicts,” “abusers,” or “frequent fliers.”

Hospitalists have a clear and compelling role in treating OUD. The National Academy of Medicine recently held a workshop where they compared similarities of the HIV crisis with today’s opioid epidemic. The Academy advocated for the development of hospital-based protocols that empower physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners to integrate the treatment of OUD into their practice.¹¹ Some in our field may feel that treating underlying addiction is a role for behavioral health practitioners. This is akin to having said that HIV specialists should be the only providers to treat patients with HIV during its peak. There are simply not enough psychiatrists or addiction medicine specialists to treat all of the patients who need us during this time of national urgency.

 

There are several examples of institutions that are laying the groundwork for this important work. The University of California, San Francisco; Oregon Health and Science University, Portland; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; Rush Medical College, Boston; Boston Medical Center; the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York; and the University of Texas at Austin – to name a few. Offering OUD treatment in the hospital setting must be our new and only acceptable standard of care.

What is next? We can start by screening patients for OUD at the time of admission. This can be accomplished by asking two questions: Does the patient misuse prescription or nonprescription opioids? And if so, does the patient become sick if they abruptly stop? If the patient says yes to both, steps should be taken to provide direct and purposeful care related to OUD. Hospitalists should become familiar with buprenorphine therapy and work to reduce stigma by using people-first language with patients, staff, and in medical documentation.

As a society, we should balance our past focus on optimizing opioid prescribing with current efforts to bolster treatment. To that end, a group of SHM members applied to establish a Substance Use Disorder Special Interest Group, which was recently approved by the SHM board of directors. Details on its rollout will be announced shortly. The intention is that this group will serve as a resource to SHM membership and leadership

As practitioners of hospital medicine, we may not have anticipated playing a direct role in treating patients’ underlying addiction. By empowering hospitalists and wisely using medical hospitalization as a time to treat OUD, we can all have an incredible impact on our patients. Let’s get to work.

Mr. Bottner is a hospitalist at Dell Seton Medical Center, Austin, Texas, and clinical assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

References

1. Katz J. You draw it: Just how bad is the drug overdose epidemic? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/14/upshot/drug-overdose-epidemic-you-draw-it.html. Published Oct 26, 2017.

2. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Ohio – Opioid summaries by state. 2018. https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/ohio_2018.pdf.

3. Peterson C et al. U.S. hospital discharges documenting patient opioid use disorder without opioid overdose or treatment services, 2011-2015. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018;92:35-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.008.

4. Guy GP. Vital Signs: Changes in opioid prescribing in the United States, 2006-2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6626a4.

5. Chen Q et al. Prevention of prescription opioid misuse and projected overdose deaths in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7621.

6. Liebschutz J et al. Buprenorphine treatment for hospitalized, opioid-dependent patients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1369-76.

7. Moreno JL et al. Predictors for 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission among patients with opioid use disorder. J Addict Med. 2019. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000499.

8. Larochelle MR et al. Medication for opioid use disorder after nonfatal opioid overdose and association with mortality: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. June 2018. doi: 10.7326/M17-3107.

9. Raleigh MF. Buprenorphine maintenance vs. placebo for opioid dependence. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95(5). https://www.aafp.org/afp/2017/0301/od1.html. Accessed May 12, 2019.

10. Ti L et al. Leaving the hospital against medical advice among people who use illicit drugs: A systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(12):2587. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302885a.

11. Springer SAM et al. Integrating treatment at the intersection of opioid use disorder and infectious disease epidemics in medical settings: A call for action after a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine workshop. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(5):335-6. doi: 10.7326/M18-1203.

Let’s begin with a brief case. A 25-year-old patient with a history of injection heroin use is in your care. He is admitted for treatment of endocarditis and will remain in the hospital for intravenous antibiotics for several weeks. Over the first few days of hospitalization, he frequently asks for pain medicine, stating that he is in severe pain, withdrawal, and having opioid cravings. On day 3, he leaves the hospital against medical advice. After 2 weeks, he presents to the ED in septic shock and spends several weeks in the ICU. Or, alternatively, he is found down in the community and pronounced dead from a heroin overdose.

These cases occur all too often, and hospitalists across the nation are actively building knowledge and programs to improve care for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is evident that opioid misuse is the public health crisis of our time. In 2017, over 70,000 patients died from an overdose, and over 2 million patients in the United States have a diagnosis of OUD.^1,2 Many of these patients interact with the hospital at some point during the course of their illness for management of overdose, withdrawal, and other complications of OUD, including endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and skin and soft tissue infections. Moreover, just 20% of the 580,000 patients hospitalized with OUD in 2015 presented as a direct sequelae of the disease.³ Patients with OUD are often admitted for unrelated reasons, but their addiction goes unaddressed.

Opioid use disorder, like many of the other conditions we see, is a chronic relapsing remitting medical disease and a risk factor for premature mortality. When a patient with diabetes is admitted with cellulitis, we might check an A_1C, provide diabetic counseling, and offer evidence-based diabetes treatment, including medications like insulin. We rarely build similar systems of care within the walls of our hospitals to treat OUD like we do for diabetes or other commonly encountered diseases like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

We should be intentional about separating prevention from treatment. Significant work has gone into reducing the availability of prescription opioids and increasing utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs. As a result, the average morphine milligram equivalent per opioid prescription has decreased since 2010.⁴ An unintended consequence of restricting legal opioids is potentially pushing patients with opioid addiction towards heroin and fentanyl. Limiting opioid prescriptions alone will only decrease opioid overdose mortality by 5% through 2025.⁵ Thus, treatment of OUD is critical and something that hospitalists should be trained and engaged in.

Food and Drug Administration–approved OUD treatment includes buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone. Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist that treats withdrawal and cravings. Buprenorphine started in the hospital reduces mortality, increases time spent in outpatient treatment after discharge, and reduces opioid-related 30-day readmissions by over 50%.^6-8 The number needed to treat with buprenorphine to prevent return to illicit opioid use is two.⁹ While physicians require an 8-hour “x-waiver” training (physician assistants and nurse practitioners require a 24-hour training) to prescribe buprenorphine for the outpatient treatment of OUD, such certification is not required to order the medication as part of an acute hospitalization.

Hospitalization represents a reachable moment and unique opportunity to start treatment for OUD. Patients are away from triggering environments and surrounded by supportive staff. Unfortunately, up to 30% of these patients leave the hospital against medical advice because of inadequately treated withdrawal, unaddressed cravings, and fear of mistreatment.¹⁰ Buprenorphine therapy may help tackle the physiological piece of hospital-based treatment, but we also must work on shifting the culture of our institutions. Importantly, OUD is a medical diagnosis. These patients must receive the same dignity, autonomy, and meaningful care afforded to patients with other medical diagnoses. Patients with OUD are not “addicts,” “abusers,” or “frequent fliers.”

Hospitalists have a clear and compelling role in treating OUD. The National Academy of Medicine recently held a workshop where they compared similarities of the HIV crisis with today’s opioid epidemic. The Academy advocated for the development of hospital-based protocols that empower physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners to integrate the treatment of OUD into their practice.¹¹ Some in our field may feel that treating underlying addiction is a role for behavioral health practitioners. This is akin to having said that HIV specialists should be the only providers to treat patients with HIV during its peak. There are simply not enough psychiatrists or addiction medicine specialists to treat all of the patients who need us during this time of national urgency.

 

There are several examples of institutions that are laying the groundwork for this important work. The University of California, San Francisco; Oregon Health and Science University, Portland; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; Rush Medical College, Boston; Boston Medical Center; the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York; and the University of Texas at Austin – to name a few. Offering OUD treatment in the hospital setting must be our new and only acceptable standard of care.

What is next? We can start by screening patients for OUD at the time of admission. This can be accomplished by asking two questions: Does the patient misuse prescription or nonprescription opioids? And if so, does the patient become sick if they abruptly stop? If the patient says yes to both, steps should be taken to provide direct and purposeful care related to OUD. Hospitalists should become familiar with buprenorphine therapy and work to reduce stigma by using people-first language with patients, staff, and in medical documentation.

As a society, we should balance our past focus on optimizing opioid prescribing with current efforts to bolster treatment. To that end, a group of SHM members applied to establish a Substance Use Disorder Special Interest Group, which was recently approved by the SHM board of directors. Details on its rollout will be announced shortly. The intention is that this group will serve as a resource to SHM membership and leadership

As practitioners of hospital medicine, we may not have anticipated playing a direct role in treating patients’ underlying addiction. By empowering hospitalists and wisely using medical hospitalization as a time to treat OUD, we can all have an incredible impact on our patients. Let’s get to work.

Mr. Bottner is a hospitalist at Dell Seton Medical Center, Austin, Texas, and clinical assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

References

1. Katz J. You draw it: Just how bad is the drug overdose epidemic? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/14/upshot/drug-overdose-epidemic-you-draw-it.html. Published Oct 26, 2017.

2. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Ohio – Opioid summaries by state. 2018. https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/ohio_2018.pdf.

3. Peterson C et al. U.S. hospital discharges documenting patient opioid use disorder without opioid overdose or treatment services, 2011-2015. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018;92:35-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.008.

4. Guy GP. Vital Signs: Changes in opioid prescribing in the United States, 2006-2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6626a4.

5. Chen Q et al. Prevention of prescription opioid misuse and projected overdose deaths in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7621.

6. Liebschutz J et al. Buprenorphine treatment for hospitalized, opioid-dependent patients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1369-76.

7. Moreno JL et al. Predictors for 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission among patients with opioid use disorder. J Addict Med. 2019. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000499.

8. Larochelle MR et al. Medication for opioid use disorder after nonfatal opioid overdose and association with mortality: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. June 2018. doi: 10.7326/M17-3107.

9. Raleigh MF. Buprenorphine maintenance vs. placebo for opioid dependence. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95(5). https://www.aafp.org/afp/2017/0301/od1.html. Accessed May 12, 2019.

10. Ti L et al. Leaving the hospital against medical advice among people who use illicit drugs: A systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(12):2587. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302885a.

11. Springer SAM et al. Integrating treatment at the intersection of opioid use disorder and infectious disease epidemics in medical settings: A call for action after a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine workshop. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(5):335-6. doi: 10.7326/M18-1203.

Let’s begin with a brief case. A 25-year-old patient with a history of injection heroin use is in your care. He is admitted for treatment of endocarditis and will remain in the hospital for intravenous antibiotics for several weeks. Over the first few days of hospitalization, he frequently asks for pain medicine, stating that he is in severe pain, withdrawal, and having opioid cravings. On day 3, he leaves the hospital against medical advice. After 2 weeks, he presents to the ED in septic shock and spends several weeks in the ICU. Or, alternatively, he is found down in the community and pronounced dead from a heroin overdose.

These cases occur all too often, and hospitalists across the nation are actively building knowledge and programs to improve care for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is evident that opioid misuse is the public health crisis of our time. In 2017, over 70,000 patients died from an overdose, and over 2 million patients in the United States have a diagnosis of OUD.^1,2 Many of these patients interact with the hospital at some point during the course of their illness for management of overdose, withdrawal, and other complications of OUD, including endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and skin and soft tissue infections. Moreover, just 20% of the 580,000 patients hospitalized with OUD in 2015 presented as a direct sequelae of the disease.³ Patients with OUD are often admitted for unrelated reasons, but their addiction goes unaddressed.

Opioid use disorder, like many of the other conditions we see, is a chronic relapsing remitting medical disease and a risk factor for premature mortality. When a patient with diabetes is admitted with cellulitis, we might check an A_1C, provide diabetic counseling, and offer evidence-based diabetes treatment, including medications like insulin. We rarely build similar systems of care within the walls of our hospitals to treat OUD like we do for diabetes or other commonly encountered diseases like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

We should be intentional about separating prevention from treatment. Significant work has gone into reducing the availability of prescription opioids and increasing utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs. As a result, the average morphine milligram equivalent per opioid prescription has decreased since 2010.⁴ An unintended consequence of restricting legal opioids is potentially pushing patients with opioid addiction towards heroin and fentanyl. Limiting opioid prescriptions alone will only decrease opioid overdose mortality by 5% through 2025.⁵ Thus, treatment of OUD is critical and something that hospitalists should be trained and engaged in.

Food and Drug Administration–approved OUD treatment includes buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone. Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist that treats withdrawal and cravings. Buprenorphine started in the hospital reduces mortality, increases time spent in outpatient treatment after discharge, and reduces opioid-related 30-day readmissions by over 50%.^6-8 The number needed to treat with buprenorphine to prevent return to illicit opioid use is two.⁹ While physicians require an 8-hour “x-waiver” training (physician assistants and nurse practitioners require a 24-hour training) to prescribe buprenorphine for the outpatient treatment of OUD, such certification is not required to order the medication as part of an acute hospitalization.

Hospitalization represents a reachable moment and unique opportunity to start treatment for OUD. Patients are away from triggering environments and surrounded by supportive staff. Unfortunately, up to 30% of these patients leave the hospital against medical advice because of inadequately treated withdrawal, unaddressed cravings, and fear of mistreatment.¹⁰ Buprenorphine therapy may help tackle the physiological piece of hospital-based treatment, but we also must work on shifting the culture of our institutions. Importantly, OUD is a medical diagnosis. These patients must receive the same dignity, autonomy, and meaningful care afforded to patients with other medical diagnoses. Patients with OUD are not “addicts,” “abusers,” or “frequent fliers.”

Hospitalists have a clear and compelling role in treating OUD. The National Academy of Medicine recently held a workshop where they compared similarities of the HIV crisis with today’s opioid epidemic. The Academy advocated for the development of hospital-based protocols that empower physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners to integrate the treatment of OUD into their practice.¹¹ Some in our field may feel that treating underlying addiction is a role for behavioral health practitioners. This is akin to having said that HIV specialists should be the only providers to treat patients with HIV during its peak. There are simply not enough psychiatrists or addiction medicine specialists to treat all of the patients who need us during this time of national urgency.

 

There are several examples of institutions that are laying the groundwork for this important work. The University of California, San Francisco; Oregon Health and Science University, Portland; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; Rush Medical College, Boston; Boston Medical Center; the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York; and the University of Texas at Austin – to name a few. Offering OUD treatment in the hospital setting must be our new and only acceptable standard of care.

What is next? We can start by screening patients for OUD at the time of admission. This can be accomplished by asking two questions: Does the patient misuse prescription or nonprescription opioids? And if so, does the patient become sick if they abruptly stop? If the patient says yes to both, steps should be taken to provide direct and purposeful care related to OUD. Hospitalists should become familiar with buprenorphine therapy and work to reduce stigma by using people-first language with patients, staff, and in medical documentation.

As a society, we should balance our past focus on optimizing opioid prescribing with current efforts to bolster treatment. To that end, a group of SHM members applied to establish a Substance Use Disorder Special Interest Group, which was recently approved by the SHM board of directors. Details on its rollout will be announced shortly. The intention is that this group will serve as a resource to SHM membership and leadership

As practitioners of hospital medicine, we may not have anticipated playing a direct role in treating patients’ underlying addiction. By empowering hospitalists and wisely using medical hospitalization as a time to treat OUD, we can all have an incredible impact on our patients. Let’s get to work.

Mr. Bottner is a hospitalist at Dell Seton Medical Center, Austin, Texas, and clinical assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

References

1. Katz J. You draw it: Just how bad is the drug overdose epidemic? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/14/upshot/drug-overdose-epidemic-you-draw-it.html. Published Oct 26, 2017.

2. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Ohio – Opioid summaries by state. 2018. https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/ohio_2018.pdf.

3. Peterson C et al. U.S. hospital discharges documenting patient opioid use disorder without opioid overdose or treatment services, 2011-2015. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018;92:35-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.008.

4. Guy GP. Vital Signs: Changes in opioid prescribing in the United States, 2006-2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6626a4.

5. Chen Q et al. Prevention of prescription opioid misuse and projected overdose deaths in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7621.

6. Liebschutz J et al. Buprenorphine treatment for hospitalized, opioid-dependent patients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1369-76.

7. Moreno JL et al. Predictors for 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission among patients with opioid use disorder. J Addict Med. 2019. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000499.

8. Larochelle MR et al. Medication for opioid use disorder after nonfatal opioid overdose and association with mortality: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. June 2018. doi: 10.7326/M17-3107.

9. Raleigh MF. Buprenorphine maintenance vs. placebo for opioid dependence. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95(5). https://www.aafp.org/afp/2017/0301/od1.html. Accessed May 12, 2019.

10. Ti L et al. Leaving the hospital against medical advice among people who use illicit drugs: A systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(12):2587. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302885a.

11. Springer SAM et al. Integrating treatment at the intersection of opioid use disorder and infectious disease epidemics in medical settings: A call for action after a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine workshop. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(5):335-6. doi: 10.7326/M18-1203.