User login
Low malignant potential tumors of the ovary: A review
Low malignant potential tumors of the ovary – otherwise known as borderline tumors – include ovarian tumors with atypical cellularity, which lack stromal invasion that differentiates them from low grade and high grade invasive carcinomas. They can coexist with extraovarian disease, however, in the setting of borderline tumors these foci are referred to as “implants” rather than metastases. As discussed below, these implants can exhibit the presence of invasion or not.
Classification
The two most common histologic categories of borderline tumors are serous and mucinous cell types. Rarer histologic types such as endometrioid, clear cell, and Brenner also exist. However, these are so infrequent that they will not be covered in this discussion as there are very limited data to make generalizations about these histologies.
Serous borderline tumors contain cellularity similar to that of fallopian tubal epithelium. Approximately 25% of all serous ovarian tumors exhibit borderline features. Compared with mucinous tumors, they are more commonly bilateral and smaller in size (mean size of 12 cm) at the time of diagnosis and they are more likely to be associated with extraovarian implants (typically peritoneal). In fact, up to 25% of serous borderline tumors have concomitant extraovarian implants. Cancer antigen (CA) 125 is commonly a tumor marker for these tumors (elevated in 45% of early stage disease and 80% of advanced stage disease).1
Incidence
The incidence of borderline ovarian tumors is 2.5 per 100,000 woman years in the United States. About 70% are diagnosed at stage I.3 They arise in a younger population compared with invasive ovarian carcinomas. Risk factors for development of borderline tumors are similar to those of invasive ovarian carcinomas (such as nulliparity) but there may be a stronger association between the development of borderline ovarian tumors and infertility, as well as prior use of infertility treatment.4
Diagnosis
The diagnosis of borderline tumors of the ovaries occurs almost exclusively at the time of surgical pathology (either frozen section or definitive pathology).
Preoperative assessments with imaging and tumor markers – usually CA 125 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) – are nonspecific for this tumor type. Preoperative imaging will typically reveal complex ovarian cysts with papillations and vascularity. However, in the case of mucinous borderline tumors, unilocular cysts are common.1 The presence of ascites and peritoneal implants can be observed on preoperative imaging of serous borderline tumors with extraovarian disease. However, it is not possible for this imaging to accurately differentiate borderline tumors with implants from low grade and high grade carcinomas with metastases.
Surgical management
Borderline tumors are commonly diagnosed in women of reproductive age and decisions need to be made regarding fertility sparing surgery, ovarian sparing surgery, and whether staging is performed. The recommended surgery for women who have completed child bearing is complete hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. However, cystectomy or unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy can be considered for women who desire fertility preservation. Conservative fertility preserving surgery is associated with an increased risk of recurrence, but with no negative impact on survival.1
Staging – with at least omentectomy and comprehensive evaluation of the peritoneal cavity, with or without peritoneal biopsies – can be considered, though staging is not associated with improved survival. Lymphadenectomy is also not associated with improved oncologic outcomes and routine lymphadenectomy is not recommended for borderline tumors.1 However, about a quarter of patients with gross evidence of extraovarian disease have implants within lymph nodes. Bulky lymph nodes should be removed, particularly in this group of patients.
Complete removal of extraovarian implants is the surgical intervention that is most important for survival and recurrence.1 This requires that surgeons thoroughly evaluate the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneum, and possess the capability to completely resect all sites of disease.
Historically appendectomy was part of surgical staging of mucinous borderline tumors in order to identify a primary appendiceal lesion, but only 1% of patients with a grossly normal appearing appendix have significant pathology identified. This is no longer recommended.2
Treatment
The primary treatment for borderline tumors of the ovary is surgery. A minimally invasive approach is appropriate when feasible, though it may be associated with an increased risk of cyst rupture, particularly if cystectomy is attempted. Outcomes are best when extraovarian implants are completely resected. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with improved survival and is not routinely recommended, though the guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network include this as an option for patients with advanced stage disease that is either completely or incompletely resected.5
Prognosis
In general, prognosis is excellent for borderline tumors with 5- and 10-year survival of 99% and 97%, 98% and 90%, and 96% and 88% for stages I, II and III tumors, respectively.1 However, several pathologic, molecular, and anatomic features are important in predicting who is at highest risk for recurrence.
Serous borderline tumors with invasive implants (as opposed to desmoplastic implants) and incompletely resected extraovarian implants are associated with increased recurrence and poor prognosis.Micropapillary features and stromal invasion are histologic features that have historically been associated with worse prognosis, but it is unclear if these are independent risk factors, or instead associated with invasive implants. For mucinous borderline tumors, intraepithelial carcinoma has been inconclusively associated with poor prognosis.1,6
Surveillance
Recurrences do occur in patients with a history of borderline tumors of the ovary, however these typically occur late. For this reason, surveillance is important and should continue for many years after diagnosis. Most recurrences are within the peritoneal cavity and are treated with surgical excision and patients should be counseled regarding symptoms of recurrence that include gastrointestinal symptoms, bloating, and pain.
In accordance with guidelines from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, surveillance examinations can take place annually as there is no evidence that more frequent evaluations improve outcomes. These visits should include physical examinations (with pelvic examinations), symptom assessment, and, if elevated preoperatively, assessment of relevant tumor markers (typically CA 125 and/or CEA).7 Surveillance should continue for at least 10 years postoperatively.
Routine imaging is not recommended for all patients in surveillance. However, for patients who have had fertility-sparing surgery, imaging with pelvic ultrasound is recommended, particularly for women with a history of cystectomy or serous borderline tumor (who are at increased risk for bilateral tumors).
Prognosis is most closely associated with the presence of invasive implants and residual disease following surgery. Surgeons who manage these tumors can safely consider fertility-sparing procedures but should be equipped to completely resect all gross disease.
Dr. Rossi is an assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):e103-15.
2. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Nov;294(6):1283-9.
3. Cancer. 2002 Dec 1;95(11):2380-9.
4. Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb 1;155(3):217-24.
5. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Sep;14(9):1134-63.
6. BJOG. 2016 Mar;123(4):498-508.
7. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):3-10.
Low malignant potential tumors of the ovary – otherwise known as borderline tumors – include ovarian tumors with atypical cellularity, which lack stromal invasion that differentiates them from low grade and high grade invasive carcinomas. They can coexist with extraovarian disease, however, in the setting of borderline tumors these foci are referred to as “implants” rather than metastases. As discussed below, these implants can exhibit the presence of invasion or not.
Classification
The two most common histologic categories of borderline tumors are serous and mucinous cell types. Rarer histologic types such as endometrioid, clear cell, and Brenner also exist. However, these are so infrequent that they will not be covered in this discussion as there are very limited data to make generalizations about these histologies.
Serous borderline tumors contain cellularity similar to that of fallopian tubal epithelium. Approximately 25% of all serous ovarian tumors exhibit borderline features. Compared with mucinous tumors, they are more commonly bilateral and smaller in size (mean size of 12 cm) at the time of diagnosis and they are more likely to be associated with extraovarian implants (typically peritoneal). In fact, up to 25% of serous borderline tumors have concomitant extraovarian implants. Cancer antigen (CA) 125 is commonly a tumor marker for these tumors (elevated in 45% of early stage disease and 80% of advanced stage disease).1
Incidence
The incidence of borderline ovarian tumors is 2.5 per 100,000 woman years in the United States. About 70% are diagnosed at stage I.3 They arise in a younger population compared with invasive ovarian carcinomas. Risk factors for development of borderline tumors are similar to those of invasive ovarian carcinomas (such as nulliparity) but there may be a stronger association between the development of borderline ovarian tumors and infertility, as well as prior use of infertility treatment.4
Diagnosis
The diagnosis of borderline tumors of the ovaries occurs almost exclusively at the time of surgical pathology (either frozen section or definitive pathology).
Preoperative assessments with imaging and tumor markers – usually CA 125 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) – are nonspecific for this tumor type. Preoperative imaging will typically reveal complex ovarian cysts with papillations and vascularity. However, in the case of mucinous borderline tumors, unilocular cysts are common.1 The presence of ascites and peritoneal implants can be observed on preoperative imaging of serous borderline tumors with extraovarian disease. However, it is not possible for this imaging to accurately differentiate borderline tumors with implants from low grade and high grade carcinomas with metastases.
Surgical management
Borderline tumors are commonly diagnosed in women of reproductive age and decisions need to be made regarding fertility sparing surgery, ovarian sparing surgery, and whether staging is performed. The recommended surgery for women who have completed child bearing is complete hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. However, cystectomy or unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy can be considered for women who desire fertility preservation. Conservative fertility preserving surgery is associated with an increased risk of recurrence, but with no negative impact on survival.1
Staging – with at least omentectomy and comprehensive evaluation of the peritoneal cavity, with or without peritoneal biopsies – can be considered, though staging is not associated with improved survival. Lymphadenectomy is also not associated with improved oncologic outcomes and routine lymphadenectomy is not recommended for borderline tumors.1 However, about a quarter of patients with gross evidence of extraovarian disease have implants within lymph nodes. Bulky lymph nodes should be removed, particularly in this group of patients.
Complete removal of extraovarian implants is the surgical intervention that is most important for survival and recurrence.1 This requires that surgeons thoroughly evaluate the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneum, and possess the capability to completely resect all sites of disease.
Historically appendectomy was part of surgical staging of mucinous borderline tumors in order to identify a primary appendiceal lesion, but only 1% of patients with a grossly normal appearing appendix have significant pathology identified. This is no longer recommended.2
Treatment
The primary treatment for borderline tumors of the ovary is surgery. A minimally invasive approach is appropriate when feasible, though it may be associated with an increased risk of cyst rupture, particularly if cystectomy is attempted. Outcomes are best when extraovarian implants are completely resected. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with improved survival and is not routinely recommended, though the guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network include this as an option for patients with advanced stage disease that is either completely or incompletely resected.5
Prognosis
In general, prognosis is excellent for borderline tumors with 5- and 10-year survival of 99% and 97%, 98% and 90%, and 96% and 88% for stages I, II and III tumors, respectively.1 However, several pathologic, molecular, and anatomic features are important in predicting who is at highest risk for recurrence.
Serous borderline tumors with invasive implants (as opposed to desmoplastic implants) and incompletely resected extraovarian implants are associated with increased recurrence and poor prognosis.Micropapillary features and stromal invasion are histologic features that have historically been associated with worse prognosis, but it is unclear if these are independent risk factors, or instead associated with invasive implants. For mucinous borderline tumors, intraepithelial carcinoma has been inconclusively associated with poor prognosis.1,6
Surveillance
Recurrences do occur in patients with a history of borderline tumors of the ovary, however these typically occur late. For this reason, surveillance is important and should continue for many years after diagnosis. Most recurrences are within the peritoneal cavity and are treated with surgical excision and patients should be counseled regarding symptoms of recurrence that include gastrointestinal symptoms, bloating, and pain.
In accordance with guidelines from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, surveillance examinations can take place annually as there is no evidence that more frequent evaluations improve outcomes. These visits should include physical examinations (with pelvic examinations), symptom assessment, and, if elevated preoperatively, assessment of relevant tumor markers (typically CA 125 and/or CEA).7 Surveillance should continue for at least 10 years postoperatively.
Routine imaging is not recommended for all patients in surveillance. However, for patients who have had fertility-sparing surgery, imaging with pelvic ultrasound is recommended, particularly for women with a history of cystectomy or serous borderline tumor (who are at increased risk for bilateral tumors).
Prognosis is most closely associated with the presence of invasive implants and residual disease following surgery. Surgeons who manage these tumors can safely consider fertility-sparing procedures but should be equipped to completely resect all gross disease.
Dr. Rossi is an assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):e103-15.
2. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Nov;294(6):1283-9.
3. Cancer. 2002 Dec 1;95(11):2380-9.
4. Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb 1;155(3):217-24.
5. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Sep;14(9):1134-63.
6. BJOG. 2016 Mar;123(4):498-508.
7. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):3-10.
Low malignant potential tumors of the ovary – otherwise known as borderline tumors – include ovarian tumors with atypical cellularity, which lack stromal invasion that differentiates them from low grade and high grade invasive carcinomas. They can coexist with extraovarian disease, however, in the setting of borderline tumors these foci are referred to as “implants” rather than metastases. As discussed below, these implants can exhibit the presence of invasion or not.
Classification
The two most common histologic categories of borderline tumors are serous and mucinous cell types. Rarer histologic types such as endometrioid, clear cell, and Brenner also exist. However, these are so infrequent that they will not be covered in this discussion as there are very limited data to make generalizations about these histologies.
Serous borderline tumors contain cellularity similar to that of fallopian tubal epithelium. Approximately 25% of all serous ovarian tumors exhibit borderline features. Compared with mucinous tumors, they are more commonly bilateral and smaller in size (mean size of 12 cm) at the time of diagnosis and they are more likely to be associated with extraovarian implants (typically peritoneal). In fact, up to 25% of serous borderline tumors have concomitant extraovarian implants. Cancer antigen (CA) 125 is commonly a tumor marker for these tumors (elevated in 45% of early stage disease and 80% of advanced stage disease).1
Incidence
The incidence of borderline ovarian tumors is 2.5 per 100,000 woman years in the United States. About 70% are diagnosed at stage I.3 They arise in a younger population compared with invasive ovarian carcinomas. Risk factors for development of borderline tumors are similar to those of invasive ovarian carcinomas (such as nulliparity) but there may be a stronger association between the development of borderline ovarian tumors and infertility, as well as prior use of infertility treatment.4
Diagnosis
The diagnosis of borderline tumors of the ovaries occurs almost exclusively at the time of surgical pathology (either frozen section or definitive pathology).
Preoperative assessments with imaging and tumor markers – usually CA 125 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) – are nonspecific for this tumor type. Preoperative imaging will typically reveal complex ovarian cysts with papillations and vascularity. However, in the case of mucinous borderline tumors, unilocular cysts are common.1 The presence of ascites and peritoneal implants can be observed on preoperative imaging of serous borderline tumors with extraovarian disease. However, it is not possible for this imaging to accurately differentiate borderline tumors with implants from low grade and high grade carcinomas with metastases.
Surgical management
Borderline tumors are commonly diagnosed in women of reproductive age and decisions need to be made regarding fertility sparing surgery, ovarian sparing surgery, and whether staging is performed. The recommended surgery for women who have completed child bearing is complete hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. However, cystectomy or unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy can be considered for women who desire fertility preservation. Conservative fertility preserving surgery is associated with an increased risk of recurrence, but with no negative impact on survival.1
Staging – with at least omentectomy and comprehensive evaluation of the peritoneal cavity, with or without peritoneal biopsies – can be considered, though staging is not associated with improved survival. Lymphadenectomy is also not associated with improved oncologic outcomes and routine lymphadenectomy is not recommended for borderline tumors.1 However, about a quarter of patients with gross evidence of extraovarian disease have implants within lymph nodes. Bulky lymph nodes should be removed, particularly in this group of patients.
Complete removal of extraovarian implants is the surgical intervention that is most important for survival and recurrence.1 This requires that surgeons thoroughly evaluate the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneum, and possess the capability to completely resect all sites of disease.
Historically appendectomy was part of surgical staging of mucinous borderline tumors in order to identify a primary appendiceal lesion, but only 1% of patients with a grossly normal appearing appendix have significant pathology identified. This is no longer recommended.2
Treatment
The primary treatment for borderline tumors of the ovary is surgery. A minimally invasive approach is appropriate when feasible, though it may be associated with an increased risk of cyst rupture, particularly if cystectomy is attempted. Outcomes are best when extraovarian implants are completely resected. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with improved survival and is not routinely recommended, though the guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network include this as an option for patients with advanced stage disease that is either completely or incompletely resected.5
Prognosis
In general, prognosis is excellent for borderline tumors with 5- and 10-year survival of 99% and 97%, 98% and 90%, and 96% and 88% for stages I, II and III tumors, respectively.1 However, several pathologic, molecular, and anatomic features are important in predicting who is at highest risk for recurrence.
Serous borderline tumors with invasive implants (as opposed to desmoplastic implants) and incompletely resected extraovarian implants are associated with increased recurrence and poor prognosis.Micropapillary features and stromal invasion are histologic features that have historically been associated with worse prognosis, but it is unclear if these are independent risk factors, or instead associated with invasive implants. For mucinous borderline tumors, intraepithelial carcinoma has been inconclusively associated with poor prognosis.1,6
Surveillance
Recurrences do occur in patients with a history of borderline tumors of the ovary, however these typically occur late. For this reason, surveillance is important and should continue for many years after diagnosis. Most recurrences are within the peritoneal cavity and are treated with surgical excision and patients should be counseled regarding symptoms of recurrence that include gastrointestinal symptoms, bloating, and pain.
In accordance with guidelines from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, surveillance examinations can take place annually as there is no evidence that more frequent evaluations improve outcomes. These visits should include physical examinations (with pelvic examinations), symptom assessment, and, if elevated preoperatively, assessment of relevant tumor markers (typically CA 125 and/or CEA).7 Surveillance should continue for at least 10 years postoperatively.
Routine imaging is not recommended for all patients in surveillance. However, for patients who have had fertility-sparing surgery, imaging with pelvic ultrasound is recommended, particularly for women with a history of cystectomy or serous borderline tumor (who are at increased risk for bilateral tumors).
Prognosis is most closely associated with the presence of invasive implants and residual disease following surgery. Surgeons who manage these tumors can safely consider fertility-sparing procedures but should be equipped to completely resect all gross disease.
Dr. Rossi is an assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):e103-15.
2. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Nov;294(6):1283-9.
3. Cancer. 2002 Dec 1;95(11):2380-9.
4. Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb 1;155(3):217-24.
5. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Sep;14(9):1134-63.
6. BJOG. 2016 Mar;123(4):498-508.
7. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):3-10.
Opioid antagonists in pregnancy: Naltrexone or not?
With the increasing concern about rising rates of opioid abuse in the general population, including women of reproductive age and pregnant and breastfeeding women, clear guidelines regarding treatment in pregnancy and lactation are needed.
The Committee on Obstetric Practice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine addressed this issue comprehensively in the ACOG Committee Opinion issued in August 2017.1 In this document, universal screening and medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder were recommended. Opioid agonists including methadone and buprenorphine were considered the treatments with the most evidence of benefit, and limited concern about adverse fetal effects, other than predictable and treatable neonatal abstinence syndrome.
Two types of scenarios make this topic relevant. In the first, a woman who has been successful in avoiding relapse by naltrexone treatment, although advised not to become pregnant, could inadvertently conceive. She would then be at risk of relapse if treatment were discontinued. In the second, a woman who overdoses with an opioid in pregnancy might require rapid detoxification with naltrexone in order to survive. In either case, there are quite limited data on potential fetal consequences.
In a 2001 report, Hulse et al. described a series of fetal outcomes following prenatal naltrexone exposure. In one set of cases accumulated from three countries, rapid opiate detoxification with naltrexone was performed for 18 pregnant women. One woman received two detoxification treatments. Two treatments occurred in the first trimester, 11 in the second, and 6 in the third. Maternal and fetal outcomes were said to be unremarkable, except for two cases of low birth weight infants (less than 2,500 g). In another set of cases, seven opioid-dependent women in Australia who had been maintained on 50 mg naltrexone per day became pregnant. In six of the seven cases, naltrexone was discontinued at 7 weeks’ gestation because of the unknown risks of teratogenicity. Of these, three restarted naltrexone maintenance therapy in the second trimester. One mother continued naltrexone throughout pregnancy. One of the seven women delivered at 36 weeks by induction for high blood pressure, and the infant was less than 2,500 g. One other term infant was small at 2,625 g. Otherwise, outcomes were considered normal.3
In two subsequent reports by some of the same authors, pregnancy outcomes in 9 and 17 heroin users with naltrexone implants were unremarkable and comparable to those of women on methadone maintenance therapy.4,5
While the very limited data on naltrexone safety in pregnancy have not suggested substantial increased risks, the numbers are too small to provide strong reassurance, and the animal data remain concerning. Long-term behavioral outcome studies are also lacking. More research in this area is needed to weigh the safety of naltrexone for the fetus against the risk of relapse with discontinuation of this drug.
Dr. Chambers is a professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;130(2):e81-e94.
2. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2008 Jun;6(2):125–50.
3. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Nov;41(4):424-8.
4. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Feb;42(1):104-5.
5. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 May;85(2):170-1.
6. Drugs. 2017 Jul;77(11):1211-9.
With the increasing concern about rising rates of opioid abuse in the general population, including women of reproductive age and pregnant and breastfeeding women, clear guidelines regarding treatment in pregnancy and lactation are needed.
The Committee on Obstetric Practice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine addressed this issue comprehensively in the ACOG Committee Opinion issued in August 2017.1 In this document, universal screening and medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder were recommended. Opioid agonists including methadone and buprenorphine were considered the treatments with the most evidence of benefit, and limited concern about adverse fetal effects, other than predictable and treatable neonatal abstinence syndrome.
Two types of scenarios make this topic relevant. In the first, a woman who has been successful in avoiding relapse by naltrexone treatment, although advised not to become pregnant, could inadvertently conceive. She would then be at risk of relapse if treatment were discontinued. In the second, a woman who overdoses with an opioid in pregnancy might require rapid detoxification with naltrexone in order to survive. In either case, there are quite limited data on potential fetal consequences.
In a 2001 report, Hulse et al. described a series of fetal outcomes following prenatal naltrexone exposure. In one set of cases accumulated from three countries, rapid opiate detoxification with naltrexone was performed for 18 pregnant women. One woman received two detoxification treatments. Two treatments occurred in the first trimester, 11 in the second, and 6 in the third. Maternal and fetal outcomes were said to be unremarkable, except for two cases of low birth weight infants (less than 2,500 g). In another set of cases, seven opioid-dependent women in Australia who had been maintained on 50 mg naltrexone per day became pregnant. In six of the seven cases, naltrexone was discontinued at 7 weeks’ gestation because of the unknown risks of teratogenicity. Of these, three restarted naltrexone maintenance therapy in the second trimester. One mother continued naltrexone throughout pregnancy. One of the seven women delivered at 36 weeks by induction for high blood pressure, and the infant was less than 2,500 g. One other term infant was small at 2,625 g. Otherwise, outcomes were considered normal.3
In two subsequent reports by some of the same authors, pregnancy outcomes in 9 and 17 heroin users with naltrexone implants were unremarkable and comparable to those of women on methadone maintenance therapy.4,5
While the very limited data on naltrexone safety in pregnancy have not suggested substantial increased risks, the numbers are too small to provide strong reassurance, and the animal data remain concerning. Long-term behavioral outcome studies are also lacking. More research in this area is needed to weigh the safety of naltrexone for the fetus against the risk of relapse with discontinuation of this drug.
Dr. Chambers is a professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;130(2):e81-e94.
2. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2008 Jun;6(2):125–50.
3. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Nov;41(4):424-8.
4. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Feb;42(1):104-5.
5. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 May;85(2):170-1.
6. Drugs. 2017 Jul;77(11):1211-9.
With the increasing concern about rising rates of opioid abuse in the general population, including women of reproductive age and pregnant and breastfeeding women, clear guidelines regarding treatment in pregnancy and lactation are needed.
The Committee on Obstetric Practice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine addressed this issue comprehensively in the ACOG Committee Opinion issued in August 2017.1 In this document, universal screening and medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder were recommended. Opioid agonists including methadone and buprenorphine were considered the treatments with the most evidence of benefit, and limited concern about adverse fetal effects, other than predictable and treatable neonatal abstinence syndrome.
Two types of scenarios make this topic relevant. In the first, a woman who has been successful in avoiding relapse by naltrexone treatment, although advised not to become pregnant, could inadvertently conceive. She would then be at risk of relapse if treatment were discontinued. In the second, a woman who overdoses with an opioid in pregnancy might require rapid detoxification with naltrexone in order to survive. In either case, there are quite limited data on potential fetal consequences.
In a 2001 report, Hulse et al. described a series of fetal outcomes following prenatal naltrexone exposure. In one set of cases accumulated from three countries, rapid opiate detoxification with naltrexone was performed for 18 pregnant women. One woman received two detoxification treatments. Two treatments occurred in the first trimester, 11 in the second, and 6 in the third. Maternal and fetal outcomes were said to be unremarkable, except for two cases of low birth weight infants (less than 2,500 g). In another set of cases, seven opioid-dependent women in Australia who had been maintained on 50 mg naltrexone per day became pregnant. In six of the seven cases, naltrexone was discontinued at 7 weeks’ gestation because of the unknown risks of teratogenicity. Of these, three restarted naltrexone maintenance therapy in the second trimester. One mother continued naltrexone throughout pregnancy. One of the seven women delivered at 36 weeks by induction for high blood pressure, and the infant was less than 2,500 g. One other term infant was small at 2,625 g. Otherwise, outcomes were considered normal.3
In two subsequent reports by some of the same authors, pregnancy outcomes in 9 and 17 heroin users with naltrexone implants were unremarkable and comparable to those of women on methadone maintenance therapy.4,5
While the very limited data on naltrexone safety in pregnancy have not suggested substantial increased risks, the numbers are too small to provide strong reassurance, and the animal data remain concerning. Long-term behavioral outcome studies are also lacking. More research in this area is needed to weigh the safety of naltrexone for the fetus against the risk of relapse with discontinuation of this drug.
Dr. Chambers is a professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;130(2):e81-e94.
2. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2008 Jun;6(2):125–50.
3. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Nov;41(4):424-8.
4. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Feb;42(1):104-5.
5. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 May;85(2):170-1.
6. Drugs. 2017 Jul;77(11):1211-9.
50 years of pediatric dermatology
The world in pediatric dermatology has changed in incredible ways since 1967. In fact, pediatric dermatology was not an organized specialty until years later! This article will look back at some of the history of pediatric dermatology, exploring how different the field was 50 years ago, and how it has evolved into the vibrant field that it is. By looking at some disease states, and differences in practice in relation to the care of dermatologic conditions in children both by pediatricians and dermatologists, we can see the tremendous evolution in our understanding and management of pediatric skin conditions, and perhaps gain insight into the future.
Pediatric dermatology was fairly “neonatal” 50 years ago, with only a few practitioners in the field. Recognizing that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits include a skin-related problem, and that there was limited training about skin diseases among primary care practitioners and inconsistent training amongst dermatologists, there was a clinical need for establishing the subspecialty of pediatric dermatology. The first international symposium was held in Mexico City in October 1972, and with this meeting the International Society of Pediatric Dermatology was founded. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) began in 1973, with Alvin Jacobs, MD, Samuel Weinberg, MD, Nancy Esterly, MD, Sidney Hurwitz, MD, William Weston, MD, and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers.” The journal Pediatric Dermatology released its first issue in 1982 (35 years ago), and the American Academy of Pediatrics did not have a section of dermatology until 1986.
Pediatrics and dermatology: The interface
Many of the first generation of pediatric dermatologists trained as pediatricians prior to pursuing their dermatology work, with some being “assigned” dermatology as pediatric experts, while others did formal residencies in dermatology. This history is important, as pediatric dermatology was, and remains, integrated with pediatrics, even while training in dermatology residencies became standard practice. An important part of the development of the field has been the education of pediatricians and dermatologists by pediatric dermatologists, with a strong sensibility that improved training for both generalists and specialists about pediatric skin disease would yield better care for patients and families.
Initially, there were very few pediatric or dermatology programs in the United States that had pediatric dermatologists. Over the succeeding decades, this is now less common, although even now there are still dermatology and pediatric residency programs that do not have a pediatric dermatologist for either training or to serve their patients. The founding leaders of the SPD set a tone of collaboration nationally and internationally, reaching out to pediatric colleagues and dermatology associates from around the world, and establishing superb educational programs for the exchange of ideas, presentation of challenging cases, and promoting state of the art knowledge of the field. Through annual meetings of the SPD, conferences immediately preceding the American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology, and other regional and international meetings, the field developed as the number of practitioners grew, and as the specialized published literature reflected new knowledge in diagnosis and therapy.
Building upon the history of collaboration and reflecting the maturation of the field with a desire to influence the breadth and quantity of research in pediatric dermatology, the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) was formed in 2012. This organization was formed to promote and facilitate high quality collaborative clinical, translational, educational, and basic science research in pediatric dermatology with a vision to create sustainable, collaborative networks to better understand, prevent, treat, and cure dermatologic diseases in children. This network is now composed of over 230 members representing over 68 institutions from the United States and Canada, but including involvement globally from Mexico, Europe, and the Middle East.
Examples of changing perspectives: hemangiomas
A good way to look at evolution of the field is take a look at some of the similarities and differences in clinical practice in relation to common and uncommon disease states.
A great example is hemangiomas. Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that many lesions had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of course, the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” in the trade), was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized variant tumors that were distinct, such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, and hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome (posterior fossa brain malformations) had yet to be described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden and her colleagues). For a time period, hemangiomas were treated with X-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. For many years after that, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, presumably a backlash from the radiation therapy interventions.
This story also reflects how organized research efforts helped with the evolution of knowledge and clinical care. The Hemangioma of Infancy Group was formed to take a collaborative approach to characterize and study hemangiomas and related tumors. Beginning with energetic, insightful pediatric dermatologists, and little funding, they changed our knowledge base of how hemangiomas present, the risk factors for their development and the characteristics and multiple organ findings associated with PHACE and other syndromic hemangiomas.
Procedural pediatric dermatology: Tremendous revolution in surgery and laser
The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. And how important this specialty work was! Acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, diaper and seborrheic dermatitis, and rare genetic syndromes, these conditions were a major part of the work of early pediatric dermatologists (and remain so now). What was not common was for pediatric dermatologists to have procedural or surgical practices, while this now is routinely part of the work of specialists in the field. How did this shift occur?
The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser in 1989 and the publication of a seminal article in the New England Journal of Medicine (1989 Feb 16;320[7]:416-21) on its utility in treating port-wine stains in children with minimal scarring. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists had the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the pediatric knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age appropriate manner, and consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.
So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota), hair lasers (to treat perineal areas to prevent pilonidal cyst recurrence or to treat hirsutism), and combinations of lasers to treat hypertrophic, constrictive, and/or deforming scars).
Inflammatory skin disorders: Bread and butter ... and peanut butter?
The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris now is recognized as much more common under age 12 years than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later. Pediatric acne expert recommendations were formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 (Pediatrics. 2013;131:S163-86). Over the past few years, there is a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance.
Psoriasis has been a condition that has been “behind the revolution,” in that no biologic agent was approved for pediatric psoriasis in the United States until several months ago, lagging behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, and new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis in adults is now tremendously controllable with biologic agents targeting TNF-alpha, IL 12/23, and IL-17. Etanercept has been approved for children with psoriasis aged 4 years and older, and other biologic agents are under study.
Atopic dermatitis now is ready for its revolution! AD has increased in prevalence from around 5% of the pediatric population 30-plus years ago to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their utilization of these useful agents.
It has been recognized for years that children with AD have higher risk of developing food allergies than children without AD. A changing understanding of how early food exposure may induce tolerance is changing the world of allergy and influencing the care of children with AD. This is where the peanut butter (or other processed peanut, such as “Bamba”) may be life saving. New guidelines have come from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommending that infants with severe eczema (or egg allergy, or both) have introduction of age-appropriate peanut-containing food as early as 4-6 months of age to reduce the risk of development of peanut allergy. It is recommended that these infants undergo early evaluation for possible sensitization to peanut protein, with referral to allergists for skin prick tests or serum IgE screens (though if positive, referral to allergists is appropriate), and assess the safety of going ahead with early feeding. It is hoped that following these new guidelines can minimize the development of peanut allergy.
The future
Where will pediatric skin disease, or more importantly, skin health over a lifetime be in 50 years? Can we cure or prevent the consequences of our lethal and life altering genetic diseases such as epidermolysis bullosa or our neurocutaneous disorders? Will our new insights into birthmarks (they are mostly somatic mutations) allow us to form specific, personalized therapies to minimize their impact? Will we be using computers equipped with imaging devices and algorithms to assess our patients’ moles, papules, and nodules? Will our vaccines have wiped out warts, molluscum, and perhaps, acne? Will we have cured our inflammatory skin disorders, or perhaps prevented them by interventions in the neonatal period? No predictions will be offered here, other than that we can look forward to incredible changes for our future generations of health care practitioners, patients, and families.
Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield has served as a consultant for Anacor/Pfizer and Regeneron/Sanofi. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
The world in pediatric dermatology has changed in incredible ways since 1967. In fact, pediatric dermatology was not an organized specialty until years later! This article will look back at some of the history of pediatric dermatology, exploring how different the field was 50 years ago, and how it has evolved into the vibrant field that it is. By looking at some disease states, and differences in practice in relation to the care of dermatologic conditions in children both by pediatricians and dermatologists, we can see the tremendous evolution in our understanding and management of pediatric skin conditions, and perhaps gain insight into the future.
Pediatric dermatology was fairly “neonatal” 50 years ago, with only a few practitioners in the field. Recognizing that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits include a skin-related problem, and that there was limited training about skin diseases among primary care practitioners and inconsistent training amongst dermatologists, there was a clinical need for establishing the subspecialty of pediatric dermatology. The first international symposium was held in Mexico City in October 1972, and with this meeting the International Society of Pediatric Dermatology was founded. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) began in 1973, with Alvin Jacobs, MD, Samuel Weinberg, MD, Nancy Esterly, MD, Sidney Hurwitz, MD, William Weston, MD, and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers.” The journal Pediatric Dermatology released its first issue in 1982 (35 years ago), and the American Academy of Pediatrics did not have a section of dermatology until 1986.
Pediatrics and dermatology: The interface
Many of the first generation of pediatric dermatologists trained as pediatricians prior to pursuing their dermatology work, with some being “assigned” dermatology as pediatric experts, while others did formal residencies in dermatology. This history is important, as pediatric dermatology was, and remains, integrated with pediatrics, even while training in dermatology residencies became standard practice. An important part of the development of the field has been the education of pediatricians and dermatologists by pediatric dermatologists, with a strong sensibility that improved training for both generalists and specialists about pediatric skin disease would yield better care for patients and families.
Initially, there were very few pediatric or dermatology programs in the United States that had pediatric dermatologists. Over the succeeding decades, this is now less common, although even now there are still dermatology and pediatric residency programs that do not have a pediatric dermatologist for either training or to serve their patients. The founding leaders of the SPD set a tone of collaboration nationally and internationally, reaching out to pediatric colleagues and dermatology associates from around the world, and establishing superb educational programs for the exchange of ideas, presentation of challenging cases, and promoting state of the art knowledge of the field. Through annual meetings of the SPD, conferences immediately preceding the American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology, and other regional and international meetings, the field developed as the number of practitioners grew, and as the specialized published literature reflected new knowledge in diagnosis and therapy.
Building upon the history of collaboration and reflecting the maturation of the field with a desire to influence the breadth and quantity of research in pediatric dermatology, the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) was formed in 2012. This organization was formed to promote and facilitate high quality collaborative clinical, translational, educational, and basic science research in pediatric dermatology with a vision to create sustainable, collaborative networks to better understand, prevent, treat, and cure dermatologic diseases in children. This network is now composed of over 230 members representing over 68 institutions from the United States and Canada, but including involvement globally from Mexico, Europe, and the Middle East.
Examples of changing perspectives: hemangiomas
A good way to look at evolution of the field is take a look at some of the similarities and differences in clinical practice in relation to common and uncommon disease states.
A great example is hemangiomas. Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that many lesions had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of course, the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” in the trade), was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized variant tumors that were distinct, such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, and hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome (posterior fossa brain malformations) had yet to be described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden and her colleagues). For a time period, hemangiomas were treated with X-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. For many years after that, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, presumably a backlash from the radiation therapy interventions.
This story also reflects how organized research efforts helped with the evolution of knowledge and clinical care. The Hemangioma of Infancy Group was formed to take a collaborative approach to characterize and study hemangiomas and related tumors. Beginning with energetic, insightful pediatric dermatologists, and little funding, they changed our knowledge base of how hemangiomas present, the risk factors for their development and the characteristics and multiple organ findings associated with PHACE and other syndromic hemangiomas.
Procedural pediatric dermatology: Tremendous revolution in surgery and laser
The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. And how important this specialty work was! Acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, diaper and seborrheic dermatitis, and rare genetic syndromes, these conditions were a major part of the work of early pediatric dermatologists (and remain so now). What was not common was for pediatric dermatologists to have procedural or surgical practices, while this now is routinely part of the work of specialists in the field. How did this shift occur?
The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser in 1989 and the publication of a seminal article in the New England Journal of Medicine (1989 Feb 16;320[7]:416-21) on its utility in treating port-wine stains in children with minimal scarring. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists had the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the pediatric knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age appropriate manner, and consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.
So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota), hair lasers (to treat perineal areas to prevent pilonidal cyst recurrence or to treat hirsutism), and combinations of lasers to treat hypertrophic, constrictive, and/or deforming scars).
Inflammatory skin disorders: Bread and butter ... and peanut butter?
The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris now is recognized as much more common under age 12 years than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later. Pediatric acne expert recommendations were formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 (Pediatrics. 2013;131:S163-86). Over the past few years, there is a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance.
Psoriasis has been a condition that has been “behind the revolution,” in that no biologic agent was approved for pediatric psoriasis in the United States until several months ago, lagging behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, and new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis in adults is now tremendously controllable with biologic agents targeting TNF-alpha, IL 12/23, and IL-17. Etanercept has been approved for children with psoriasis aged 4 years and older, and other biologic agents are under study.
Atopic dermatitis now is ready for its revolution! AD has increased in prevalence from around 5% of the pediatric population 30-plus years ago to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their utilization of these useful agents.
It has been recognized for years that children with AD have higher risk of developing food allergies than children without AD. A changing understanding of how early food exposure may induce tolerance is changing the world of allergy and influencing the care of children with AD. This is where the peanut butter (or other processed peanut, such as “Bamba”) may be life saving. New guidelines have come from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommending that infants with severe eczema (or egg allergy, or both) have introduction of age-appropriate peanut-containing food as early as 4-6 months of age to reduce the risk of development of peanut allergy. It is recommended that these infants undergo early evaluation for possible sensitization to peanut protein, with referral to allergists for skin prick tests or serum IgE screens (though if positive, referral to allergists is appropriate), and assess the safety of going ahead with early feeding. It is hoped that following these new guidelines can minimize the development of peanut allergy.
The future
Where will pediatric skin disease, or more importantly, skin health over a lifetime be in 50 years? Can we cure or prevent the consequences of our lethal and life altering genetic diseases such as epidermolysis bullosa or our neurocutaneous disorders? Will our new insights into birthmarks (they are mostly somatic mutations) allow us to form specific, personalized therapies to minimize their impact? Will we be using computers equipped with imaging devices and algorithms to assess our patients’ moles, papules, and nodules? Will our vaccines have wiped out warts, molluscum, and perhaps, acne? Will we have cured our inflammatory skin disorders, or perhaps prevented them by interventions in the neonatal period? No predictions will be offered here, other than that we can look forward to incredible changes for our future generations of health care practitioners, patients, and families.
Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield has served as a consultant for Anacor/Pfizer and Regeneron/Sanofi. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
The world in pediatric dermatology has changed in incredible ways since 1967. In fact, pediatric dermatology was not an organized specialty until years later! This article will look back at some of the history of pediatric dermatology, exploring how different the field was 50 years ago, and how it has evolved into the vibrant field that it is. By looking at some disease states, and differences in practice in relation to the care of dermatologic conditions in children both by pediatricians and dermatologists, we can see the tremendous evolution in our understanding and management of pediatric skin conditions, and perhaps gain insight into the future.
Pediatric dermatology was fairly “neonatal” 50 years ago, with only a few practitioners in the field. Recognizing that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits include a skin-related problem, and that there was limited training about skin diseases among primary care practitioners and inconsistent training amongst dermatologists, there was a clinical need for establishing the subspecialty of pediatric dermatology. The first international symposium was held in Mexico City in October 1972, and with this meeting the International Society of Pediatric Dermatology was founded. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) began in 1973, with Alvin Jacobs, MD, Samuel Weinberg, MD, Nancy Esterly, MD, Sidney Hurwitz, MD, William Weston, MD, and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers.” The journal Pediatric Dermatology released its first issue in 1982 (35 years ago), and the American Academy of Pediatrics did not have a section of dermatology until 1986.
Pediatrics and dermatology: The interface
Many of the first generation of pediatric dermatologists trained as pediatricians prior to pursuing their dermatology work, with some being “assigned” dermatology as pediatric experts, while others did formal residencies in dermatology. This history is important, as pediatric dermatology was, and remains, integrated with pediatrics, even while training in dermatology residencies became standard practice. An important part of the development of the field has been the education of pediatricians and dermatologists by pediatric dermatologists, with a strong sensibility that improved training for both generalists and specialists about pediatric skin disease would yield better care for patients and families.
Initially, there were very few pediatric or dermatology programs in the United States that had pediatric dermatologists. Over the succeeding decades, this is now less common, although even now there are still dermatology and pediatric residency programs that do not have a pediatric dermatologist for either training or to serve their patients. The founding leaders of the SPD set a tone of collaboration nationally and internationally, reaching out to pediatric colleagues and dermatology associates from around the world, and establishing superb educational programs for the exchange of ideas, presentation of challenging cases, and promoting state of the art knowledge of the field. Through annual meetings of the SPD, conferences immediately preceding the American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology, and other regional and international meetings, the field developed as the number of practitioners grew, and as the specialized published literature reflected new knowledge in diagnosis and therapy.
Building upon the history of collaboration and reflecting the maturation of the field with a desire to influence the breadth and quantity of research in pediatric dermatology, the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) was formed in 2012. This organization was formed to promote and facilitate high quality collaborative clinical, translational, educational, and basic science research in pediatric dermatology with a vision to create sustainable, collaborative networks to better understand, prevent, treat, and cure dermatologic diseases in children. This network is now composed of over 230 members representing over 68 institutions from the United States and Canada, but including involvement globally from Mexico, Europe, and the Middle East.
Examples of changing perspectives: hemangiomas
A good way to look at evolution of the field is take a look at some of the similarities and differences in clinical practice in relation to common and uncommon disease states.
A great example is hemangiomas. Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that many lesions had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of course, the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” in the trade), was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized variant tumors that were distinct, such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, and hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome (posterior fossa brain malformations) had yet to be described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden and her colleagues). For a time period, hemangiomas were treated with X-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. For many years after that, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, presumably a backlash from the radiation therapy interventions.
This story also reflects how organized research efforts helped with the evolution of knowledge and clinical care. The Hemangioma of Infancy Group was formed to take a collaborative approach to characterize and study hemangiomas and related tumors. Beginning with energetic, insightful pediatric dermatologists, and little funding, they changed our knowledge base of how hemangiomas present, the risk factors for their development and the characteristics and multiple organ findings associated with PHACE and other syndromic hemangiomas.
Procedural pediatric dermatology: Tremendous revolution in surgery and laser
The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. And how important this specialty work was! Acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, diaper and seborrheic dermatitis, and rare genetic syndromes, these conditions were a major part of the work of early pediatric dermatologists (and remain so now). What was not common was for pediatric dermatologists to have procedural or surgical practices, while this now is routinely part of the work of specialists in the field. How did this shift occur?
The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser in 1989 and the publication of a seminal article in the New England Journal of Medicine (1989 Feb 16;320[7]:416-21) on its utility in treating port-wine stains in children with minimal scarring. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists had the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the pediatric knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age appropriate manner, and consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.
So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota), hair lasers (to treat perineal areas to prevent pilonidal cyst recurrence or to treat hirsutism), and combinations of lasers to treat hypertrophic, constrictive, and/or deforming scars).
Inflammatory skin disorders: Bread and butter ... and peanut butter?
The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris now is recognized as much more common under age 12 years than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later. Pediatric acne expert recommendations were formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 (Pediatrics. 2013;131:S163-86). Over the past few years, there is a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance.
Psoriasis has been a condition that has been “behind the revolution,” in that no biologic agent was approved for pediatric psoriasis in the United States until several months ago, lagging behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, and new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis in adults is now tremendously controllable with biologic agents targeting TNF-alpha, IL 12/23, and IL-17. Etanercept has been approved for children with psoriasis aged 4 years and older, and other biologic agents are under study.
Atopic dermatitis now is ready for its revolution! AD has increased in prevalence from around 5% of the pediatric population 30-plus years ago to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their utilization of these useful agents.
It has been recognized for years that children with AD have higher risk of developing food allergies than children without AD. A changing understanding of how early food exposure may induce tolerance is changing the world of allergy and influencing the care of children with AD. This is where the peanut butter (or other processed peanut, such as “Bamba”) may be life saving. New guidelines have come from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommending that infants with severe eczema (or egg allergy, or both) have introduction of age-appropriate peanut-containing food as early as 4-6 months of age to reduce the risk of development of peanut allergy. It is recommended that these infants undergo early evaluation for possible sensitization to peanut protein, with referral to allergists for skin prick tests or serum IgE screens (though if positive, referral to allergists is appropriate), and assess the safety of going ahead with early feeding. It is hoped that following these new guidelines can minimize the development of peanut allergy.
The future
Where will pediatric skin disease, or more importantly, skin health over a lifetime be in 50 years? Can we cure or prevent the consequences of our lethal and life altering genetic diseases such as epidermolysis bullosa or our neurocutaneous disorders? Will our new insights into birthmarks (they are mostly somatic mutations) allow us to form specific, personalized therapies to minimize their impact? Will we be using computers equipped with imaging devices and algorithms to assess our patients’ moles, papules, and nodules? Will our vaccines have wiped out warts, molluscum, and perhaps, acne? Will we have cured our inflammatory skin disorders, or perhaps prevented them by interventions in the neonatal period? No predictions will be offered here, other than that we can look forward to incredible changes for our future generations of health care practitioners, patients, and families.
Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield has served as a consultant for Anacor/Pfizer and Regeneron/Sanofi. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Dr. Clyde Yancy: CANTOS wows, opens new therapeutic avenues
BARCELONA – For Clyde Yancy, MD, presentation of the bombshell CANTOS trial results at the annual congress of the European Congress of Cardiology made for “a really good day.”
Those results showed that inhibiting the interleukin-1 beta innate immunity pathway with canakinumab reduced recurrent cardiovascular events and lung cancer. But further, they introduced a new way of identifying and treating patients for secondary prevention.
“Here is an alternative way to get to cardiovascular events; here is bringing inflammation right to the front page of what we do as cardiologists to prevent events; here is a brand-new agent that is a monoclonal antibody against interleukin that may be modifying this risk, and … a remarkable advantage that really needs to be replicated,” said Dr. Yancy, chief of medicine-cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago, in a video interview.
“This is a really good day” because we’ve got new things to think about, new ways to approach our patients, and [we may soon be] entering the realm where we’ll want personalized therapy based on the unique phenotype a patient represents, and think about the pathways to disease through these brand new schemes” that are helping us understand the burden of disease, he declared.
BARCELONA – For Clyde Yancy, MD, presentation of the bombshell CANTOS trial results at the annual congress of the European Congress of Cardiology made for “a really good day.”
Those results showed that inhibiting the interleukin-1 beta innate immunity pathway with canakinumab reduced recurrent cardiovascular events and lung cancer. But further, they introduced a new way of identifying and treating patients for secondary prevention.
“Here is an alternative way to get to cardiovascular events; here is bringing inflammation right to the front page of what we do as cardiologists to prevent events; here is a brand-new agent that is a monoclonal antibody against interleukin that may be modifying this risk, and … a remarkable advantage that really needs to be replicated,” said Dr. Yancy, chief of medicine-cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago, in a video interview.
“This is a really good day” because we’ve got new things to think about, new ways to approach our patients, and [we may soon be] entering the realm where we’ll want personalized therapy based on the unique phenotype a patient represents, and think about the pathways to disease through these brand new schemes” that are helping us understand the burden of disease, he declared.
BARCELONA – For Clyde Yancy, MD, presentation of the bombshell CANTOS trial results at the annual congress of the European Congress of Cardiology made for “a really good day.”
Those results showed that inhibiting the interleukin-1 beta innate immunity pathway with canakinumab reduced recurrent cardiovascular events and lung cancer. But further, they introduced a new way of identifying and treating patients for secondary prevention.
“Here is an alternative way to get to cardiovascular events; here is bringing inflammation right to the front page of what we do as cardiologists to prevent events; here is a brand-new agent that is a monoclonal antibody against interleukin that may be modifying this risk, and … a remarkable advantage that really needs to be replicated,” said Dr. Yancy, chief of medicine-cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago, in a video interview.
“This is a really good day” because we’ve got new things to think about, new ways to approach our patients, and [we may soon be] entering the realm where we’ll want personalized therapy based on the unique phenotype a patient represents, and think about the pathways to disease through these brand new schemes” that are helping us understand the burden of disease, he declared.
AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2017
Missed opportunities: Opioid overdoses and suicide
The current opioid epidemic in the United States has been universally recognized as one of the most important public health issues to date. This crisis has cost nearly $80 billion in lost productivity, treatment (including emergency, medical, psychiatric, and addiction-specific care), and criminal justice involvement.1 Opioid overdoses have increased by 200% since 2000, with more than 33,000 individuals dying from opioid overdoses in 2015 alone.2,3
Currently, overdoses are considered accidental in origin until proved otherwise, and that assumption has become an acceptable hypothesis for the many parties involved: This hypothesis permits the patient to receive the much-needed overdose treatment, the physicians to discharge the patient from the emergency department after resuscitation and medical stabilization, the hospital to collect reimbursement, the pharmaceutical companies to continue to raise prices – and the health system to ignore recidivism and/or long-term outcomes.
However, while well accepted, the accidental overdose hypothesis might not tell the entire story. A recent, competing etiological hypothesis is that many opioid overdoses may, in fact, be misdiagnosed suicide attempts.7 National suicide prevalence has been increasing since 1999, and both all-cause mortality generally and suicides specifically have been increasing in white, male, and middle-aged patients, which encompass the same demographic groups affected by the opioid epidemic.8,9
Also, more than 50% of patients with opioid use disorder have histories of major depressive disorder,which, when untreated, may further drive suicidal thoughts and behavior.10,11Maria A. Oquendo, MD, PHD, immediate past president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a guest post on the blog of Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, about the strong link between opioid use disorders and suicidal thoughts and behavior Furthermore, a 2004 literature review on substance use disorders and suicide found that individuals with opioid use disorders had a 13 times greater risk of completed suicide, compared with the general population.12
Additional associations
A recent study of nearly 5 million veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration demonstrated that, even when adjusted for age and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, opioid use disorder was associated with an increased risk for suicide; particularly striking was that this risk was doubled in women.13
A survey of 40,000 subjects from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health demonstrated that prescription opioid misuse was associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation, and weekly misuse was associated with increased suicide planning and attempts.
The data regarding the prevalence of suicidal ideation in patients who have overdosed are limited, although recent evidence from the National Vital Statistics System on adolescent (aged 15-19 years) drug overdose is concerning, with 772 drug overdoses occurring in this age demographic in 2015 alone. Opioids were involved in the vast majority of fatal drug overdoses among this group, and the prevalence of death from opioid overdoses increased during 1999-2007 (0.8/100,000 to 2.7/100,000), stabilized during 2007-2011, declined during 2012-2014 (down to 2.0/100,000) then increased in 2015 (up to 2.4/100,000). While 80.4% of all drug overdoses in this group (including opioids) were considered unintentional, 13.5% were most likely completed suicides.14
These results suggest that, at the very least, some proportion of opioid overdoses are suicide attempts, and the actual prevalence may be much larger. All of this is difficult to discern as these data come from an epidemiological survey with data input as International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes. Thus, the real-life and real-time quality of the psychiatric and postmortem evaluation that led to the determination of a suicide attempt is unknown. More explicitly, because a thorough evaluation and collateral history may have been lacking, this study may have underestimated the prevalence of overdoses that were actual suicide attempts.
Lessons for physicians
Given the epidemiological evidence linking suicidal thoughts and behavior with opioid use disorders, the frequency of overdoses, demographic factors, and recidivism with naloxone rescue, we should be very concerned that many overdoses are unrecognized suicide attempts. Many physicians can recount giving naloxone to a patient – reversing his or her overdose and simultaneously saving his or her life – only to be confronted with anger and combativeness on the part of the patient. When this response occurs, many physicians may attribute the behavioral dysregulation to the patient’s lack of experience with or tolerance to the drug (especially among naive users) or may disregard the emotional response altogether. The danger in physicians’ reacting like this to such behavior is that substantial ambiguity regarding the patient’s motives still remains: Did the patient intentionally use intravenously thinking he or she would die? Was the patient ambivalent about death? Did the patient wish he or she would die – or not wake up? Or was the patient just was playing a version of “Russian roulette” with needles and lethal quantities of opioids?
When considering logical next steps after naloxone reversal to ensure appropriate diagnosis of and treatment for the patient, a psychiatric consultation and thorough evaluation may be indispensable. This is particularly important given that those who attempt suicide or have active suicidal ideation often are evasive about their behavior and current state of mind.15 Thus, these individuals may be unwilling to disclose active suicidal ideation, intent, and/or plans when interviewed. A psychiatrist, however, has the skill set to evaluate risk and protective factors, assess for other psychiatric comorbidities carefully, and make recommendations for safe disposition and comprehensive treatment. Just as a comprehensive cardiovascular evaluation, formulation of a differential diagnosis, and treatment of chronic cardiovascular disease is the standard of care after a cardiac emergency intervention, we suggest quite similar practice standards for an opioid overdose intervention.
Dr. Srivastava is a fourth-year psychiatry resident at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Gold is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University. He also serves as chairman of the scientific advisory boards for RiverMend Health.
References
1. Med Care. 2016 Oct;54:901-6.
2. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Dec 30;65(5051):1445-52.
3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Jan 1;64(50-51):1378-82.
4. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2213-15.
5. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Sep 1;178:176-87.
6. BMJ. 2013 Jan 30;346:f174.
7. Nora’s Blog. 2017 Apr 20. https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2017/04/opioid-use-disorders-suicide-hidden-tragedy-guest-blog
8. NCHS Data Brief. 2016 Apr;(241):1-8.
9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 8;112(49):15078-83.
10. Addict Behav. 2009 Jun-Jul;34(6-7):498-504.
11. J Affect Disord. 2013 May;147(1-3):17-28.
12. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Dec 7;76 Suppl:S11-9.
13. Addiction. 2017 Jul;112(7):1193-1201.
14. NCHS Data Brief. 2017 Aug;282:1-7.
15. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Nov;160(11 Suppl):1-60.
The current opioid epidemic in the United States has been universally recognized as one of the most important public health issues to date. This crisis has cost nearly $80 billion in lost productivity, treatment (including emergency, medical, psychiatric, and addiction-specific care), and criminal justice involvement.1 Opioid overdoses have increased by 200% since 2000, with more than 33,000 individuals dying from opioid overdoses in 2015 alone.2,3
Currently, overdoses are considered accidental in origin until proved otherwise, and that assumption has become an acceptable hypothesis for the many parties involved: This hypothesis permits the patient to receive the much-needed overdose treatment, the physicians to discharge the patient from the emergency department after resuscitation and medical stabilization, the hospital to collect reimbursement, the pharmaceutical companies to continue to raise prices – and the health system to ignore recidivism and/or long-term outcomes.
However, while well accepted, the accidental overdose hypothesis might not tell the entire story. A recent, competing etiological hypothesis is that many opioid overdoses may, in fact, be misdiagnosed suicide attempts.7 National suicide prevalence has been increasing since 1999, and both all-cause mortality generally and suicides specifically have been increasing in white, male, and middle-aged patients, which encompass the same demographic groups affected by the opioid epidemic.8,9
Also, more than 50% of patients with opioid use disorder have histories of major depressive disorder,which, when untreated, may further drive suicidal thoughts and behavior.10,11Maria A. Oquendo, MD, PHD, immediate past president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a guest post on the blog of Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, about the strong link between opioid use disorders and suicidal thoughts and behavior Furthermore, a 2004 literature review on substance use disorders and suicide found that individuals with opioid use disorders had a 13 times greater risk of completed suicide, compared with the general population.12
Additional associations
A recent study of nearly 5 million veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration demonstrated that, even when adjusted for age and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, opioid use disorder was associated with an increased risk for suicide; particularly striking was that this risk was doubled in women.13
A survey of 40,000 subjects from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health demonstrated that prescription opioid misuse was associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation, and weekly misuse was associated with increased suicide planning and attempts.
The data regarding the prevalence of suicidal ideation in patients who have overdosed are limited, although recent evidence from the National Vital Statistics System on adolescent (aged 15-19 years) drug overdose is concerning, with 772 drug overdoses occurring in this age demographic in 2015 alone. Opioids were involved in the vast majority of fatal drug overdoses among this group, and the prevalence of death from opioid overdoses increased during 1999-2007 (0.8/100,000 to 2.7/100,000), stabilized during 2007-2011, declined during 2012-2014 (down to 2.0/100,000) then increased in 2015 (up to 2.4/100,000). While 80.4% of all drug overdoses in this group (including opioids) were considered unintentional, 13.5% were most likely completed suicides.14
These results suggest that, at the very least, some proportion of opioid overdoses are suicide attempts, and the actual prevalence may be much larger. All of this is difficult to discern as these data come from an epidemiological survey with data input as International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes. Thus, the real-life and real-time quality of the psychiatric and postmortem evaluation that led to the determination of a suicide attempt is unknown. More explicitly, because a thorough evaluation and collateral history may have been lacking, this study may have underestimated the prevalence of overdoses that were actual suicide attempts.
Lessons for physicians
Given the epidemiological evidence linking suicidal thoughts and behavior with opioid use disorders, the frequency of overdoses, demographic factors, and recidivism with naloxone rescue, we should be very concerned that many overdoses are unrecognized suicide attempts. Many physicians can recount giving naloxone to a patient – reversing his or her overdose and simultaneously saving his or her life – only to be confronted with anger and combativeness on the part of the patient. When this response occurs, many physicians may attribute the behavioral dysregulation to the patient’s lack of experience with or tolerance to the drug (especially among naive users) or may disregard the emotional response altogether. The danger in physicians’ reacting like this to such behavior is that substantial ambiguity regarding the patient’s motives still remains: Did the patient intentionally use intravenously thinking he or she would die? Was the patient ambivalent about death? Did the patient wish he or she would die – or not wake up? Or was the patient just was playing a version of “Russian roulette” with needles and lethal quantities of opioids?
When considering logical next steps after naloxone reversal to ensure appropriate diagnosis of and treatment for the patient, a psychiatric consultation and thorough evaluation may be indispensable. This is particularly important given that those who attempt suicide or have active suicidal ideation often are evasive about their behavior and current state of mind.15 Thus, these individuals may be unwilling to disclose active suicidal ideation, intent, and/or plans when interviewed. A psychiatrist, however, has the skill set to evaluate risk and protective factors, assess for other psychiatric comorbidities carefully, and make recommendations for safe disposition and comprehensive treatment. Just as a comprehensive cardiovascular evaluation, formulation of a differential diagnosis, and treatment of chronic cardiovascular disease is the standard of care after a cardiac emergency intervention, we suggest quite similar practice standards for an opioid overdose intervention.
Dr. Srivastava is a fourth-year psychiatry resident at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Gold is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University. He also serves as chairman of the scientific advisory boards for RiverMend Health.
References
1. Med Care. 2016 Oct;54:901-6.
2. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Dec 30;65(5051):1445-52.
3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Jan 1;64(50-51):1378-82.
4. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2213-15.
5. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Sep 1;178:176-87.
6. BMJ. 2013 Jan 30;346:f174.
7. Nora’s Blog. 2017 Apr 20. https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2017/04/opioid-use-disorders-suicide-hidden-tragedy-guest-blog
8. NCHS Data Brief. 2016 Apr;(241):1-8.
9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 8;112(49):15078-83.
10. Addict Behav. 2009 Jun-Jul;34(6-7):498-504.
11. J Affect Disord. 2013 May;147(1-3):17-28.
12. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Dec 7;76 Suppl:S11-9.
13. Addiction. 2017 Jul;112(7):1193-1201.
14. NCHS Data Brief. 2017 Aug;282:1-7.
15. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Nov;160(11 Suppl):1-60.
The current opioid epidemic in the United States has been universally recognized as one of the most important public health issues to date. This crisis has cost nearly $80 billion in lost productivity, treatment (including emergency, medical, psychiatric, and addiction-specific care), and criminal justice involvement.1 Opioid overdoses have increased by 200% since 2000, with more than 33,000 individuals dying from opioid overdoses in 2015 alone.2,3
Currently, overdoses are considered accidental in origin until proved otherwise, and that assumption has become an acceptable hypothesis for the many parties involved: This hypothesis permits the patient to receive the much-needed overdose treatment, the physicians to discharge the patient from the emergency department after resuscitation and medical stabilization, the hospital to collect reimbursement, the pharmaceutical companies to continue to raise prices – and the health system to ignore recidivism and/or long-term outcomes.
However, while well accepted, the accidental overdose hypothesis might not tell the entire story. A recent, competing etiological hypothesis is that many opioid overdoses may, in fact, be misdiagnosed suicide attempts.7 National suicide prevalence has been increasing since 1999, and both all-cause mortality generally and suicides specifically have been increasing in white, male, and middle-aged patients, which encompass the same demographic groups affected by the opioid epidemic.8,9
Also, more than 50% of patients with opioid use disorder have histories of major depressive disorder,which, when untreated, may further drive suicidal thoughts and behavior.10,11Maria A. Oquendo, MD, PHD, immediate past president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a guest post on the blog of Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, about the strong link between opioid use disorders and suicidal thoughts and behavior Furthermore, a 2004 literature review on substance use disorders and suicide found that individuals with opioid use disorders had a 13 times greater risk of completed suicide, compared with the general population.12
Additional associations
A recent study of nearly 5 million veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration demonstrated that, even when adjusted for age and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, opioid use disorder was associated with an increased risk for suicide; particularly striking was that this risk was doubled in women.13
A survey of 40,000 subjects from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health demonstrated that prescription opioid misuse was associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation, and weekly misuse was associated with increased suicide planning and attempts.
The data regarding the prevalence of suicidal ideation in patients who have overdosed are limited, although recent evidence from the National Vital Statistics System on adolescent (aged 15-19 years) drug overdose is concerning, with 772 drug overdoses occurring in this age demographic in 2015 alone. Opioids were involved in the vast majority of fatal drug overdoses among this group, and the prevalence of death from opioid overdoses increased during 1999-2007 (0.8/100,000 to 2.7/100,000), stabilized during 2007-2011, declined during 2012-2014 (down to 2.0/100,000) then increased in 2015 (up to 2.4/100,000). While 80.4% of all drug overdoses in this group (including opioids) were considered unintentional, 13.5% were most likely completed suicides.14
These results suggest that, at the very least, some proportion of opioid overdoses are suicide attempts, and the actual prevalence may be much larger. All of this is difficult to discern as these data come from an epidemiological survey with data input as International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes. Thus, the real-life and real-time quality of the psychiatric and postmortem evaluation that led to the determination of a suicide attempt is unknown. More explicitly, because a thorough evaluation and collateral history may have been lacking, this study may have underestimated the prevalence of overdoses that were actual suicide attempts.
Lessons for physicians
Given the epidemiological evidence linking suicidal thoughts and behavior with opioid use disorders, the frequency of overdoses, demographic factors, and recidivism with naloxone rescue, we should be very concerned that many overdoses are unrecognized suicide attempts. Many physicians can recount giving naloxone to a patient – reversing his or her overdose and simultaneously saving his or her life – only to be confronted with anger and combativeness on the part of the patient. When this response occurs, many physicians may attribute the behavioral dysregulation to the patient’s lack of experience with or tolerance to the drug (especially among naive users) or may disregard the emotional response altogether. The danger in physicians’ reacting like this to such behavior is that substantial ambiguity regarding the patient’s motives still remains: Did the patient intentionally use intravenously thinking he or she would die? Was the patient ambivalent about death? Did the patient wish he or she would die – or not wake up? Or was the patient just was playing a version of “Russian roulette” with needles and lethal quantities of opioids?
When considering logical next steps after naloxone reversal to ensure appropriate diagnosis of and treatment for the patient, a psychiatric consultation and thorough evaluation may be indispensable. This is particularly important given that those who attempt suicide or have active suicidal ideation often are evasive about their behavior and current state of mind.15 Thus, these individuals may be unwilling to disclose active suicidal ideation, intent, and/or plans when interviewed. A psychiatrist, however, has the skill set to evaluate risk and protective factors, assess for other psychiatric comorbidities carefully, and make recommendations for safe disposition and comprehensive treatment. Just as a comprehensive cardiovascular evaluation, formulation of a differential diagnosis, and treatment of chronic cardiovascular disease is the standard of care after a cardiac emergency intervention, we suggest quite similar practice standards for an opioid overdose intervention.
Dr. Srivastava is a fourth-year psychiatry resident at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Gold is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University. He also serves as chairman of the scientific advisory boards for RiverMend Health.
References
1. Med Care. 2016 Oct;54:901-6.
2. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Dec 30;65(5051):1445-52.
3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Jan 1;64(50-51):1378-82.
4. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2213-15.
5. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Sep 1;178:176-87.
6. BMJ. 2013 Jan 30;346:f174.
7. Nora’s Blog. 2017 Apr 20. https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2017/04/opioid-use-disorders-suicide-hidden-tragedy-guest-blog
8. NCHS Data Brief. 2016 Apr;(241):1-8.
9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 8;112(49):15078-83.
10. Addict Behav. 2009 Jun-Jul;34(6-7):498-504.
11. J Affect Disord. 2013 May;147(1-3):17-28.
12. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Dec 7;76 Suppl:S11-9.
13. Addiction. 2017 Jul;112(7):1193-1201.
14. NCHS Data Brief. 2017 Aug;282:1-7.
15. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Nov;160(11 Suppl):1-60.
Sneak Peek: The Hospital Leader blog - Aug. 2017 “A Conversation with Dr. Eric Howell”
Quality improvement became a foundational theme for SHM early in the growth of hospitalists. It’s not a coincidence that many of our leaders, such as Bob Wachter, Win Whitcomb, Greg Maynard, and Mark Williams are QI leaders as well. As hospitalists, we were and are best positioned to impact quality in the hospital.
Eric Howell, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore serves as the senior physician advisor for SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, while Jenna Goldstein runs the day-to-day aspects at SHM headquarters. A few months ago, Dr. Howell and I discussed how he started in QI, the role of SHM’s Center, and how hospitalists can receive effective QI training. The following Q&A is edited for conciseness and clarity.
You’ve been a leader in QI for many years; how did you get started in QI?
I trained as an electrical engineer before I went to medical school, which helped me when I went to residency.
When I was a chief at Hopkins Bayview in 1999, there were a number of systems-related issues, including throughput from the emergency department. I became involved with QI because I looked at these systems, thinking they could be better if I used the lens of an engineer. The hospital was very interested in reducing costs, and the physicians, including myself, were interested in making things safer. I was successful because I didn’t just focus on QI but on both sides of the value equation. In the early 2000s, I started to do more and more re-engineering and system improvement projects, and I found them very rewarding. As I showed some success, I was asked to do more.
What you are describing is hands-on training, learning by doing. It seems a lot of your QI training was hands on, as opposed to structured coursework. Was there formal training or is getting your hands dirty in a project the best way to start learning QI?
There is no replacement for actually doing it.
My training was in leadership, which is an integral part of QI. It’s pretty hard to get people to change for quality if you can’t lead them through that change. Initially, I did a lot of work to improve my leadership potential. As faculty, we taught teaching skills, which is a part of leadership. I spent time teaching residents best practices. That’s why I became involved early on with SHM’s Leadership Academy from its start in 2005. I also read a lot of books and still read often to improve my weaknesses. I have my own physicians go through Lean Six Sigma training and get their green belt or black belt.
That said, there is no substitute for doing it and, as they say, “bruising your knuckles” in QI.
Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
Also on The Hospital Leader…
- From SXSW to SHM: Our Tour to Promote Value Conversations Between Doctors & Patients by Chris Moriates, MD
- It’s Time for a Buzz Cut by Tracy Cardin, ACNP-NC, SFHM
- The Essentials of QI Leadership: A Conversation with Dr. Eric Howell, Part 2 by Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM
Quality improvement became a foundational theme for SHM early in the growth of hospitalists. It’s not a coincidence that many of our leaders, such as Bob Wachter, Win Whitcomb, Greg Maynard, and Mark Williams are QI leaders as well. As hospitalists, we were and are best positioned to impact quality in the hospital.
Eric Howell, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore serves as the senior physician advisor for SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, while Jenna Goldstein runs the day-to-day aspects at SHM headquarters. A few months ago, Dr. Howell and I discussed how he started in QI, the role of SHM’s Center, and how hospitalists can receive effective QI training. The following Q&A is edited for conciseness and clarity.
You’ve been a leader in QI for many years; how did you get started in QI?
I trained as an electrical engineer before I went to medical school, which helped me when I went to residency.
When I was a chief at Hopkins Bayview in 1999, there were a number of systems-related issues, including throughput from the emergency department. I became involved with QI because I looked at these systems, thinking they could be better if I used the lens of an engineer. The hospital was very interested in reducing costs, and the physicians, including myself, were interested in making things safer. I was successful because I didn’t just focus on QI but on both sides of the value equation. In the early 2000s, I started to do more and more re-engineering and system improvement projects, and I found them very rewarding. As I showed some success, I was asked to do more.
What you are describing is hands-on training, learning by doing. It seems a lot of your QI training was hands on, as opposed to structured coursework. Was there formal training or is getting your hands dirty in a project the best way to start learning QI?
There is no replacement for actually doing it.
My training was in leadership, which is an integral part of QI. It’s pretty hard to get people to change for quality if you can’t lead them through that change. Initially, I did a lot of work to improve my leadership potential. As faculty, we taught teaching skills, which is a part of leadership. I spent time teaching residents best practices. That’s why I became involved early on with SHM’s Leadership Academy from its start in 2005. I also read a lot of books and still read often to improve my weaknesses. I have my own physicians go through Lean Six Sigma training and get their green belt or black belt.
That said, there is no substitute for doing it and, as they say, “bruising your knuckles” in QI.
Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
Also on The Hospital Leader…
- From SXSW to SHM: Our Tour to Promote Value Conversations Between Doctors & Patients by Chris Moriates, MD
- It’s Time for a Buzz Cut by Tracy Cardin, ACNP-NC, SFHM
- The Essentials of QI Leadership: A Conversation with Dr. Eric Howell, Part 2 by Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM
Quality improvement became a foundational theme for SHM early in the growth of hospitalists. It’s not a coincidence that many of our leaders, such as Bob Wachter, Win Whitcomb, Greg Maynard, and Mark Williams are QI leaders as well. As hospitalists, we were and are best positioned to impact quality in the hospital.
Eric Howell, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore serves as the senior physician advisor for SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, while Jenna Goldstein runs the day-to-day aspects at SHM headquarters. A few months ago, Dr. Howell and I discussed how he started in QI, the role of SHM’s Center, and how hospitalists can receive effective QI training. The following Q&A is edited for conciseness and clarity.
You’ve been a leader in QI for many years; how did you get started in QI?
I trained as an electrical engineer before I went to medical school, which helped me when I went to residency.
When I was a chief at Hopkins Bayview in 1999, there were a number of systems-related issues, including throughput from the emergency department. I became involved with QI because I looked at these systems, thinking they could be better if I used the lens of an engineer. The hospital was very interested in reducing costs, and the physicians, including myself, were interested in making things safer. I was successful because I didn’t just focus on QI but on both sides of the value equation. In the early 2000s, I started to do more and more re-engineering and system improvement projects, and I found them very rewarding. As I showed some success, I was asked to do more.
What you are describing is hands-on training, learning by doing. It seems a lot of your QI training was hands on, as opposed to structured coursework. Was there formal training or is getting your hands dirty in a project the best way to start learning QI?
There is no replacement for actually doing it.
My training was in leadership, which is an integral part of QI. It’s pretty hard to get people to change for quality if you can’t lead them through that change. Initially, I did a lot of work to improve my leadership potential. As faculty, we taught teaching skills, which is a part of leadership. I spent time teaching residents best practices. That’s why I became involved early on with SHM’s Leadership Academy from its start in 2005. I also read a lot of books and still read often to improve my weaknesses. I have my own physicians go through Lean Six Sigma training and get their green belt or black belt.
That said, there is no substitute for doing it and, as they say, “bruising your knuckles” in QI.
Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
Also on The Hospital Leader…
- From SXSW to SHM: Our Tour to Promote Value Conversations Between Doctors & Patients by Chris Moriates, MD
- It’s Time for a Buzz Cut by Tracy Cardin, ACNP-NC, SFHM
- The Essentials of QI Leadership: A Conversation with Dr. Eric Howell, Part 2 by Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM
Test everyone with diagnosed HIV for drug resistance as they enter care
Antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV is critical for achieving viral suppression, which improves the health and longevity of people living with infection and dramatically reduces the risk of transmitting HIV to others. Despite these clear benefits, not everyone prescribed ART adheres to their medications, which can result in drug resistance – and transmission of drug-resistant HIV to others.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis of eight U.S. cities found that more than 18 percent of 13,393 people with a recent HIV diagnosis had infections that were resistant to at least one form of treatment. Since 2007, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has recommended that everyone with diagnosed HIV infection be tested for drug resistance when HIV care begins; however, it’s not known how closely HIV care providers in the United States follow the guidelines.
To learn more, the CDC recently analyzed HIV surveillance data to examine testing patterns among people living with diagnosed HIV who had entered HIV medical care. The results of the study, published in AIDS Care (2017 May. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2017.1316356), indicated that, of the people with HIV diagnosed in 2013 who had entered medical care, only 66% had been tested for resistance. Of those tested, 68% received testing at the beginning of care.
The findings also show that resistance testing is performed less often among certain groups, including males who inject drugs. In recent reports, about a third of people who inject drugs in selected U.S. cities indicated they did not have health insurance, and nearly 80% lived at or below the federal poverty level. Lack of health care access and low socioeconomic status may be potential barriers to receiving medical care and laboratory testing. Additionally, this population might not be aware of available resources that support these services, including those provided through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and federally qualified health centers.
Previous research has also shown that non-HIV specialists are less likely than HIV specialists to order resistance testing for their patients. With potentially more injection drug use and fewer specialist health care services available in less-populated communities, there is an urgent need both to improve HIV testing and increase resistance testing in rural communities. This is important given the growing potential for HIV outbreaks among people who inject drugs, as well as the substantial rise in the number of deaths attributed to opioid use in many communities throughout the nation.
The study findings also indicate that resistance testing is less common among people with higher CD4 counts in some states, including Michigan, New York, and Texas. CD4 cells are a type of white blood cell that helps in protecting the body from infections, but they are also targeted by HIV. CD4 cell counts can be used to determine the stage of HIV infection in a person. As HIV stays in the body longer, CD4 cells decrease. Even if treatment is delayed for a medical reason, such as coinfection with tuberculosis, resistance testing should still be conducted at a person’s entry to care to help ensure treatment success later.
These results have strong implications for clinical practice and management of people with newly diagnosed HIV. More research is needed to identify the factors influencing lacking or delayed resistance testing so that we can address differences in the development of resistance, as well as other clinical outcomes, over time.
Antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV is critical for achieving viral suppression, which improves the health and longevity of people living with infection and dramatically reduces the risk of transmitting HIV to others. Despite these clear benefits, not everyone prescribed ART adheres to their medications, which can result in drug resistance – and transmission of drug-resistant HIV to others.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis of eight U.S. cities found that more than 18 percent of 13,393 people with a recent HIV diagnosis had infections that were resistant to at least one form of treatment. Since 2007, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has recommended that everyone with diagnosed HIV infection be tested for drug resistance when HIV care begins; however, it’s not known how closely HIV care providers in the United States follow the guidelines.
To learn more, the CDC recently analyzed HIV surveillance data to examine testing patterns among people living with diagnosed HIV who had entered HIV medical care. The results of the study, published in AIDS Care (2017 May. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2017.1316356), indicated that, of the people with HIV diagnosed in 2013 who had entered medical care, only 66% had been tested for resistance. Of those tested, 68% received testing at the beginning of care.
The findings also show that resistance testing is performed less often among certain groups, including males who inject drugs. In recent reports, about a third of people who inject drugs in selected U.S. cities indicated they did not have health insurance, and nearly 80% lived at or below the federal poverty level. Lack of health care access and low socioeconomic status may be potential barriers to receiving medical care and laboratory testing. Additionally, this population might not be aware of available resources that support these services, including those provided through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and federally qualified health centers.
Previous research has also shown that non-HIV specialists are less likely than HIV specialists to order resistance testing for their patients. With potentially more injection drug use and fewer specialist health care services available in less-populated communities, there is an urgent need both to improve HIV testing and increase resistance testing in rural communities. This is important given the growing potential for HIV outbreaks among people who inject drugs, as well as the substantial rise in the number of deaths attributed to opioid use in many communities throughout the nation.
The study findings also indicate that resistance testing is less common among people with higher CD4 counts in some states, including Michigan, New York, and Texas. CD4 cells are a type of white blood cell that helps in protecting the body from infections, but they are also targeted by HIV. CD4 cell counts can be used to determine the stage of HIV infection in a person. As HIV stays in the body longer, CD4 cells decrease. Even if treatment is delayed for a medical reason, such as coinfection with tuberculosis, resistance testing should still be conducted at a person’s entry to care to help ensure treatment success later.
These results have strong implications for clinical practice and management of people with newly diagnosed HIV. More research is needed to identify the factors influencing lacking or delayed resistance testing so that we can address differences in the development of resistance, as well as other clinical outcomes, over time.
Antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV is critical for achieving viral suppression, which improves the health and longevity of people living with infection and dramatically reduces the risk of transmitting HIV to others. Despite these clear benefits, not everyone prescribed ART adheres to their medications, which can result in drug resistance – and transmission of drug-resistant HIV to others.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis of eight U.S. cities found that more than 18 percent of 13,393 people with a recent HIV diagnosis had infections that were resistant to at least one form of treatment. Since 2007, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has recommended that everyone with diagnosed HIV infection be tested for drug resistance when HIV care begins; however, it’s not known how closely HIV care providers in the United States follow the guidelines.
To learn more, the CDC recently analyzed HIV surveillance data to examine testing patterns among people living with diagnosed HIV who had entered HIV medical care. The results of the study, published in AIDS Care (2017 May. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2017.1316356), indicated that, of the people with HIV diagnosed in 2013 who had entered medical care, only 66% had been tested for resistance. Of those tested, 68% received testing at the beginning of care.
The findings also show that resistance testing is performed less often among certain groups, including males who inject drugs. In recent reports, about a third of people who inject drugs in selected U.S. cities indicated they did not have health insurance, and nearly 80% lived at or below the federal poverty level. Lack of health care access and low socioeconomic status may be potential barriers to receiving medical care and laboratory testing. Additionally, this population might not be aware of available resources that support these services, including those provided through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and federally qualified health centers.
Previous research has also shown that non-HIV specialists are less likely than HIV specialists to order resistance testing for their patients. With potentially more injection drug use and fewer specialist health care services available in less-populated communities, there is an urgent need both to improve HIV testing and increase resistance testing in rural communities. This is important given the growing potential for HIV outbreaks among people who inject drugs, as well as the substantial rise in the number of deaths attributed to opioid use in many communities throughout the nation.
The study findings also indicate that resistance testing is less common among people with higher CD4 counts in some states, including Michigan, New York, and Texas. CD4 cells are a type of white blood cell that helps in protecting the body from infections, but they are also targeted by HIV. CD4 cell counts can be used to determine the stage of HIV infection in a person. As HIV stays in the body longer, CD4 cells decrease. Even if treatment is delayed for a medical reason, such as coinfection with tuberculosis, resistance testing should still be conducted at a person’s entry to care to help ensure treatment success later.
These results have strong implications for clinical practice and management of people with newly diagnosed HIV. More research is needed to identify the factors influencing lacking or delayed resistance testing so that we can address differences in the development of resistance, as well as other clinical outcomes, over time.
Student Hospitalist Scholars: Strengthening research skills
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-18 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
I’m always surprised by how much I can learn in a few short weeks. I am now up to full speed with my project studying the utility of bone biopsies in the management of osteomyelitis.
This is a retrospective study, which means I’ll be collecting historical data from patient charts to be used for our analysis. My mentor – Ernie Esquivel, MD – has played an invaluable role in helping me get this project off the ground. He has worked with me on everything from project planning to successfully navigating the ever-confusing institutional review board (IRB) process. He has also provided advice in areas I thought I might actually have more experience, such as data collection and analysis methods.
This form has streamlined the data collection process and will save me a significant amount of time down the road when we have to code the data for statistical analysis programs. After putting in the hard work gathering all of this information, I look forward to beginning the process of analyzing and interpreting our results.
Dr. Esquivel has also helped me improve the value and credibility of this research by encouraging me to present our ideas in front of several groups of people from different departments and specialties. The feedback from these meetings has helped refine our study design and methods while also providing me with the opportunity to improve my communication and presentation skills.
I think such diverse input has helped shape this project into something that will be accessible to a broader audience, and has strengthened my understanding of why our work is important to both clinicians and patients.
Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a 4th year medical student at Cornell University, New York, and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-18 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
I’m always surprised by how much I can learn in a few short weeks. I am now up to full speed with my project studying the utility of bone biopsies in the management of osteomyelitis.
This is a retrospective study, which means I’ll be collecting historical data from patient charts to be used for our analysis. My mentor – Ernie Esquivel, MD – has played an invaluable role in helping me get this project off the ground. He has worked with me on everything from project planning to successfully navigating the ever-confusing institutional review board (IRB) process. He has also provided advice in areas I thought I might actually have more experience, such as data collection and analysis methods.
This form has streamlined the data collection process and will save me a significant amount of time down the road when we have to code the data for statistical analysis programs. After putting in the hard work gathering all of this information, I look forward to beginning the process of analyzing and interpreting our results.
Dr. Esquivel has also helped me improve the value and credibility of this research by encouraging me to present our ideas in front of several groups of people from different departments and specialties. The feedback from these meetings has helped refine our study design and methods while also providing me with the opportunity to improve my communication and presentation skills.
I think such diverse input has helped shape this project into something that will be accessible to a broader audience, and has strengthened my understanding of why our work is important to both clinicians and patients.
Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a 4th year medical student at Cornell University, New York, and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-18 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
I’m always surprised by how much I can learn in a few short weeks. I am now up to full speed with my project studying the utility of bone biopsies in the management of osteomyelitis.
This is a retrospective study, which means I’ll be collecting historical data from patient charts to be used for our analysis. My mentor – Ernie Esquivel, MD – has played an invaluable role in helping me get this project off the ground. He has worked with me on everything from project planning to successfully navigating the ever-confusing institutional review board (IRB) process. He has also provided advice in areas I thought I might actually have more experience, such as data collection and analysis methods.
This form has streamlined the data collection process and will save me a significant amount of time down the road when we have to code the data for statistical analysis programs. After putting in the hard work gathering all of this information, I look forward to beginning the process of analyzing and interpreting our results.
Dr. Esquivel has also helped me improve the value and credibility of this research by encouraging me to present our ideas in front of several groups of people from different departments and specialties. The feedback from these meetings has helped refine our study design and methods while also providing me with the opportunity to improve my communication and presentation skills.
I think such diverse input has helped shape this project into something that will be accessible to a broader audience, and has strengthened my understanding of why our work is important to both clinicians and patients.
Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a 4th year medical student at Cornell University, New York, and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.
More data show value of CBT for PTSD, anxiety, depression
So often in clinical practice, guidelines and directives about psychiatric treatments lag behind the results we see every day in our offices. Such is the case with cognitive-behavioral therapy.
Earlier this summer, the departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense deemed trauma-focused psychotherapies, such as CBT, as first-line treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder over medication management. Was I surprised by these findings? Absolutely not. Likewise, last year, the American College of Physicians released a guideline recommending CBT as first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder in adults. Surprising? Again, not in the least.
Pierre Janet, PhD, MD, the French psychiatrist, psychologist, and neurologist, more than a hundred years ago in his L’Automatisme Psychologique, advanced the idea that thoughts can be challenged and that perceptions leading to mental problems can be reversed. Dr. Janet completed his pioneering work, including an exploration of the power of hypnosis, even though the psychoanalytic movement was in full force and many parallel ideas about treating mental disorders were barely recognized.
By the middle of the 20th century, Albert Ellis, PhD, developed rational emotive behavior therapy, which focused on thoughtfully restructuring irrational beliefs into rational ones that led to improved skills and behaviors. A decade later, the great Aaron T. Beck, MD, developed a true form of CBT. Over the years, Dr. Beck went on to develop controlled clinical trials showing CBT to be more effective in treating a variety of psychiatric disorders, including depression, panic attacks, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, various phobic disorders, and PTSD.
Yet, despite the effectiveness of CBT, too few young psychiatrists and mental health professionals learn how to use it, and fewer appear to practice it. Traditional psychiatric training, by and large, continues to rely on more psychodynamic approaches, which do have value but take longer to get results than does CBT.
Clearly, partnering with patients and helping them learn new constructs can lead to positive results. More and more research shows that CBT is efficacious for patients across many age and demographic groups.
In one randomized, controlled study of 96 Latino patients with depression, for example, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, found that group CBT administered in a primary care setting led to a significant decrease in depressive symptoms as measured by the Spanish-language version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (Cog Behav Prac. 2017 Apr 17; doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.03.02). Of the 96 patients, 92 completed the PHQ-9 at least once, and 76 completed a baseline measure of the questionnaire on day 1 of group therapy, the researchers reported. At baseline, the average PHQ-9 score was 13.88, which points to the high end of moderate depression, moving toward moderately severe depression. For every week the patients were enrolled in the therapy, PHQ-9 scores fell by 0.15 points.
The spin on CBT that I created – which I call the learning, philosophizing, and action (LPA) technique – helps patients think through problematic issues and come away with new narratives. I developed and used the LPA technique as part of a smoking-cessation program I ran for many years at the New York University Langone Medical Center. In turn, that program developed into a short-term psychotherapy program with a focus on CBT and hypnosis/relaxation techniques.
We need better codification and organization on what kinds of therapies are and are not suited for specific diagnosable problems. It is hoped that a clearer understanding of genetics, laboratory testing, and imaging, as emphasized by the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria, will better equip us to decide what works best. Again, for now, helping patients learn and relearn new ways of thinking and behaving, as developed through CBT, is among the best treatments available for many mental health problems.
Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2017. He has no disclosures.
So often in clinical practice, guidelines and directives about psychiatric treatments lag behind the results we see every day in our offices. Such is the case with cognitive-behavioral therapy.
Earlier this summer, the departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense deemed trauma-focused psychotherapies, such as CBT, as first-line treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder over medication management. Was I surprised by these findings? Absolutely not. Likewise, last year, the American College of Physicians released a guideline recommending CBT as first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder in adults. Surprising? Again, not in the least.
Pierre Janet, PhD, MD, the French psychiatrist, psychologist, and neurologist, more than a hundred years ago in his L’Automatisme Psychologique, advanced the idea that thoughts can be challenged and that perceptions leading to mental problems can be reversed. Dr. Janet completed his pioneering work, including an exploration of the power of hypnosis, even though the psychoanalytic movement was in full force and many parallel ideas about treating mental disorders were barely recognized.
By the middle of the 20th century, Albert Ellis, PhD, developed rational emotive behavior therapy, which focused on thoughtfully restructuring irrational beliefs into rational ones that led to improved skills and behaviors. A decade later, the great Aaron T. Beck, MD, developed a true form of CBT. Over the years, Dr. Beck went on to develop controlled clinical trials showing CBT to be more effective in treating a variety of psychiatric disorders, including depression, panic attacks, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, various phobic disorders, and PTSD.
Yet, despite the effectiveness of CBT, too few young psychiatrists and mental health professionals learn how to use it, and fewer appear to practice it. Traditional psychiatric training, by and large, continues to rely on more psychodynamic approaches, which do have value but take longer to get results than does CBT.
Clearly, partnering with patients and helping them learn new constructs can lead to positive results. More and more research shows that CBT is efficacious for patients across many age and demographic groups.
In one randomized, controlled study of 96 Latino patients with depression, for example, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, found that group CBT administered in a primary care setting led to a significant decrease in depressive symptoms as measured by the Spanish-language version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (Cog Behav Prac. 2017 Apr 17; doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.03.02). Of the 96 patients, 92 completed the PHQ-9 at least once, and 76 completed a baseline measure of the questionnaire on day 1 of group therapy, the researchers reported. At baseline, the average PHQ-9 score was 13.88, which points to the high end of moderate depression, moving toward moderately severe depression. For every week the patients were enrolled in the therapy, PHQ-9 scores fell by 0.15 points.
The spin on CBT that I created – which I call the learning, philosophizing, and action (LPA) technique – helps patients think through problematic issues and come away with new narratives. I developed and used the LPA technique as part of a smoking-cessation program I ran for many years at the New York University Langone Medical Center. In turn, that program developed into a short-term psychotherapy program with a focus on CBT and hypnosis/relaxation techniques.
We need better codification and organization on what kinds of therapies are and are not suited for specific diagnosable problems. It is hoped that a clearer understanding of genetics, laboratory testing, and imaging, as emphasized by the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria, will better equip us to decide what works best. Again, for now, helping patients learn and relearn new ways of thinking and behaving, as developed through CBT, is among the best treatments available for many mental health problems.
Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2017. He has no disclosures.
So often in clinical practice, guidelines and directives about psychiatric treatments lag behind the results we see every day in our offices. Such is the case with cognitive-behavioral therapy.
Earlier this summer, the departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense deemed trauma-focused psychotherapies, such as CBT, as first-line treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder over medication management. Was I surprised by these findings? Absolutely not. Likewise, last year, the American College of Physicians released a guideline recommending CBT as first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder in adults. Surprising? Again, not in the least.
Pierre Janet, PhD, MD, the French psychiatrist, psychologist, and neurologist, more than a hundred years ago in his L’Automatisme Psychologique, advanced the idea that thoughts can be challenged and that perceptions leading to mental problems can be reversed. Dr. Janet completed his pioneering work, including an exploration of the power of hypnosis, even though the psychoanalytic movement was in full force and many parallel ideas about treating mental disorders were barely recognized.
By the middle of the 20th century, Albert Ellis, PhD, developed rational emotive behavior therapy, which focused on thoughtfully restructuring irrational beliefs into rational ones that led to improved skills and behaviors. A decade later, the great Aaron T. Beck, MD, developed a true form of CBT. Over the years, Dr. Beck went on to develop controlled clinical trials showing CBT to be more effective in treating a variety of psychiatric disorders, including depression, panic attacks, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, various phobic disorders, and PTSD.
Yet, despite the effectiveness of CBT, too few young psychiatrists and mental health professionals learn how to use it, and fewer appear to practice it. Traditional psychiatric training, by and large, continues to rely on more psychodynamic approaches, which do have value but take longer to get results than does CBT.
Clearly, partnering with patients and helping them learn new constructs can lead to positive results. More and more research shows that CBT is efficacious for patients across many age and demographic groups.
In one randomized, controlled study of 96 Latino patients with depression, for example, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, found that group CBT administered in a primary care setting led to a significant decrease in depressive symptoms as measured by the Spanish-language version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (Cog Behav Prac. 2017 Apr 17; doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.03.02). Of the 96 patients, 92 completed the PHQ-9 at least once, and 76 completed a baseline measure of the questionnaire on day 1 of group therapy, the researchers reported. At baseline, the average PHQ-9 score was 13.88, which points to the high end of moderate depression, moving toward moderately severe depression. For every week the patients were enrolled in the therapy, PHQ-9 scores fell by 0.15 points.
The spin on CBT that I created – which I call the learning, philosophizing, and action (LPA) technique – helps patients think through problematic issues and come away with new narratives. I developed and used the LPA technique as part of a smoking-cessation program I ran for many years at the New York University Langone Medical Center. In turn, that program developed into a short-term psychotherapy program with a focus on CBT and hypnosis/relaxation techniques.
We need better codification and organization on what kinds of therapies are and are not suited for specific diagnosable problems. It is hoped that a clearer understanding of genetics, laboratory testing, and imaging, as emphasized by the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria, will better equip us to decide what works best. Again, for now, helping patients learn and relearn new ways of thinking and behaving, as developed through CBT, is among the best treatments available for many mental health problems.
Dr. London, a psychiatrist who practices in New York, developed and ran a short-term psychotherapy program for 20 years at NYU Langone Medical Center and has been writing columns for 35 years. His new book about helping people feel better fast is expected to be published in fall 2017. He has no disclosures.
Fixing the ACA: 11 practical solutions
The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – is not a disaster. It is not a long-term solution, but it is fixable. Now that repeal and/or replace efforts have failed, Congress should intelligently debate which solutions make the most sense and move forward with legislation to fix the health care system.
Before that can happen, Democrats and Republicans need to make certain acknowledgments.
Democrats should acknowledge that the ACA is flawed. Whereas many experts believe a single-payer system is ultimately going to be the best long-term answer, for our country, we’re just not there yet.
On the other side of the political aisle, Republicans should acknowledge that the ACA is not “a total disaster,” as purported by the president. That’s just not true. The ACA has dramatically reduced the U.S. uninsured population – from 49.9 million in 2010 to 29 million in 2015 (the latest figures), according to the Census Bureau. It cost much less than initially forecast after providing subsidies, assembling accountable care organizations, and providing copayment-free access to a core list of preventive services called the essential health benefits.
Nevertheless, Democrats should acknowledge that the ACA is not affordable. The cost of premiums, copayments, prescription drugs, medical procedures, and subspecialty visits are out of control. Furthermore, Democrats should admit that powerful lobbyists for plaintiffs’ lawyer associations are unwisely influencing their party’s position on tort reform.
So, how can the ACA be fixed? Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers proposed multiple versions of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). Unlike the ACA, it really was “a total disaster.” Only 17% of Americans supported the BCRA, according to one poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist. Further, nearly every major medical organization adamantly opposed it, according to a report from NBC News.
Republicans who despise the ACA often fail to acknowledge what drove up premiums in the first place. Less competition led to higher costs. Republicans shot down the law’s original concept of a “public option.” Nineteen red states refused to expand Medicaid. All these decisions decreased competition in marketplaces.
Now Congress needs to take a deep breath, let go of their hyperpartisan expectations, and listen to these 11 suggestions. How about let’s:
1. Incentivize or persuade more states to expand Medicaid.
2. Create a public option or “public fallback plan” in every state that would compete alongside private plans in the marketplaces.
3. Possibly implement a Cadillac tax on high-cost private plans as recommended by economists.
4. Provide vigorous outreach to the millions of uninsured Americans who are eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
5. Invest generously in parent-centered, equitable, high-quality early interventions such as Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) Part C, early childhood special education such as IDEA Part B, and early learning/preschool for young children. High-quality birth-to-5 programs yield $13 for every $1 invested and substantially lower health risks down the road of life.
6. Consider implementing a nationwide sugar tax. Evidence exists that taxing sugary drinks could improve the overall health of the U.S. population which could help to reduce the federal deficit over time.
7. Implement a six-point plan (as originally recommended by Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.]) to lower prescription drug prices. “Americans pay, by far, the highest prices for prescription drugs in the entire world,” Sen. Sanders notes on his website. He calls for negotiating better deals with drug manufacturers, reimporting prescriptions from Canada, restoring discounts for low-income seniors, prohibiting deals that block generic medications from entering the market, enacting stronger penalties for fraud, and requiring pricing and cost transparency.
8. Expand the role of nurses to filter out which patients need to be seen urgently, and which patients do not need an expensive trip to doctor’s office, urgent care, or emergency department. With appropriate training, nurses can manage behavior change and medication adjustment for chronic conditions; can lead care management teams for patients who are high utilizers of care; and manage transitions of care between the medical home, specialist outpatient, and hospital settings, according to primary care and nursing faculty leaders at the University of California, San Francisco.
9. Bring better accountability to health care by using bundled payments, global payments, and accountable care organizations, while simultaneously improving access and care coordination efforts for people with chronic conditions like mental health disorders and substance abuse, as recommended by the Commonwealth Fund.
10. Expand palliative care programs so far fewer people needlessly suffer and then die in very expensive intensive care units.
11. Enact common-sense tort reform. The overuse of tests and procedures because of fear of malpractice litigation, known as defensive medicine, is indirectly estimated to cost the United States $46 billion annually. According to a 2014 JAMA article, 28% of orders and 13% of costs were judged to be at least partially defensive, and 2.9% of total costs were completely defensive. Most costs were from potentially unnecessary hospitalizations. Survey studies show that greater than 90% of doctors practice defensive medicine, but what separates this perception from careful practice or patient expectations/demands remains controversial.
The main point is this – the Affordable Care Act is indeed fixable. We should not “let Obamacare implode, then deal” as the President tweeted. Whether politicians and other Americans can overcome their hyperpartisan beliefs and expectations remains to be seen.
Kevin P. Marks, MD, is a pediatrician in Eugene, Ore., and a clinical assistant professor at the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – is not a disaster. It is not a long-term solution, but it is fixable. Now that repeal and/or replace efforts have failed, Congress should intelligently debate which solutions make the most sense and move forward with legislation to fix the health care system.
Before that can happen, Democrats and Republicans need to make certain acknowledgments.
Democrats should acknowledge that the ACA is flawed. Whereas many experts believe a single-payer system is ultimately going to be the best long-term answer, for our country, we’re just not there yet.
On the other side of the political aisle, Republicans should acknowledge that the ACA is not “a total disaster,” as purported by the president. That’s just not true. The ACA has dramatically reduced the U.S. uninsured population – from 49.9 million in 2010 to 29 million in 2015 (the latest figures), according to the Census Bureau. It cost much less than initially forecast after providing subsidies, assembling accountable care organizations, and providing copayment-free access to a core list of preventive services called the essential health benefits.
Nevertheless, Democrats should acknowledge that the ACA is not affordable. The cost of premiums, copayments, prescription drugs, medical procedures, and subspecialty visits are out of control. Furthermore, Democrats should admit that powerful lobbyists for plaintiffs’ lawyer associations are unwisely influencing their party’s position on tort reform.
So, how can the ACA be fixed? Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers proposed multiple versions of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). Unlike the ACA, it really was “a total disaster.” Only 17% of Americans supported the BCRA, according to one poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist. Further, nearly every major medical organization adamantly opposed it, according to a report from NBC News.
Republicans who despise the ACA often fail to acknowledge what drove up premiums in the first place. Less competition led to higher costs. Republicans shot down the law’s original concept of a “public option.” Nineteen red states refused to expand Medicaid. All these decisions decreased competition in marketplaces.
Now Congress needs to take a deep breath, let go of their hyperpartisan expectations, and listen to these 11 suggestions. How about let’s:
1. Incentivize or persuade more states to expand Medicaid.
2. Create a public option or “public fallback plan” in every state that would compete alongside private plans in the marketplaces.
3. Possibly implement a Cadillac tax on high-cost private plans as recommended by economists.
4. Provide vigorous outreach to the millions of uninsured Americans who are eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
5. Invest generously in parent-centered, equitable, high-quality early interventions such as Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) Part C, early childhood special education such as IDEA Part B, and early learning/preschool for young children. High-quality birth-to-5 programs yield $13 for every $1 invested and substantially lower health risks down the road of life.
6. Consider implementing a nationwide sugar tax. Evidence exists that taxing sugary drinks could improve the overall health of the U.S. population which could help to reduce the federal deficit over time.
7. Implement a six-point plan (as originally recommended by Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.]) to lower prescription drug prices. “Americans pay, by far, the highest prices for prescription drugs in the entire world,” Sen. Sanders notes on his website. He calls for negotiating better deals with drug manufacturers, reimporting prescriptions from Canada, restoring discounts for low-income seniors, prohibiting deals that block generic medications from entering the market, enacting stronger penalties for fraud, and requiring pricing and cost transparency.
8. Expand the role of nurses to filter out which patients need to be seen urgently, and which patients do not need an expensive trip to doctor’s office, urgent care, or emergency department. With appropriate training, nurses can manage behavior change and medication adjustment for chronic conditions; can lead care management teams for patients who are high utilizers of care; and manage transitions of care between the medical home, specialist outpatient, and hospital settings, according to primary care and nursing faculty leaders at the University of California, San Francisco.
9. Bring better accountability to health care by using bundled payments, global payments, and accountable care organizations, while simultaneously improving access and care coordination efforts for people with chronic conditions like mental health disorders and substance abuse, as recommended by the Commonwealth Fund.
10. Expand palliative care programs so far fewer people needlessly suffer and then die in very expensive intensive care units.
11. Enact common-sense tort reform. The overuse of tests and procedures because of fear of malpractice litigation, known as defensive medicine, is indirectly estimated to cost the United States $46 billion annually. According to a 2014 JAMA article, 28% of orders and 13% of costs were judged to be at least partially defensive, and 2.9% of total costs were completely defensive. Most costs were from potentially unnecessary hospitalizations. Survey studies show that greater than 90% of doctors practice defensive medicine, but what separates this perception from careful practice or patient expectations/demands remains controversial.
The main point is this – the Affordable Care Act is indeed fixable. We should not “let Obamacare implode, then deal” as the President tweeted. Whether politicians and other Americans can overcome their hyperpartisan beliefs and expectations remains to be seen.
Kevin P. Marks, MD, is a pediatrician in Eugene, Ore., and a clinical assistant professor at the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – is not a disaster. It is not a long-term solution, but it is fixable. Now that repeal and/or replace efforts have failed, Congress should intelligently debate which solutions make the most sense and move forward with legislation to fix the health care system.
Before that can happen, Democrats and Republicans need to make certain acknowledgments.
Democrats should acknowledge that the ACA is flawed. Whereas many experts believe a single-payer system is ultimately going to be the best long-term answer, for our country, we’re just not there yet.
On the other side of the political aisle, Republicans should acknowledge that the ACA is not “a total disaster,” as purported by the president. That’s just not true. The ACA has dramatically reduced the U.S. uninsured population – from 49.9 million in 2010 to 29 million in 2015 (the latest figures), according to the Census Bureau. It cost much less than initially forecast after providing subsidies, assembling accountable care organizations, and providing copayment-free access to a core list of preventive services called the essential health benefits.
Nevertheless, Democrats should acknowledge that the ACA is not affordable. The cost of premiums, copayments, prescription drugs, medical procedures, and subspecialty visits are out of control. Furthermore, Democrats should admit that powerful lobbyists for plaintiffs’ lawyer associations are unwisely influencing their party’s position on tort reform.
So, how can the ACA be fixed? Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers proposed multiple versions of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). Unlike the ACA, it really was “a total disaster.” Only 17% of Americans supported the BCRA, according to one poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist. Further, nearly every major medical organization adamantly opposed it, according to a report from NBC News.
Republicans who despise the ACA often fail to acknowledge what drove up premiums in the first place. Less competition led to higher costs. Republicans shot down the law’s original concept of a “public option.” Nineteen red states refused to expand Medicaid. All these decisions decreased competition in marketplaces.
Now Congress needs to take a deep breath, let go of their hyperpartisan expectations, and listen to these 11 suggestions. How about let’s:
1. Incentivize or persuade more states to expand Medicaid.
2. Create a public option or “public fallback plan” in every state that would compete alongside private plans in the marketplaces.
3. Possibly implement a Cadillac tax on high-cost private plans as recommended by economists.
4. Provide vigorous outreach to the millions of uninsured Americans who are eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
5. Invest generously in parent-centered, equitable, high-quality early interventions such as Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) Part C, early childhood special education such as IDEA Part B, and early learning/preschool for young children. High-quality birth-to-5 programs yield $13 for every $1 invested and substantially lower health risks down the road of life.
6. Consider implementing a nationwide sugar tax. Evidence exists that taxing sugary drinks could improve the overall health of the U.S. population which could help to reduce the federal deficit over time.
7. Implement a six-point plan (as originally recommended by Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.]) to lower prescription drug prices. “Americans pay, by far, the highest prices for prescription drugs in the entire world,” Sen. Sanders notes on his website. He calls for negotiating better deals with drug manufacturers, reimporting prescriptions from Canada, restoring discounts for low-income seniors, prohibiting deals that block generic medications from entering the market, enacting stronger penalties for fraud, and requiring pricing and cost transparency.
8. Expand the role of nurses to filter out which patients need to be seen urgently, and which patients do not need an expensive trip to doctor’s office, urgent care, or emergency department. With appropriate training, nurses can manage behavior change and medication adjustment for chronic conditions; can lead care management teams for patients who are high utilizers of care; and manage transitions of care between the medical home, specialist outpatient, and hospital settings, according to primary care and nursing faculty leaders at the University of California, San Francisco.
9. Bring better accountability to health care by using bundled payments, global payments, and accountable care organizations, while simultaneously improving access and care coordination efforts for people with chronic conditions like mental health disorders and substance abuse, as recommended by the Commonwealth Fund.
10. Expand palliative care programs so far fewer people needlessly suffer and then die in very expensive intensive care units.
11. Enact common-sense tort reform. The overuse of tests and procedures because of fear of malpractice litigation, known as defensive medicine, is indirectly estimated to cost the United States $46 billion annually. According to a 2014 JAMA article, 28% of orders and 13% of costs were judged to be at least partially defensive, and 2.9% of total costs were completely defensive. Most costs were from potentially unnecessary hospitalizations. Survey studies show that greater than 90% of doctors practice defensive medicine, but what separates this perception from careful practice or patient expectations/demands remains controversial.
The main point is this – the Affordable Care Act is indeed fixable. We should not “let Obamacare implode, then deal” as the President tweeted. Whether politicians and other Americans can overcome their hyperpartisan beliefs and expectations remains to be seen.
Kevin P. Marks, MD, is a pediatrician in Eugene, Ore., and a clinical assistant professor at the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.