MDedge Emergency Medicine

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

Jennifer Suders, DO: We were in Florida with our 1-year-old daughter visiting my parents. They moved to an area called Hallandale Beach and live in a high-rise community with a few different pools and spas.

Dan and I were in the spa area at the gym. He was getting me to hurry up because we were supposed to meet my parents who were with our daughter. I was sort of moseying and taking my time.

We were walking by one of the pool decks to get into the building when I heard what sounded like a slap. My first thought was that maybe somebody was choking and someone was hitting their back. Choking has always been my biggest fear with our daughter.

I turned and saw some people who seemed frantic. I looked at Dan and started to ask, “Do you think they need help?” I don’t even think I got the whole sentence out before this mom whipped her head around. I’ll never forget her dark brown hair flying. She screamed, “HELP!”

Dan and I just ran. I let go of my backpack and iPad and water bottle. They scattered across the pool deck. I instantly had my phone in my hand dialing 911.

Daniel Suders, DO: That’s what they teach us, to call 911 first. I didn’t think of it in the moment, but Jenny did.

Jennifer Suders: There was a little boy lying on the ground. Totally gray. He looked about 3 years old. His mom was distraught. His grandparents were standing there in shock with his older brother who was around 5. He was scared and whimpering.

Dan and I got down on either side of the boy and checked for a pulse. We couldn’t feel anything. Dan started chest compressions. I was talking to the 911 operator, and then I gave two rescue breaths. We did a sternal rub.

I was kind of yelling in the boy’s face, trying to get him to respond. I tried English and Russian because there’s a big Russian community there, and my family speaks Russian. The grandma asked us if we knew what we were doing.

Daniel Suders: I think she asked if Jenny was a nurse.

Jennifer Suders: Common misconception. Suddenly, the boy started vomiting, and so much water poured out. We turned him on his side, and he had two or three more episodes of spitting up the water. After that, we could see the color start to come back into his face. His eyes started fluttering.

We thought he was probably coming back. But we were too scared to say that in case we were wrong, and he went back under. So, we just held him steady. We didn’t know what had happened, if he might have hit his head, so we needed to keep him still.

Daniel Suders: It was amazing when those eyes opened, and he started to wake up.

Jennifer Suders: It felt like my heart had stopped while I was waiting for his to start.

Daniel Suders: He was clutching his chest like it hurt and started calling for his mom. He was crying and wanting to get in his mom’s arms. We had to keep him from standing up and walking.

Jennifer Suders: He was clearly scared. There were all these strange faces around him. I kept looking at my phone, anxiously waiting for EMS to come. They got there about 8 or 9 minutes later.

At some point, the father walked in with their daughter, a baby under a year old. He was in shock, not knowing what was going on. The grandma explained that the boy had been jumping into the pool over and over with his brother. All of a sudden, they looked over, and he was just lying there, floating, face down. They were right there; they were watching him. It was just that quick.

Daniel Suders: They pulled him out right away, and that was a big thing on his side that it was caught so quickly. He didn’t have to wait long to start resuscitation.

Jennifer Suders: Once EMS got there and assessed him, they put him and his mom on the stretcher. I remember watching them wheel it through the double doors to get to the elevator. As soon as they were gone, I just turned around and broke down. I had been in doctor mode if you will. Straight to the point. No nonsense. Suddenly, I went back into civilian mode, and my emotions just bubbled up.

After we left, we went to meet my parents who had our kid. Dan just beelined toward her and scooped her up and wouldn’t let her go.

For the rest of the day, it was all I could think about. It took me a while to fall asleep that night, and it was the first thing I thought when I woke up the next morning. We were hopeful that the boy was going to be okay, but you never know. We didn’t call the hospital because with HIPAA, I didn’t know if they could tell us anything.

And then the next day — there they were. The family was back at the pool. The little boy was running around like nothing had happened. We were a little surprised. But I would hate for him to be scared of the pool for the rest of his life. His family was watching him like a hawk.

They told us that the boy and his mom had stayed overnight in the ER, but only as a precaution. He didn’t have any more vomiting. He was absolutely fine. They were incredibly grateful.

We got their names and exchanged numbers and took a picture. That’s all I wanted — a photo to remember them.

A day or so later, we saw them again at a nearby park. The boy was climbing trees and seemed completely normal. It was the best outcome we could have hoped for.

Daniel Suders: My biggest worry was any harm to his chest from the resuscitation, or of course how long he was without oxygen. But everyone says that kids are really resilient. I work with adults, so I don’t have a lot of experience.

As a hospitalist, we don’t always see a lot of success with CPR. It’s often an elderly person who just doesn’t have much of a chance. That same week before our vacation, I had lost a 90-year-old in the hospital. It was such a juxtaposition — a 3-year-old with their whole life in front of them. We were able to preserve that, and it was incredible.

Jennifer Suders: I’m a nephrologist, so my field is pretty calm. No big emergencies. We have patients on the floor, but if a code gets called, there’s a team that comes in from the intensive care unit. I always kind of wondered what I would do if I was presented with a scenario like this.

Daniel Suders: We have a lot of friends that do ER medicine, and I felt like those were the guys that really understood when we told them the story. One friend said to me, “By the time they get to us, they’re either in bad shape or they’re better already.” A lot depends on what happens in the field.

Jennifer Suders: I’m even more vigilant about pool safety now. I want to make sure parents know that drowning doesn›t look like flailing theatrics. It can be soundless. Three adults were right next to this little boy and didn›t realize until they looked down and saw him.

If we hadn’t been there, I don’t know if anyone would’ve been able to step in. No one else was medically trained. But I think the message is — you don’t have to be. Anyone can take a CPR class.

When I told my parents, my dad said, “Oh my gosh, I would’ve laid right down there next to that kid and passed out.” Without any training, it’s petrifying to see something like that.

I think about how we could have stayed in the gym longer and been too late. Or we could have gotten on the elevator earlier and been gone. Two minutes, and it would’ve been a story we heard later, not one we were a part of. It feels like we were at a true crossroads in that moment where that boy could have lived or died. And the stars aligned perfectly.

We had no medicine, no monitors, nothing but our hands and our breaths. And we helped a family continue their vacation rather than plan a funeral.

Jennifer Suders, DO, is a nephrologist at West Virginia University Medicine Wheeling Clinic. Daniel Suders, DO, is a hospitalist at West Virginia University Medicine Reynolds Memorial Hospital.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

Jennifer Suders, DO: We were in Florida with our 1-year-old daughter visiting my parents. They moved to an area called Hallandale Beach and live in a high-rise community with a few different pools and spas.

Dan and I were in the spa area at the gym. He was getting me to hurry up because we were supposed to meet my parents who were with our daughter. I was sort of moseying and taking my time.

We were walking by one of the pool decks to get into the building when I heard what sounded like a slap. My first thought was that maybe somebody was choking and someone was hitting their back. Choking has always been my biggest fear with our daughter.

I turned and saw some people who seemed frantic. I looked at Dan and started to ask, “Do you think they need help?” I don’t even think I got the whole sentence out before this mom whipped her head around. I’ll never forget her dark brown hair flying. She screamed, “HELP!”

Dan and I just ran. I let go of my backpack and iPad and water bottle. They scattered across the pool deck. I instantly had my phone in my hand dialing 911.

Daniel Suders, DO: That’s what they teach us, to call 911 first. I didn’t think of it in the moment, but Jenny did.

Jennifer Suders: There was a little boy lying on the ground. Totally gray. He looked about 3 years old. His mom was distraught. His grandparents were standing there in shock with his older brother who was around 5. He was scared and whimpering.

Dan and I got down on either side of the boy and checked for a pulse. We couldn’t feel anything. Dan started chest compressions. I was talking to the 911 operator, and then I gave two rescue breaths. We did a sternal rub.

I was kind of yelling in the boy’s face, trying to get him to respond. I tried English and Russian because there’s a big Russian community there, and my family speaks Russian. The grandma asked us if we knew what we were doing.

Daniel Suders: I think she asked if Jenny was a nurse.

Jennifer Suders: Common misconception. Suddenly, the boy started vomiting, and so much water poured out. We turned him on his side, and he had two or three more episodes of spitting up the water. After that, we could see the color start to come back into his face. His eyes started fluttering.

We thought he was probably coming back. But we were too scared to say that in case we were wrong, and he went back under. So, we just held him steady. We didn’t know what had happened, if he might have hit his head, so we needed to keep him still.

Daniel Suders: It was amazing when those eyes opened, and he started to wake up.

Jennifer Suders: It felt like my heart had stopped while I was waiting for his to start.

Daniel Suders: He was clutching his chest like it hurt and started calling for his mom. He was crying and wanting to get in his mom’s arms. We had to keep him from standing up and walking.

Jennifer Suders: He was clearly scared. There were all these strange faces around him. I kept looking at my phone, anxiously waiting for EMS to come. They got there about 8 or 9 minutes later.

At some point, the father walked in with their daughter, a baby under a year old. He was in shock, not knowing what was going on. The grandma explained that the boy had been jumping into the pool over and over with his brother. All of a sudden, they looked over, and he was just lying there, floating, face down. They were right there; they were watching him. It was just that quick.

Daniel Suders: They pulled him out right away, and that was a big thing on his side that it was caught so quickly. He didn’t have to wait long to start resuscitation.

Jennifer Suders: Once EMS got there and assessed him, they put him and his mom on the stretcher. I remember watching them wheel it through the double doors to get to the elevator. As soon as they were gone, I just turned around and broke down. I had been in doctor mode if you will. Straight to the point. No nonsense. Suddenly, I went back into civilian mode, and my emotions just bubbled up.

After we left, we went to meet my parents who had our kid. Dan just beelined toward her and scooped her up and wouldn’t let her go.

For the rest of the day, it was all I could think about. It took me a while to fall asleep that night, and it was the first thing I thought when I woke up the next morning. We were hopeful that the boy was going to be okay, but you never know. We didn’t call the hospital because with HIPAA, I didn’t know if they could tell us anything.

And then the next day — there they were. The family was back at the pool. The little boy was running around like nothing had happened. We were a little surprised. But I would hate for him to be scared of the pool for the rest of his life. His family was watching him like a hawk.

They told us that the boy and his mom had stayed overnight in the ER, but only as a precaution. He didn’t have any more vomiting. He was absolutely fine. They were incredibly grateful.

We got their names and exchanged numbers and took a picture. That’s all I wanted — a photo to remember them.

A day or so later, we saw them again at a nearby park. The boy was climbing trees and seemed completely normal. It was the best outcome we could have hoped for.

Daniel Suders: My biggest worry was any harm to his chest from the resuscitation, or of course how long he was without oxygen. But everyone says that kids are really resilient. I work with adults, so I don’t have a lot of experience.

As a hospitalist, we don’t always see a lot of success with CPR. It’s often an elderly person who just doesn’t have much of a chance. That same week before our vacation, I had lost a 90-year-old in the hospital. It was such a juxtaposition — a 3-year-old with their whole life in front of them. We were able to preserve that, and it was incredible.

Jennifer Suders: I’m a nephrologist, so my field is pretty calm. No big emergencies. We have patients on the floor, but if a code gets called, there’s a team that comes in from the intensive care unit. I always kind of wondered what I would do if I was presented with a scenario like this.

Daniel Suders: We have a lot of friends that do ER medicine, and I felt like those were the guys that really understood when we told them the story. One friend said to me, “By the time they get to us, they’re either in bad shape or they’re better already.” A lot depends on what happens in the field.

Jennifer Suders: I’m even more vigilant about pool safety now. I want to make sure parents know that drowning doesn›t look like flailing theatrics. It can be soundless. Three adults were right next to this little boy and didn›t realize until they looked down and saw him.

If we hadn’t been there, I don’t know if anyone would’ve been able to step in. No one else was medically trained. But I think the message is — you don’t have to be. Anyone can take a CPR class.

When I told my parents, my dad said, “Oh my gosh, I would’ve laid right down there next to that kid and passed out.” Without any training, it’s petrifying to see something like that.

I think about how we could have stayed in the gym longer and been too late. Or we could have gotten on the elevator earlier and been gone. Two minutes, and it would’ve been a story we heard later, not one we were a part of. It feels like we were at a true crossroads in that moment where that boy could have lived or died. And the stars aligned perfectly.

We had no medicine, no monitors, nothing but our hands and our breaths. And we helped a family continue their vacation rather than plan a funeral.

Jennifer Suders, DO, is a nephrologist at West Virginia University Medicine Wheeling Clinic. Daniel Suders, DO, is a hospitalist at West Virginia University Medicine Reynolds Memorial Hospital.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

Jennifer Suders, DO: We were in Florida with our 1-year-old daughter visiting my parents. They moved to an area called Hallandale Beach and live in a high-rise community with a few different pools and spas.

Dan and I were in the spa area at the gym. He was getting me to hurry up because we were supposed to meet my parents who were with our daughter. I was sort of moseying and taking my time.

We were walking by one of the pool decks to get into the building when I heard what sounded like a slap. My first thought was that maybe somebody was choking and someone was hitting their back. Choking has always been my biggest fear with our daughter.

I turned and saw some people who seemed frantic. I looked at Dan and started to ask, “Do you think they need help?” I don’t even think I got the whole sentence out before this mom whipped her head around. I’ll never forget her dark brown hair flying. She screamed, “HELP!”

Dan and I just ran. I let go of my backpack and iPad and water bottle. They scattered across the pool deck. I instantly had my phone in my hand dialing 911.

Daniel Suders, DO: That’s what they teach us, to call 911 first. I didn’t think of it in the moment, but Jenny did.

Jennifer Suders: There was a little boy lying on the ground. Totally gray. He looked about 3 years old. His mom was distraught. His grandparents were standing there in shock with his older brother who was around 5. He was scared and whimpering.

Dan and I got down on either side of the boy and checked for a pulse. We couldn’t feel anything. Dan started chest compressions. I was talking to the 911 operator, and then I gave two rescue breaths. We did a sternal rub.

I was kind of yelling in the boy’s face, trying to get him to respond. I tried English and Russian because there’s a big Russian community there, and my family speaks Russian. The grandma asked us if we knew what we were doing.

Daniel Suders: I think she asked if Jenny was a nurse.

Jennifer Suders: Common misconception. Suddenly, the boy started vomiting, and so much water poured out. We turned him on his side, and he had two or three more episodes of spitting up the water. After that, we could see the color start to come back into his face. His eyes started fluttering.

We thought he was probably coming back. But we were too scared to say that in case we were wrong, and he went back under. So, we just held him steady. We didn’t know what had happened, if he might have hit his head, so we needed to keep him still.

Daniel Suders: It was amazing when those eyes opened, and he started to wake up.

Jennifer Suders: It felt like my heart had stopped while I was waiting for his to start.

Daniel Suders: He was clutching his chest like it hurt and started calling for his mom. He was crying and wanting to get in his mom’s arms. We had to keep him from standing up and walking.

Jennifer Suders: He was clearly scared. There were all these strange faces around him. I kept looking at my phone, anxiously waiting for EMS to come. They got there about 8 or 9 minutes later.

At some point, the father walked in with their daughter, a baby under a year old. He was in shock, not knowing what was going on. The grandma explained that the boy had been jumping into the pool over and over with his brother. All of a sudden, they looked over, and he was just lying there, floating, face down. They were right there; they were watching him. It was just that quick.

Daniel Suders: They pulled him out right away, and that was a big thing on his side that it was caught so quickly. He didn’t have to wait long to start resuscitation.

Jennifer Suders: Once EMS got there and assessed him, they put him and his mom on the stretcher. I remember watching them wheel it through the double doors to get to the elevator. As soon as they were gone, I just turned around and broke down. I had been in doctor mode if you will. Straight to the point. No nonsense. Suddenly, I went back into civilian mode, and my emotions just bubbled up.

After we left, we went to meet my parents who had our kid. Dan just beelined toward her and scooped her up and wouldn’t let her go.

For the rest of the day, it was all I could think about. It took me a while to fall asleep that night, and it was the first thing I thought when I woke up the next morning. We were hopeful that the boy was going to be okay, but you never know. We didn’t call the hospital because with HIPAA, I didn’t know if they could tell us anything.

And then the next day — there they were. The family was back at the pool. The little boy was running around like nothing had happened. We were a little surprised. But I would hate for him to be scared of the pool for the rest of his life. His family was watching him like a hawk.

They told us that the boy and his mom had stayed overnight in the ER, but only as a precaution. He didn’t have any more vomiting. He was absolutely fine. They were incredibly grateful.

We got their names and exchanged numbers and took a picture. That’s all I wanted — a photo to remember them.

A day or so later, we saw them again at a nearby park. The boy was climbing trees and seemed completely normal. It was the best outcome we could have hoped for.

Daniel Suders: My biggest worry was any harm to his chest from the resuscitation, or of course how long he was without oxygen. But everyone says that kids are really resilient. I work with adults, so I don’t have a lot of experience.

As a hospitalist, we don’t always see a lot of success with CPR. It’s often an elderly person who just doesn’t have much of a chance. That same week before our vacation, I had lost a 90-year-old in the hospital. It was such a juxtaposition — a 3-year-old with their whole life in front of them. We were able to preserve that, and it was incredible.

Jennifer Suders: I’m a nephrologist, so my field is pretty calm. No big emergencies. We have patients on the floor, but if a code gets called, there’s a team that comes in from the intensive care unit. I always kind of wondered what I would do if I was presented with a scenario like this.

Daniel Suders: We have a lot of friends that do ER medicine, and I felt like those were the guys that really understood when we told them the story. One friend said to me, “By the time they get to us, they’re either in bad shape or they’re better already.” A lot depends on what happens in the field.

Jennifer Suders: I’m even more vigilant about pool safety now. I want to make sure parents know that drowning doesn›t look like flailing theatrics. It can be soundless. Three adults were right next to this little boy and didn›t realize until they looked down and saw him.

If we hadn’t been there, I don’t know if anyone would’ve been able to step in. No one else was medically trained. But I think the message is — you don’t have to be. Anyone can take a CPR class.

When I told my parents, my dad said, “Oh my gosh, I would’ve laid right down there next to that kid and passed out.” Without any training, it’s petrifying to see something like that.

I think about how we could have stayed in the gym longer and been too late. Or we could have gotten on the elevator earlier and been gone. Two minutes, and it would’ve been a story we heard later, not one we were a part of. It feels like we were at a true crossroads in that moment where that boy could have lived or died. And the stars aligned perfectly.

We had no medicine, no monitors, nothing but our hands and our breaths. And we helped a family continue their vacation rather than plan a funeral.

Jennifer Suders, DO, is a nephrologist at West Virginia University Medicine Wheeling Clinic. Daniel Suders, DO, is a hospitalist at West Virginia University Medicine Reynolds Memorial Hospital.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.

He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.

What imaging would you recommend?

A) CT without contrast

B) CT with contrast

C) MRI

D) Abdominal ultrasound

This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.

Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.¹ They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.

Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.² They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.³ They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).

Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.⁴ They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.⁵ There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).

Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.⁶ Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.⁶ Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”⁷ Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.



Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.

Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.

2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.

3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.

4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.

5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.

6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.

7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.

A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.

He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.

What imaging would you recommend?

A) CT without contrast

B) CT with contrast

C) MRI

D) Abdominal ultrasound

This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.

Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.¹ They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.

Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.² They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.³ They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).

Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.⁴ They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.⁵ There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).

Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.⁶ Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.⁶ Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”⁷ Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.



Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.

Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.

2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.

3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.

4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.

5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.

6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.

7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.

A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.

He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.

What imaging would you recommend?

A) CT without contrast

B) CT with contrast

C) MRI

D) Abdominal ultrasound

This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.

Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.¹ They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.

Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.² They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.³ They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).

Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.⁴ They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.⁵ There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).

Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.⁶ Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.⁶ Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”⁷ Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.



Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.

Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.

2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.

3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.

4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.

5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.

6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.

7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.

This discussion was recorded on March 29, 2024. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Joining me today to discuss the use of methoxyflurane (Penthrox), an inhaled nonopioid analgesic for the relief of acute pain, is Dr. William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM).

Also joining me is Dr. Sergey Motov, an emergency physician and research director at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an expert in pain management. I want to welcome both of you and thank you for joining me.
 

RAMPED Trial: Evaluating the Efficacy of Methoxyflurane

Dr. Glatter: Ken, your recent post on Twitter [now X] regarding the utility of Penthrox in the RAMPED trial really caught my attention. While the trial was from 2021, it really is relevant regarding the prehospital management of pain in the practice of emergency medicine, and certainly in-hospital practice. I was hoping you could review the study design but also get into the rationale behind the use of this novel agent.

William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, MD, MSc: Sure. I’d be happy to kick this episode off with talking about a study that was published in 2020 in Academic Emergency Medicine. It was an Australian study by Brichko et al., and they were doing a randomized controlled trial looking at methoxyflurane vs standard care.

They selected out a population of adults, which they defined as 18-75 years of age. They were in the prehospital setting and they had a pain score of greater than 8. They gave the participants methoxyflurane, which is also called the “green whistle.” They had the subjects take that for their prehospital pain, and they compared that with whatever your standard analgesic in the prehospital setting would be.

Their primary outcome was how many patients had at least 50% reduction in their pain score within 30 minutes. They recruited about 120 people, and they found that there was no statistical difference in the primary outcome between methoxyflurane and standard care. Again, that primary outcome was a reduction in pain score by greater than 50% at 30 minutes, and there wasn’t a statistical difference between the two.

There are obviously limits to any study, and it was a convenience sample. This was an unmasked trial, so people knew if they were getting this green whistle, which is popular in Australia. People would be familiar with this device, and they didn’t compare it with a sham or placebo group.

Pharmacology of Penthrox: Its Role and Mechanism of Action

Dr. Glatter: The primary outcome wasn’t met, but certainly secondary outcomes were. There was, again, a relatively small number of patients in this trial. That said, there was significant pain relief. I think there are issues with the trial, as with any trial limitations.

Getting to the pharmacology of Penthrox, can you describe this inhaled anesthetic and how we use it, specifically its role at the subanesthetic doses?

Sergey M. Motov, MD: Methoxyflurane is embedded in the green whistle package, and that whole contraption is called Penthrox. It’s an inhaled volatile fluorinated hydrocarbon anesthetic that was predominantly used, I’d say 40, 50 years ago, for general anesthesia and slowly but surely fell out of favor due to the fact that, when used for prolonged duration or in supratherapeutic doses, there were cases of severe or even fatal nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.

In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, all the fluranes came on board that are slightly different as general anesthetics, and methoxyflurane started slowly falling out of favor. Because of this paucity and then a subsequent slightly greater number of cases of nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity, [the US Food and Drug Administration] FDA made a decision to pull the drug off the market in 2005. FDA successfully accomplished its mission and since then has pretty much banned the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in any shape, form, or color in the United States.

Going back to the green whistle, it has been used in Australia probably for about 50-60 years, and has been used in Europe for probably 10-20 years. Ken can attest that it has been used in Canada for at least a decade and the track record is phenomenal.

We are using subanesthetic, even supratherapeutic doses that, based on available literature, has no incidence of this fatal hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity. We’re talking about 10 million doses administered worldwide, except in the United States. There are 40-plus randomized clinical trials with over 30,000 patients enrolled that prove efficacy and safety.

That’s where we are right now, in a conundrum. We have a great deal of data all over the world, except in the United States, that push for the use of this noninvasive, patient-controlled nonopioid inhaled anesthetic. We just don’t have the access in North America, with the exception of Canada.

Regulatory Hurdles: Challenges in FDA Approval

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The FDA wants to be cautious, but if you look at the evidence base of data on this, it really indicates otherwise. Do you think that these roadblocks can be somehow overcome?

Dr. Milne: In the 2000s and 2010s, everybody was focused on opioids and all the dangers and potential adverse events. Opioids are great drugs like many other drugs; it depends on dose and duration. If used properly, it’s an excellent drug. Well, here’s another excellent drug if it’s used properly, and the adverse events are dependent on their dose and duration. Penthrox, or methoxyflurane, is a subtherapeutic, small dose and there have been no reported cases of addiction or abuse related to these inhalers.

Dr. Glatter: That argues for the point — and I’ll turn this over to you, Sergey — of how can this not, in my mind, be an issue that the FDA can overcome.

Dr. Motov: I agree with you. It’s very hard for me to speak on behalf of the FDA, to allude to their thinking processes, but we need to be up to speed with the evidence. The first thing is, why don’t you study the drug in the United States? I’m not asking you to lift the ban, which you put in 2005, but why don’t you honor what has been done over two decades and at least open the door a little bit and let us do what we do best? Why don’t you allow us to do the research in a controlled setting with a carefully, properly selected group of patients without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency and see where we’re at?

Let’s compare it against placebo. If that’s not ethical, let’s compare it against active comparators — God knows we have 15-20 drugs we can use — and let’s see where we’re at. Ken has been nothing short of superb when it comes to evidence. Let us put the evidence together.

Dr. Milne: If there were concerns decades ago, those need to be addressed. As science is iterative and as other information becomes available, the scientific method would say, Let’s reexamine this and let’s reexamine our position, and do that with evidence. To do that, it has to have validity within the US system. Someone like you doing the research, you are a pain research guru; you should be doing this research to say, “Does it work or not? Does this nonapproval still stand today in 2024?”

Dr. Motov: Thank you for the shout-out, and I agree with you. All of us, those who are interested, on the frontiers of emergency care — as present clinicians — we should be doing this. There is nothing that will convince the FDA more than properly and rightly conducted research, time to reassess the evidence, and time to be less rigid. I understand that you placed a ban 20 years ago, but let’s go with the science. We cannot be behind it.

Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Methoxyflurane

Dr. Milne: There was an Austrian study in 2022 and a very interesting study out of the UK looking at life-cycle impact assessment on the environment. If we’re not just concerned about patient care —obviously, we want to provide patients with a safe and effective product, compared with other products that are available that might not have as good a safety profile — this looks at the impact on the environment.

Dr. Glatter: Ken, can you tell me about some of your recent research regarding the environmental effects related to use of Penthrox, but also its utility pharmacologically and its mechanism of action?

Dr. Milne: There was a really interesting study published this year by Martindale in the Emergency Medicine Journal. It took a different approach to this question about could we be using this drug, and why should we be using this drug? Sergey and I have already talked about the potential benefits and the potential harms. I mentioned opioids and some of the concerns about that. For this drug, if we’re using it in the prehospital setting in this little green whistle, the potential benefits look really good, and we haven’t seen any of the potential harms come through in the literature.

This was another line of evidence of why this might be a good drug, because of the environmental impact of this low-dose methoxyflurane. They compared it with nitrous oxide and said, “Well, what about the life-cycle impact on the environment of using this and the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impacts?”

Obviously, Sergey and I are interested in patient care, and we treat patients one at a time. But we have a larger responsibility to social determinants of health, like our environment. If you look at the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact of this drug, it was better than for nitrous oxide when looking specifically at climate-change impact. That might be another reason, another line of argument, that could be put forward in the United States to say, “We want to have a healthy environment and a healthy option for patients.”

I’ll let Sergey speak to mechanisms of action and those types of things.

Dr. Motov: As a general anesthetic and hydrocarbonated volatile ones, I’m just going to say that it causes this generalized diffuse cortical depression, and there are no particular channels, receptors, or enzymes we need to worry much about. In short, it’s an inhaled gas used to put patients or people to sleep.

Over the past 30 or 40 years — and I’ll go back to the past decade — there have been numerous studies in different countries (outside of the United States, of course), and with the recent study that Ken just cited, there were comparisons for managing predominantly acute traumatic injuries in pediatric and adult populations presenting to EDs in various regions of the world that compared Penthrox, or the green whistle, with either placebo or active comparators, which included parenteral opioids, oral opioids, and NSAIDs.

The recent systematic review by Fabbri, out of Italy, showed that for ultra–short-term pain — we’re talking about 5, 10, or 15 minutes — inhaled methoxyflurane was found to be equal or even superior to standard of care, primarily related to parenteral opioids, and safety was off the hook. Interestingly, with respect to analgesia, they found that geriatric patients seemed to be responding more, with respect to changing pain score, than younger adults — we’re talking about ages 18-64 vs 65 or older. Again, we need to make sure that we carefully select those elderly people without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency.

To wrap this up, there is evidence clearly supporting its analgesic efficacy and safety, even in comparison to commonly used and traditionally accepted analgesic modalities that we use for managing acute pain.

US Military Use and Implications for Civilian Practice

Dr. Glatter: Do you think that methoxyflurane’s use in the military will help propel its use in clinical settings in the US, and possibly convince the FDA to look at this closer? The military is currently using it in deployed combat veterans in an ongoing fashion.

Dr. Motov: I’m excited that the Department of Defense in the United States has taken the lead, and they’re being very progressive. There are data that we’ve adapted to the civilian environment by use of intranasal opioids and intranasal ketamine with more doctors who came out of the military. In the military, it’s a kingdom within a kingdom. I don’t know their relationship with the FDA, but I support the military’s pharmacologic initiative by honoring and disseminating their research once it becomes available.

For us nonmilitary folks, we still need to work with the FDA. We need to convince the FDA to let us study the drug, and then we need to pile the evidence within the United States so that the FDA will start looking at this favorably. It wouldn’t hurt and it wouldn’t harm. Any piece of evidence will add to the existing body of literature that we need to allow this medication to be available to us.

Safety Considerations and Aerosolization Concerns

Dr. Glatter: Its safety in children is well established in Australia and throughout the world. I think it deserves a careful look, and the evidence that you’ve both presented argues for the use of this prehospital but also in hospital. I guess there was concern in the hospital with underventilation and healthcare workers being exposed to the fumes, and then getting headaches, dizziness, and so forth. I don’t know if that’s borne out, Ken, in any of your experience in Canada at all.

Dr. Milne: We currently don’t have it in our shop. It’s being used in British Columbia right now in the prehospital setting, and I’m not aware of anybody using it in their department. It’s used prehospital as far as I know.

Dr. Motov: I can attest to it, if I may, because I had familiarized myself with the device. I actually was able to hold it in my hands. I have not used it yet but I had the prototype. The way it’s set up, there is an activated charcoal chamber that sits right on top of the device, which serves as the scavenger for exhaled air that contains particles of methoxyflurane. In theory, but I’m telling how it is in practicality, it significantly reduces occupational exposure, based on data that lacks specifics.

Although most of the researchers did not measure the concentration of methoxyflurane in ambient air within the treatment room in the EDs, I believe the additional data sources clearly stating that it’s within or even below the detectable level that would cause any harm. Once again, we need to honor pathology. We need to make sure that pregnant women will not be exposed to it.

Dr. Milne: In 2024, we also need to be concerned about aerosolizing procedures and aerosolizing treatments, and just take that into account because we should be considering all the potential benefits and all the potential harms. Going through the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern about transmission and whether or not it was droplet or aerosolized.

There was an observational study published in 2022 in Austria by Trimmel in BMC Emergency Medicine showing similar results. It seemed to work well and potential harms didn’t get picked up. They had to stop the study early because of COVID-19.

We need to always focus in on the potential benefits, the potential harms; where does the science land? Where do the data lie? Then we move forward from that and make informed decisions.

Final Thoughts

Dr. Glatter: Are there any key takeaways you’d like to share with our audience?

Dr. Milne: One of the takeaways from this whole conversation is that science is iterative and science changes. When new evidence becomes available, and we’ve seen it accumulate around the world, we as scientists, as a researcher, as somebody committed to great patient care should revisit our positions on this. Since there is a prohibition against this medication, I think it’s time to reassess that stance and move forward to see if it still is accurate today.

Dr. Motov: I wholeheartedly agree with this. Thank you, Ken, for bringing this up. Good point.

Dr. Glatter: This has been a really informative discussion. I think our audience will certainly embrace this. Thank you very much for your time; it’s much appreciated.
 

Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical adviser for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Dr. Milne is an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM). Dr. Motov is professor of emergency medicine and director of research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is passionate about safe and effective pain management in the emergency department, and has numerous publications on the subject of opioid alternatives in pain management. Dr. Glatter, Dr. Milne, and Dr. Motov had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on March 29, 2024. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Joining me today to discuss the use of methoxyflurane (Penthrox), an inhaled nonopioid analgesic for the relief of acute pain, is Dr. William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM).

Also joining me is Dr. Sergey Motov, an emergency physician and research director at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an expert in pain management. I want to welcome both of you and thank you for joining me.
 

RAMPED Trial: Evaluating the Efficacy of Methoxyflurane

Dr. Glatter: Ken, your recent post on Twitter [now X] regarding the utility of Penthrox in the RAMPED trial really caught my attention. While the trial was from 2021, it really is relevant regarding the prehospital management of pain in the practice of emergency medicine, and certainly in-hospital practice. I was hoping you could review the study design but also get into the rationale behind the use of this novel agent.

William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, MD, MSc: Sure. I’d be happy to kick this episode off with talking about a study that was published in 2020 in Academic Emergency Medicine. It was an Australian study by Brichko et al., and they were doing a randomized controlled trial looking at methoxyflurane vs standard care.

They selected out a population of adults, which they defined as 18-75 years of age. They were in the prehospital setting and they had a pain score of greater than 8. They gave the participants methoxyflurane, which is also called the “green whistle.” They had the subjects take that for their prehospital pain, and they compared that with whatever your standard analgesic in the prehospital setting would be.

Their primary outcome was how many patients had at least 50% reduction in their pain score within 30 minutes. They recruited about 120 people, and they found that there was no statistical difference in the primary outcome between methoxyflurane and standard care. Again, that primary outcome was a reduction in pain score by greater than 50% at 30 minutes, and there wasn’t a statistical difference between the two.

There are obviously limits to any study, and it was a convenience sample. This was an unmasked trial, so people knew if they were getting this green whistle, which is popular in Australia. People would be familiar with this device, and they didn’t compare it with a sham or placebo group.

Pharmacology of Penthrox: Its Role and Mechanism of Action

Dr. Glatter: The primary outcome wasn’t met, but certainly secondary outcomes were. There was, again, a relatively small number of patients in this trial. That said, there was significant pain relief. I think there are issues with the trial, as with any trial limitations.

Getting to the pharmacology of Penthrox, can you describe this inhaled anesthetic and how we use it, specifically its role at the subanesthetic doses?

Sergey M. Motov, MD: Methoxyflurane is embedded in the green whistle package, and that whole contraption is called Penthrox. It’s an inhaled volatile fluorinated hydrocarbon anesthetic that was predominantly used, I’d say 40, 50 years ago, for general anesthesia and slowly but surely fell out of favor due to the fact that, when used for prolonged duration or in supratherapeutic doses, there were cases of severe or even fatal nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.

In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, all the fluranes came on board that are slightly different as general anesthetics, and methoxyflurane started slowly falling out of favor. Because of this paucity and then a subsequent slightly greater number of cases of nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity, [the US Food and Drug Administration] FDA made a decision to pull the drug off the market in 2005. FDA successfully accomplished its mission and since then has pretty much banned the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in any shape, form, or color in the United States.

Going back to the green whistle, it has been used in Australia probably for about 50-60 years, and has been used in Europe for probably 10-20 years. Ken can attest that it has been used in Canada for at least a decade and the track record is phenomenal.

We are using subanesthetic, even supratherapeutic doses that, based on available literature, has no incidence of this fatal hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity. We’re talking about 10 million doses administered worldwide, except in the United States. There are 40-plus randomized clinical trials with over 30,000 patients enrolled that prove efficacy and safety.

That’s where we are right now, in a conundrum. We have a great deal of data all over the world, except in the United States, that push for the use of this noninvasive, patient-controlled nonopioid inhaled anesthetic. We just don’t have the access in North America, with the exception of Canada.

Regulatory Hurdles: Challenges in FDA Approval

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The FDA wants to be cautious, but if you look at the evidence base of data on this, it really indicates otherwise. Do you think that these roadblocks can be somehow overcome?

Dr. Milne: In the 2000s and 2010s, everybody was focused on opioids and all the dangers and potential adverse events. Opioids are great drugs like many other drugs; it depends on dose and duration. If used properly, it’s an excellent drug. Well, here’s another excellent drug if it’s used properly, and the adverse events are dependent on their dose and duration. Penthrox, or methoxyflurane, is a subtherapeutic, small dose and there have been no reported cases of addiction or abuse related to these inhalers.

Dr. Glatter: That argues for the point — and I’ll turn this over to you, Sergey — of how can this not, in my mind, be an issue that the FDA can overcome.

Dr. Motov: I agree with you. It’s very hard for me to speak on behalf of the FDA, to allude to their thinking processes, but we need to be up to speed with the evidence. The first thing is, why don’t you study the drug in the United States? I’m not asking you to lift the ban, which you put in 2005, but why don’t you honor what has been done over two decades and at least open the door a little bit and let us do what we do best? Why don’t you allow us to do the research in a controlled setting with a carefully, properly selected group of patients without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency and see where we’re at?

Let’s compare it against placebo. If that’s not ethical, let’s compare it against active comparators — God knows we have 15-20 drugs we can use — and let’s see where we’re at. Ken has been nothing short of superb when it comes to evidence. Let us put the evidence together.

Dr. Milne: If there were concerns decades ago, those need to be addressed. As science is iterative and as other information becomes available, the scientific method would say, Let’s reexamine this and let’s reexamine our position, and do that with evidence. To do that, it has to have validity within the US system. Someone like you doing the research, you are a pain research guru; you should be doing this research to say, “Does it work or not? Does this nonapproval still stand today in 2024?”

Dr. Motov: Thank you for the shout-out, and I agree with you. All of us, those who are interested, on the frontiers of emergency care — as present clinicians — we should be doing this. There is nothing that will convince the FDA more than properly and rightly conducted research, time to reassess the evidence, and time to be less rigid. I understand that you placed a ban 20 years ago, but let’s go with the science. We cannot be behind it.

Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Methoxyflurane

Dr. Milne: There was an Austrian study in 2022 and a very interesting study out of the UK looking at life-cycle impact assessment on the environment. If we’re not just concerned about patient care —obviously, we want to provide patients with a safe and effective product, compared with other products that are available that might not have as good a safety profile — this looks at the impact on the environment.

Dr. Glatter: Ken, can you tell me about some of your recent research regarding the environmental effects related to use of Penthrox, but also its utility pharmacologically and its mechanism of action?

Dr. Milne: There was a really interesting study published this year by Martindale in the Emergency Medicine Journal. It took a different approach to this question about could we be using this drug, and why should we be using this drug? Sergey and I have already talked about the potential benefits and the potential harms. I mentioned opioids and some of the concerns about that. For this drug, if we’re using it in the prehospital setting in this little green whistle, the potential benefits look really good, and we haven’t seen any of the potential harms come through in the literature.

This was another line of evidence of why this might be a good drug, because of the environmental impact of this low-dose methoxyflurane. They compared it with nitrous oxide and said, “Well, what about the life-cycle impact on the environment of using this and the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impacts?”

Obviously, Sergey and I are interested in patient care, and we treat patients one at a time. But we have a larger responsibility to social determinants of health, like our environment. If you look at the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact of this drug, it was better than for nitrous oxide when looking specifically at climate-change impact. That might be another reason, another line of argument, that could be put forward in the United States to say, “We want to have a healthy environment and a healthy option for patients.”

I’ll let Sergey speak to mechanisms of action and those types of things.

Dr. Motov: As a general anesthetic and hydrocarbonated volatile ones, I’m just going to say that it causes this generalized diffuse cortical depression, and there are no particular channels, receptors, or enzymes we need to worry much about. In short, it’s an inhaled gas used to put patients or people to sleep.

Over the past 30 or 40 years — and I’ll go back to the past decade — there have been numerous studies in different countries (outside of the United States, of course), and with the recent study that Ken just cited, there were comparisons for managing predominantly acute traumatic injuries in pediatric and adult populations presenting to EDs in various regions of the world that compared Penthrox, or the green whistle, with either placebo or active comparators, which included parenteral opioids, oral opioids, and NSAIDs.

The recent systematic review by Fabbri, out of Italy, showed that for ultra–short-term pain — we’re talking about 5, 10, or 15 minutes — inhaled methoxyflurane was found to be equal or even superior to standard of care, primarily related to parenteral opioids, and safety was off the hook. Interestingly, with respect to analgesia, they found that geriatric patients seemed to be responding more, with respect to changing pain score, than younger adults — we’re talking about ages 18-64 vs 65 or older. Again, we need to make sure that we carefully select those elderly people without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency.

To wrap this up, there is evidence clearly supporting its analgesic efficacy and safety, even in comparison to commonly used and traditionally accepted analgesic modalities that we use for managing acute pain.

US Military Use and Implications for Civilian Practice

Dr. Glatter: Do you think that methoxyflurane’s use in the military will help propel its use in clinical settings in the US, and possibly convince the FDA to look at this closer? The military is currently using it in deployed combat veterans in an ongoing fashion.

Dr. Motov: I’m excited that the Department of Defense in the United States has taken the lead, and they’re being very progressive. There are data that we’ve adapted to the civilian environment by use of intranasal opioids and intranasal ketamine with more doctors who came out of the military. In the military, it’s a kingdom within a kingdom. I don’t know their relationship with the FDA, but I support the military’s pharmacologic initiative by honoring and disseminating their research once it becomes available.

For us nonmilitary folks, we still need to work with the FDA. We need to convince the FDA to let us study the drug, and then we need to pile the evidence within the United States so that the FDA will start looking at this favorably. It wouldn’t hurt and it wouldn’t harm. Any piece of evidence will add to the existing body of literature that we need to allow this medication to be available to us.

Safety Considerations and Aerosolization Concerns

Dr. Glatter: Its safety in children is well established in Australia and throughout the world. I think it deserves a careful look, and the evidence that you’ve both presented argues for the use of this prehospital but also in hospital. I guess there was concern in the hospital with underventilation and healthcare workers being exposed to the fumes, and then getting headaches, dizziness, and so forth. I don’t know if that’s borne out, Ken, in any of your experience in Canada at all.

Dr. Milne: We currently don’t have it in our shop. It’s being used in British Columbia right now in the prehospital setting, and I’m not aware of anybody using it in their department. It’s used prehospital as far as I know.

Dr. Motov: I can attest to it, if I may, because I had familiarized myself with the device. I actually was able to hold it in my hands. I have not used it yet but I had the prototype. The way it’s set up, there is an activated charcoal chamber that sits right on top of the device, which serves as the scavenger for exhaled air that contains particles of methoxyflurane. In theory, but I’m telling how it is in practicality, it significantly reduces occupational exposure, based on data that lacks specifics.

Although most of the researchers did not measure the concentration of methoxyflurane in ambient air within the treatment room in the EDs, I believe the additional data sources clearly stating that it’s within or even below the detectable level that would cause any harm. Once again, we need to honor pathology. We need to make sure that pregnant women will not be exposed to it.

Dr. Milne: In 2024, we also need to be concerned about aerosolizing procedures and aerosolizing treatments, and just take that into account because we should be considering all the potential benefits and all the potential harms. Going through the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern about transmission and whether or not it was droplet or aerosolized.

There was an observational study published in 2022 in Austria by Trimmel in BMC Emergency Medicine showing similar results. It seemed to work well and potential harms didn’t get picked up. They had to stop the study early because of COVID-19.

We need to always focus in on the potential benefits, the potential harms; where does the science land? Where do the data lie? Then we move forward from that and make informed decisions.

Final Thoughts

Dr. Glatter: Are there any key takeaways you’d like to share with our audience?

Dr. Milne: One of the takeaways from this whole conversation is that science is iterative and science changes. When new evidence becomes available, and we’ve seen it accumulate around the world, we as scientists, as a researcher, as somebody committed to great patient care should revisit our positions on this. Since there is a prohibition against this medication, I think it’s time to reassess that stance and move forward to see if it still is accurate today.

Dr. Motov: I wholeheartedly agree with this. Thank you, Ken, for bringing this up. Good point.

Dr. Glatter: This has been a really informative discussion. I think our audience will certainly embrace this. Thank you very much for your time; it’s much appreciated.
 

Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical adviser for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Dr. Milne is an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM). Dr. Motov is professor of emergency medicine and director of research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is passionate about safe and effective pain management in the emergency department, and has numerous publications on the subject of opioid alternatives in pain management. Dr. Glatter, Dr. Milne, and Dr. Motov had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on March 29, 2024. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Joining me today to discuss the use of methoxyflurane (Penthrox), an inhaled nonopioid analgesic for the relief of acute pain, is Dr. William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM).

Also joining me is Dr. Sergey Motov, an emergency physician and research director at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an expert in pain management. I want to welcome both of you and thank you for joining me.
 

RAMPED Trial: Evaluating the Efficacy of Methoxyflurane

Dr. Glatter: Ken, your recent post on Twitter [now X] regarding the utility of Penthrox in the RAMPED trial really caught my attention. While the trial was from 2021, it really is relevant regarding the prehospital management of pain in the practice of emergency medicine, and certainly in-hospital practice. I was hoping you could review the study design but also get into the rationale behind the use of this novel agent.

William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, MD, MSc: Sure. I’d be happy to kick this episode off with talking about a study that was published in 2020 in Academic Emergency Medicine. It was an Australian study by Brichko et al., and they were doing a randomized controlled trial looking at methoxyflurane vs standard care.

They selected out a population of adults, which they defined as 18-75 years of age. They were in the prehospital setting and they had a pain score of greater than 8. They gave the participants methoxyflurane, which is also called the “green whistle.” They had the subjects take that for their prehospital pain, and they compared that with whatever your standard analgesic in the prehospital setting would be.

Their primary outcome was how many patients had at least 50% reduction in their pain score within 30 minutes. They recruited about 120 people, and they found that there was no statistical difference in the primary outcome between methoxyflurane and standard care. Again, that primary outcome was a reduction in pain score by greater than 50% at 30 minutes, and there wasn’t a statistical difference between the two.

There are obviously limits to any study, and it was a convenience sample. This was an unmasked trial, so people knew if they were getting this green whistle, which is popular in Australia. People would be familiar with this device, and they didn’t compare it with a sham or placebo group.

Pharmacology of Penthrox: Its Role and Mechanism of Action

Dr. Glatter: The primary outcome wasn’t met, but certainly secondary outcomes were. There was, again, a relatively small number of patients in this trial. That said, there was significant pain relief. I think there are issues with the trial, as with any trial limitations.

Getting to the pharmacology of Penthrox, can you describe this inhaled anesthetic and how we use it, specifically its role at the subanesthetic doses?

Sergey M. Motov, MD: Methoxyflurane is embedded in the green whistle package, and that whole contraption is called Penthrox. It’s an inhaled volatile fluorinated hydrocarbon anesthetic that was predominantly used, I’d say 40, 50 years ago, for general anesthesia and slowly but surely fell out of favor due to the fact that, when used for prolonged duration or in supratherapeutic doses, there were cases of severe or even fatal nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.

In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, all the fluranes came on board that are slightly different as general anesthetics, and methoxyflurane started slowly falling out of favor. Because of this paucity and then a subsequent slightly greater number of cases of nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity, [the US Food and Drug Administration] FDA made a decision to pull the drug off the market in 2005. FDA successfully accomplished its mission and since then has pretty much banned the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in any shape, form, or color in the United States.

Going back to the green whistle, it has been used in Australia probably for about 50-60 years, and has been used in Europe for probably 10-20 years. Ken can attest that it has been used in Canada for at least a decade and the track record is phenomenal.

We are using subanesthetic, even supratherapeutic doses that, based on available literature, has no incidence of this fatal hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity. We’re talking about 10 million doses administered worldwide, except in the United States. There are 40-plus randomized clinical trials with over 30,000 patients enrolled that prove efficacy and safety.

That’s where we are right now, in a conundrum. We have a great deal of data all over the world, except in the United States, that push for the use of this noninvasive, patient-controlled nonopioid inhaled anesthetic. We just don’t have the access in North America, with the exception of Canada.

Regulatory Hurdles: Challenges in FDA Approval

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The FDA wants to be cautious, but if you look at the evidence base of data on this, it really indicates otherwise. Do you think that these roadblocks can be somehow overcome?

Dr. Milne: In the 2000s and 2010s, everybody was focused on opioids and all the dangers and potential adverse events. Opioids are great drugs like many other drugs; it depends on dose and duration. If used properly, it’s an excellent drug. Well, here’s another excellent drug if it’s used properly, and the adverse events are dependent on their dose and duration. Penthrox, or methoxyflurane, is a subtherapeutic, small dose and there have been no reported cases of addiction or abuse related to these inhalers.

Dr. Glatter: That argues for the point — and I’ll turn this over to you, Sergey — of how can this not, in my mind, be an issue that the FDA can overcome.

Dr. Motov: I agree with you. It’s very hard for me to speak on behalf of the FDA, to allude to their thinking processes, but we need to be up to speed with the evidence. The first thing is, why don’t you study the drug in the United States? I’m not asking you to lift the ban, which you put in 2005, but why don’t you honor what has been done over two decades and at least open the door a little bit and let us do what we do best? Why don’t you allow us to do the research in a controlled setting with a carefully, properly selected group of patients without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency and see where we’re at?

Let’s compare it against placebo. If that’s not ethical, let’s compare it against active comparators — God knows we have 15-20 drugs we can use — and let’s see where we’re at. Ken has been nothing short of superb when it comes to evidence. Let us put the evidence together.

Dr. Milne: If there were concerns decades ago, those need to be addressed. As science is iterative and as other information becomes available, the scientific method would say, Let’s reexamine this and let’s reexamine our position, and do that with evidence. To do that, it has to have validity within the US system. Someone like you doing the research, you are a pain research guru; you should be doing this research to say, “Does it work or not? Does this nonapproval still stand today in 2024?”

Dr. Motov: Thank you for the shout-out, and I agree with you. All of us, those who are interested, on the frontiers of emergency care — as present clinicians — we should be doing this. There is nothing that will convince the FDA more than properly and rightly conducted research, time to reassess the evidence, and time to be less rigid. I understand that you placed a ban 20 years ago, but let’s go with the science. We cannot be behind it.

Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Methoxyflurane

Dr. Milne: There was an Austrian study in 2022 and a very interesting study out of the UK looking at life-cycle impact assessment on the environment. If we’re not just concerned about patient care —obviously, we want to provide patients with a safe and effective product, compared with other products that are available that might not have as good a safety profile — this looks at the impact on the environment.

Dr. Glatter: Ken, can you tell me about some of your recent research regarding the environmental effects related to use of Penthrox, but also its utility pharmacologically and its mechanism of action?

Dr. Milne: There was a really interesting study published this year by Martindale in the Emergency Medicine Journal. It took a different approach to this question about could we be using this drug, and why should we be using this drug? Sergey and I have already talked about the potential benefits and the potential harms. I mentioned opioids and some of the concerns about that. For this drug, if we’re using it in the prehospital setting in this little green whistle, the potential benefits look really good, and we haven’t seen any of the potential harms come through in the literature.

This was another line of evidence of why this might be a good drug, because of the environmental impact of this low-dose methoxyflurane. They compared it with nitrous oxide and said, “Well, what about the life-cycle impact on the environment of using this and the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impacts?”

Obviously, Sergey and I are interested in patient care, and we treat patients one at a time. But we have a larger responsibility to social determinants of health, like our environment. If you look at the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact of this drug, it was better than for nitrous oxide when looking specifically at climate-change impact. That might be another reason, another line of argument, that could be put forward in the United States to say, “We want to have a healthy environment and a healthy option for patients.”

I’ll let Sergey speak to mechanisms of action and those types of things.

Dr. Motov: As a general anesthetic and hydrocarbonated volatile ones, I’m just going to say that it causes this generalized diffuse cortical depression, and there are no particular channels, receptors, or enzymes we need to worry much about. In short, it’s an inhaled gas used to put patients or people to sleep.

Over the past 30 or 40 years — and I’ll go back to the past decade — there have been numerous studies in different countries (outside of the United States, of course), and with the recent study that Ken just cited, there were comparisons for managing predominantly acute traumatic injuries in pediatric and adult populations presenting to EDs in various regions of the world that compared Penthrox, or the green whistle, with either placebo or active comparators, which included parenteral opioids, oral opioids, and NSAIDs.

The recent systematic review by Fabbri, out of Italy, showed that for ultra–short-term pain — we’re talking about 5, 10, or 15 minutes — inhaled methoxyflurane was found to be equal or even superior to standard of care, primarily related to parenteral opioids, and safety was off the hook. Interestingly, with respect to analgesia, they found that geriatric patients seemed to be responding more, with respect to changing pain score, than younger adults — we’re talking about ages 18-64 vs 65 or older. Again, we need to make sure that we carefully select those elderly people without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency.

To wrap this up, there is evidence clearly supporting its analgesic efficacy and safety, even in comparison to commonly used and traditionally accepted analgesic modalities that we use for managing acute pain.

US Military Use and Implications for Civilian Practice

Dr. Glatter: Do you think that methoxyflurane’s use in the military will help propel its use in clinical settings in the US, and possibly convince the FDA to look at this closer? The military is currently using it in deployed combat veterans in an ongoing fashion.

Dr. Motov: I’m excited that the Department of Defense in the United States has taken the lead, and they’re being very progressive. There are data that we’ve adapted to the civilian environment by use of intranasal opioids and intranasal ketamine with more doctors who came out of the military. In the military, it’s a kingdom within a kingdom. I don’t know their relationship with the FDA, but I support the military’s pharmacologic initiative by honoring and disseminating their research once it becomes available.

For us nonmilitary folks, we still need to work with the FDA. We need to convince the FDA to let us study the drug, and then we need to pile the evidence within the United States so that the FDA will start looking at this favorably. It wouldn’t hurt and it wouldn’t harm. Any piece of evidence will add to the existing body of literature that we need to allow this medication to be available to us.

Safety Considerations and Aerosolization Concerns

Dr. Glatter: Its safety in children is well established in Australia and throughout the world. I think it deserves a careful look, and the evidence that you’ve both presented argues for the use of this prehospital but also in hospital. I guess there was concern in the hospital with underventilation and healthcare workers being exposed to the fumes, and then getting headaches, dizziness, and so forth. I don’t know if that’s borne out, Ken, in any of your experience in Canada at all.

Dr. Milne: We currently don’t have it in our shop. It’s being used in British Columbia right now in the prehospital setting, and I’m not aware of anybody using it in their department. It’s used prehospital as far as I know.

Dr. Motov: I can attest to it, if I may, because I had familiarized myself with the device. I actually was able to hold it in my hands. I have not used it yet but I had the prototype. The way it’s set up, there is an activated charcoal chamber that sits right on top of the device, which serves as the scavenger for exhaled air that contains particles of methoxyflurane. In theory, but I’m telling how it is in practicality, it significantly reduces occupational exposure, based on data that lacks specifics.

Although most of the researchers did not measure the concentration of methoxyflurane in ambient air within the treatment room in the EDs, I believe the additional data sources clearly stating that it’s within or even below the detectable level that would cause any harm. Once again, we need to honor pathology. We need to make sure that pregnant women will not be exposed to it.

Dr. Milne: In 2024, we also need to be concerned about aerosolizing procedures and aerosolizing treatments, and just take that into account because we should be considering all the potential benefits and all the potential harms. Going through the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern about transmission and whether or not it was droplet or aerosolized.

There was an observational study published in 2022 in Austria by Trimmel in BMC Emergency Medicine showing similar results. It seemed to work well and potential harms didn’t get picked up. They had to stop the study early because of COVID-19.

We need to always focus in on the potential benefits, the potential harms; where does the science land? Where do the data lie? Then we move forward from that and make informed decisions.

Final Thoughts

Dr. Glatter: Are there any key takeaways you’d like to share with our audience?

Dr. Milne: One of the takeaways from this whole conversation is that science is iterative and science changes. When new evidence becomes available, and we’ve seen it accumulate around the world, we as scientists, as a researcher, as somebody committed to great patient care should revisit our positions on this. Since there is a prohibition against this medication, I think it’s time to reassess that stance and move forward to see if it still is accurate today.

Dr. Motov: I wholeheartedly agree with this. Thank you, Ken, for bringing this up. Good point.

Dr. Glatter: This has been a really informative discussion. I think our audience will certainly embrace this. Thank you very much for your time; it’s much appreciated.
 

Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical adviser for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Dr. Milne is an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM). Dr. Motov is professor of emergency medicine and director of research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is passionate about safe and effective pain management in the emergency department, and has numerous publications on the subject of opioid alternatives in pain management. Dr. Glatter, Dr. Milne, and Dr. Motov had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

Most people experiencing homelessness have mental health disorders, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In an examination of studies that included nearly 50,000 participants, the current prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 67% and the lifetime prevalence was 77%.

“The relationship is likely bidirectional, where experiencing homelessness may exacerbate mental health symptoms or where having a mental health disorder may increase an individual’s risk for experiencing homelessness,” lead author Rebecca Barry, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told this news organization. 

“There are also likely stressors that increase both risk for homelessness and risk for developing mental health disorders. This study examines prevalence but does not examine causal relationships,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A Growing Problem 

To determine the current and lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders among the homeless population, the researchers analyzed 85 studies that examined this question in participants aged ≥ 18 years. The review included 48,414 participants, including 11,154 (23%) women and 37,260 (77%) men.

The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders was significantly higher in men experiencing homelessness (86%) than in women (69%). The most common mental health disorder was substance use disorder (44%), followed by antisocial personality disorder (26%), major depression (19%), bipolar disorder (8%), and schizophrenia (7%).

The prevalence of current and lifetime mental health disorders among the homeless population was higher than that that observed in the general population (13%-15% and 12%-47%, respectively).

The results resembled those of a previous review that estimated that 76% of people experiencing homelessness living in high-income countries have mental health disorders.

“Even though our results are not surprising, they still are drawing attention to this issue because it is a big problem in Canada, the United States, Europe, and other places,” senior author Dallas Seitz, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The problem is concerning, and it’s not getting better. Addiction and mental health problems are becoming more common among people who are homeless.” 

The bottom line is that people need affordable housing and mental health support, said Dr. Seitz. “It’s a housing problem and a health problem, and we need adequate resources to find better ways for those two systems to collaborate. There are public safety concerns, and we have to try and bring services to people experiencing homelessness. You have to come and meet people where they’re at. You have to try and establish a trusting relationship so that we can get people on the path to recovery.”
 

‘It’s Really About Income’ 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Stephen Hwang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “There have been previous studies of this type, but it is good to have an updated one.” Dr. Hwang, who is also chair in Homelessness, Housing, and Health at St. Michael’s Hospital, did not participate in the research. 

The findings must be understood in the proper context, he added. For one thing, grouping together all mental health disorders and giving a single prevalence figure can be misleading. “They are including in that category a diverse group of conditions. Substance use disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, and depression are all lumped together. The 67% prevalence seems very high, but it is a combination of many different conditions. I just don’t want people to look at that number and think that this means that everyone is a substance user or everyone has schizophrenia,” said Dr. Hwang. 

Also, some readers might interpret the findings to mean that mental problems are the reason people are homeless, he added. “That would be an incorrect interpretation because what this study is showing is that people with mental health disorders have a higher risk for becoming homeless. It doesn’t mean that it caused their homelessness. What really causes homelessness is a lack of affordable housing,” said Dr. Hwang.

“In a city or community where housing is very expensive, there’s not enough for everyone to be housed, there is a lot of competition for housing, and there’s not enough affordable housing for a number of reasons, we know that people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders will be among the first to lose their housing,” he said.

“It’s really about income. There are many reasons why a person cannot afford housing. So, not being able to earn enough money to afford it because you have a mental health disorder or substance use disorder is a common underlying reason for homelessness.”

Dr. Hwang also pointed out that people with mental illness who can access support, either through family members or through mental health care, and who also have the income to afford such services do not become homeless.

“Schizophrenia is seen in every population of the world at a rate of 1%. But you travel to certain cities and you see people who appear to have schizophrenia wandering the streets, and you go to other cities in the world and you don’t see anyone who looks like they’re homeless and have schizophrenia,” he said. 

“It’s not because there are fewer people with schizophrenia in those cities or countries; it’s because people with schizophrenia are treated differently. The rate of homelessness is determined not by how many people have that condition [eg, schizophrenia] but by how we treat those people and how we set up our society to either support or not support people who have disabilities.”

The study was funded by the Precision Care With Information, Science and Experience – Mental Health grant funded by the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Barry is supported by the Harley Hotchkiss Samuel Weiss Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary. Dr. Barry reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seitz reported grants from Calgary Health Foundation during the conduct of the study as well as grants from University Health Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. He received honoraria for guideline development from the Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Hwang reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people experiencing homelessness have mental health disorders, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In an examination of studies that included nearly 50,000 participants, the current prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 67% and the lifetime prevalence was 77%.

“The relationship is likely bidirectional, where experiencing homelessness may exacerbate mental health symptoms or where having a mental health disorder may increase an individual’s risk for experiencing homelessness,” lead author Rebecca Barry, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told this news organization. 

“There are also likely stressors that increase both risk for homelessness and risk for developing mental health disorders. This study examines prevalence but does not examine causal relationships,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A Growing Problem 

To determine the current and lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders among the homeless population, the researchers analyzed 85 studies that examined this question in participants aged ≥ 18 years. The review included 48,414 participants, including 11,154 (23%) women and 37,260 (77%) men.

The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders was significantly higher in men experiencing homelessness (86%) than in women (69%). The most common mental health disorder was substance use disorder (44%), followed by antisocial personality disorder (26%), major depression (19%), bipolar disorder (8%), and schizophrenia (7%).

The prevalence of current and lifetime mental health disorders among the homeless population was higher than that that observed in the general population (13%-15% and 12%-47%, respectively).

The results resembled those of a previous review that estimated that 76% of people experiencing homelessness living in high-income countries have mental health disorders.

“Even though our results are not surprising, they still are drawing attention to this issue because it is a big problem in Canada, the United States, Europe, and other places,” senior author Dallas Seitz, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The problem is concerning, and it’s not getting better. Addiction and mental health problems are becoming more common among people who are homeless.” 

The bottom line is that people need affordable housing and mental health support, said Dr. Seitz. “It’s a housing problem and a health problem, and we need adequate resources to find better ways for those two systems to collaborate. There are public safety concerns, and we have to try and bring services to people experiencing homelessness. You have to come and meet people where they’re at. You have to try and establish a trusting relationship so that we can get people on the path to recovery.”
 

‘It’s Really About Income’ 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Stephen Hwang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “There have been previous studies of this type, but it is good to have an updated one.” Dr. Hwang, who is also chair in Homelessness, Housing, and Health at St. Michael’s Hospital, did not participate in the research. 

The findings must be understood in the proper context, he added. For one thing, grouping together all mental health disorders and giving a single prevalence figure can be misleading. “They are including in that category a diverse group of conditions. Substance use disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, and depression are all lumped together. The 67% prevalence seems very high, but it is a combination of many different conditions. I just don’t want people to look at that number and think that this means that everyone is a substance user or everyone has schizophrenia,” said Dr. Hwang. 

Also, some readers might interpret the findings to mean that mental problems are the reason people are homeless, he added. “That would be an incorrect interpretation because what this study is showing is that people with mental health disorders have a higher risk for becoming homeless. It doesn’t mean that it caused their homelessness. What really causes homelessness is a lack of affordable housing,” said Dr. Hwang.

“In a city or community where housing is very expensive, there’s not enough for everyone to be housed, there is a lot of competition for housing, and there’s not enough affordable housing for a number of reasons, we know that people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders will be among the first to lose their housing,” he said.

“It’s really about income. There are many reasons why a person cannot afford housing. So, not being able to earn enough money to afford it because you have a mental health disorder or substance use disorder is a common underlying reason for homelessness.”

Dr. Hwang also pointed out that people with mental illness who can access support, either through family members or through mental health care, and who also have the income to afford such services do not become homeless.

“Schizophrenia is seen in every population of the world at a rate of 1%. But you travel to certain cities and you see people who appear to have schizophrenia wandering the streets, and you go to other cities in the world and you don’t see anyone who looks like they’re homeless and have schizophrenia,” he said. 

“It’s not because there are fewer people with schizophrenia in those cities or countries; it’s because people with schizophrenia are treated differently. The rate of homelessness is determined not by how many people have that condition [eg, schizophrenia] but by how we treat those people and how we set up our society to either support or not support people who have disabilities.”

The study was funded by the Precision Care With Information, Science and Experience – Mental Health grant funded by the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Barry is supported by the Harley Hotchkiss Samuel Weiss Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary. Dr. Barry reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seitz reported grants from Calgary Health Foundation during the conduct of the study as well as grants from University Health Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. He received honoraria for guideline development from the Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Hwang reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people experiencing homelessness have mental health disorders, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In an examination of studies that included nearly 50,000 participants, the current prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 67% and the lifetime prevalence was 77%.

“The relationship is likely bidirectional, where experiencing homelessness may exacerbate mental health symptoms or where having a mental health disorder may increase an individual’s risk for experiencing homelessness,” lead author Rebecca Barry, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told this news organization. 

“There are also likely stressors that increase both risk for homelessness and risk for developing mental health disorders. This study examines prevalence but does not examine causal relationships,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A Growing Problem 

To determine the current and lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders among the homeless population, the researchers analyzed 85 studies that examined this question in participants aged ≥ 18 years. The review included 48,414 participants, including 11,154 (23%) women and 37,260 (77%) men.

The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders was significantly higher in men experiencing homelessness (86%) than in women (69%). The most common mental health disorder was substance use disorder (44%), followed by antisocial personality disorder (26%), major depression (19%), bipolar disorder (8%), and schizophrenia (7%).

The prevalence of current and lifetime mental health disorders among the homeless population was higher than that that observed in the general population (13%-15% and 12%-47%, respectively).

The results resembled those of a previous review that estimated that 76% of people experiencing homelessness living in high-income countries have mental health disorders.

“Even though our results are not surprising, they still are drawing attention to this issue because it is a big problem in Canada, the United States, Europe, and other places,” senior author Dallas Seitz, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The problem is concerning, and it’s not getting better. Addiction and mental health problems are becoming more common among people who are homeless.” 

The bottom line is that people need affordable housing and mental health support, said Dr. Seitz. “It’s a housing problem and a health problem, and we need adequate resources to find better ways for those two systems to collaborate. There are public safety concerns, and we have to try and bring services to people experiencing homelessness. You have to come and meet people where they’re at. You have to try and establish a trusting relationship so that we can get people on the path to recovery.”
 

‘It’s Really About Income’ 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Stephen Hwang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “There have been previous studies of this type, but it is good to have an updated one.” Dr. Hwang, who is also chair in Homelessness, Housing, and Health at St. Michael’s Hospital, did not participate in the research. 

The findings must be understood in the proper context, he added. For one thing, grouping together all mental health disorders and giving a single prevalence figure can be misleading. “They are including in that category a diverse group of conditions. Substance use disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, and depression are all lumped together. The 67% prevalence seems very high, but it is a combination of many different conditions. I just don’t want people to look at that number and think that this means that everyone is a substance user or everyone has schizophrenia,” said Dr. Hwang. 

Also, some readers might interpret the findings to mean that mental problems are the reason people are homeless, he added. “That would be an incorrect interpretation because what this study is showing is that people with mental health disorders have a higher risk for becoming homeless. It doesn’t mean that it caused their homelessness. What really causes homelessness is a lack of affordable housing,” said Dr. Hwang.

“In a city or community where housing is very expensive, there’s not enough for everyone to be housed, there is a lot of competition for housing, and there’s not enough affordable housing for a number of reasons, we know that people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders will be among the first to lose their housing,” he said.

“It’s really about income. There are many reasons why a person cannot afford housing. So, not being able to earn enough money to afford it because you have a mental health disorder or substance use disorder is a common underlying reason for homelessness.”

Dr. Hwang also pointed out that people with mental illness who can access support, either through family members or through mental health care, and who also have the income to afford such services do not become homeless.

“Schizophrenia is seen in every population of the world at a rate of 1%. But you travel to certain cities and you see people who appear to have schizophrenia wandering the streets, and you go to other cities in the world and you don’t see anyone who looks like they’re homeless and have schizophrenia,” he said. 

“It’s not because there are fewer people with schizophrenia in those cities or countries; it’s because people with schizophrenia are treated differently. The rate of homelessness is determined not by how many people have that condition [eg, schizophrenia] but by how we treat those people and how we set up our society to either support or not support people who have disabilities.”

The study was funded by the Precision Care With Information, Science and Experience – Mental Health grant funded by the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Barry is supported by the Harley Hotchkiss Samuel Weiss Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary. Dr. Barry reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seitz reported grants from Calgary Health Foundation during the conduct of the study as well as grants from University Health Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. He received honoraria for guideline development from the Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Hwang reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.

In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).

“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.

“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”

These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:

• Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
• Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
• Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
• The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.

Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career

According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.

In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.

Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).

“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.

In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).

“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.

“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”

These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:

• Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
• Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
• Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
• The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.

Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career

According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.

In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.

Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).

“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Insane hours and work-driven burnout are increasingly pernicious forces in medical workplaces. They apparently also are helping steer more physicians toward locum tenens, or temporary, assignments.

In its “2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals,” Coppell, Texas–based staffing firm AMN Healthcare asked doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants why they chose locum tenens work.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

The reason chosen most often is improving work hours. Eighty-six percent of respondents said that was the “most important” or a “moderately important” factor. Next was addressing work burnout (80% of respondents), followed by unhappiness with compensation (75%), and dissatisfaction with being a full-time employee (71%).

“During the COVID pandemic, healthcare professionals began to rethink how, when, and where they work,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division, adding that he estimates about 52,000 US physicians now work on a locum tenens basis.

“Locum tenens offers relief from the long, inflexible work hours and onerous bureaucratic duties that often cause dissatisfaction and burnout among physicians and other healthcare providers.”

These feelings of dissatisfaction dovetail with findings in recent reports by this news organization based on surveys of physicians about burnout and employment. For example:

• Forty-nine percent of physicians acknowledged feeling burned out, up from 42% 6 years earlier.
• Eighty-three percent of doctors attributed their burnout and/or depression to the job entirely or most of the time.
• Flexibility in work schedules was one of the improvements chosen most often as a potential aid to burnout.
• The leading reasons cited for burnout were the number of bureaucratic tasks and too many hours at work.

Trying Locum Tenens Early in Career

According to AMN Healthcare, 81% of the physicians and APPs in its latest survey said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. Only 19% waited until after retiring from medicine compared with 36% in AMN Healthcare’s 2016 survey.

In the 2024 report, a strong plurality of respondents (47%) said they found locum tenens work more satisfying than permanent healthcare employment. Twelve percent said the opposite, and 30% found the choices about equal.

Even so, it doesn’t appear that locum tenens represents a permanent career path for many. About as many (45%) of physicians and APPs said they would return to full-time employment if progress were made with conditions like hours and burnout, as said they would not (43%).

“Many physicians and other healthcare professionals feel they are being pushed from permanent positions by unsatisfactory work conditions,” Mr. Decker said. “To get them back, employers should offer practice conditions that appeal to today’s providers.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical innovations don’t happen overnight — but in today’s digital world, they happen pretty fast. Some are advancing faster than you think.

We’re not talking theory or hoped-for breakthroughs in the next decade. These technologies are already a reality for many doctors and expected to grow rapidly in the next 1-3 years.

Are you ready? Let’s find out.

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Scribes

You may already be using this or, at the very least, have heard about it.

Physician burnout is a growing problem, with many doctors spending 2 hours on paperwork for every hour with patients. But some doctors, such as Gregory Ator, MD, chief medical informatics officer at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, have found a better way.

“I have been using it for 9 months now, and it truly is a life changer,” Dr. Ator said of Abridge, an AI helper that transcribes and summarizes his conversations with patients. “Now, I go into the room, place my phone just about anywhere, and I can just listen.” He estimated that the tech saves him between 3 and 10 minutes per patient. “At 20 patients a day, that saves me around 2 hours,” he said.

Bonus: Patients “get a doctor’s full attention instead of just looking at the top of his head while they play with the computer,” Dr. Ator said. “I have yet to have a patient who didn’t think that was a positive thing.”

Several companies are already selling these AI devices, including Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, Nuance, and Suki, and they offer more than just transcriptions, said John D. Halamka, MD, president of Mayo Clinic Platform, who oversees Mayo’s adoption of AI. They also generate notes for treatment and billing and update data in the electronic health record.

“It’s preparation of documentation based on ambient listening of doctor-patient conversations,” Dr. Halamka explained. “I’m very optimistic about the use of emerging AI technologies to enable every clinician to practice at the top of their license.”

Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford Health Care, has spent much of the last year co-running the medical center’s pilot program for AI scribes, and she’s so impressed with the technology that she “expects it’ll become more widely available as an option for any clinician that wants to use it in the next 12-18 months.”

2. Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing

Although 3D-printed organs may not happen anytime soon, the future is here for some 3D-printed prosthetics and implants — everything from dentures to spinal implants to prosthetic fingers and noses.

“In the next few years, I see rapid growth in the use of 3D printing technology across orthopedic surgery,” said Rishin J. Kadakia, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta. “It’s becoming more common not just at large academic institutions. More and more providers will turn to using 3D printing technology to help tackle challenging cases that previously did not have good solutions.”

Dr. Kadakia has experienced this firsthand with his patients at the Emory Orthopaedics & Spine Center. One female patient developed talar avascular necrosis due to a bone break she’d sustained in a serious car crash. An ankle and subtalar joint fusion would repair the damage but limit her mobility and change her gait. So instead, in August of 2021, Dr. Kadakia and fellow orthopedic surgeon Jason Bariteau, MD, created for her a 3D-printed cobalt chrome talus implant.

“It provided an opportunity for her to keep her ankle’s range of motion, and also mobilize faster than with a subtalar and ankle joint fusion,” said Dr. Kadakia.

The technology is also playing a role in customized medical devices — patient-specific tools for greater precision — and 3D-printed anatomical models, built to the exact specifications of individual patients. Mayo Clinic already has 3D modeling units in three states, and other hospitals are following suit. The models not only help doctors prepare for complicated surgeries but also can dramatically cut down on costs. A 2021 study from Durham University reported that 3D models helped reduce surgery time by between 1.5 and 2.5 hours in lengthy procedures.

3. Drones

For patients who can’t make it to a pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, either because of distance or lack of transportation, drones — which can deliver medications onto a customer’s back yard or front porch — offer a compelling solution.

Several companies and hospitals are already experimenting with drones, like WellSpan Health in Pennsylvania, Amazon Pharmacy, and the Cleveland Clinic, which announced a partnership with drone delivery company Zipline and plans to begin prescription deliveries across Northeast Ohio by 2025.

Healthcare systems are just beginning to explore the potential of drone deliveries, for everything from lab samples to medical and surgical supplies — even defibrillators that could arrive at an ailing patient’s front door before an emergency medical technician arrives.

“For many providers, when you take a sample from a patient, that sample waits around for hours until a courier picks up all of the facility’s samples and drives them to an outside facility for processing,” said Hillary Brendzel, head of Zipline’s US Healthcare Practice.

According to a 2022 survey from American Nurse Journal, 71% of nurses said that medical courier delays and errors negatively affected their ability to provide patient care. But with drone delivery, “lab samples can be sent for processing immediately, on-demand, resulting in faster diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately better outcomes,” said Ms. Brendzel.

4. Portable Ultrasound

Within the next 2 years, portable ultrasound — pocket-sized devices that connect to a smartphone or tablet — will become the “21st-century stethoscope,” said Abhilash Hareendranathan, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

AI can make these devices easy to use, allowing clinicians with minimal imaging training to capture clear images and understand the results. Dr. Hareendranathan developed the Ultrasound Arm Injury Detection tool, a portable ultrasound that uses AI to detect fracture.

“We plan to introduce this technology in emergency departments, where it could be used by triage nurses to perform quick examinations to detect fractures of the wrist, elbow, or shoulder,” he said.

More pocket-sized scanners like these could “reshape the way diagnostic care is provided in rural and remote communities,” Dr. Hareendranathan said, and will “reduce wait times in crowded emergency departments.” Bill Gates believes enough in portable ultrasound that last September, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted $44 million to GE HealthCare to develop the technology for under-resourced communities.

5. Virtual Reality (VR)

When RelieVRx became the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved VR therapy for chronic back pain in 2021, the technology was used in just a handful of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. But today, thousands of VR headsets have been deployed to more than 160 VA medical centers and clinics across the country.

“The VR experiences encompass pain neuroscience education, mindfulness, pleasant and relaxing distraction, and key skills to calm the nervous system,” said Beth Darnall, PhD, director of the Stanford Pain Relief Innovations Lab, who helped design the RelieVRx. She expects VR to go mainstream soon, not just because of increasing evidence that it works but also thanks to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which recently issued a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code for VR. “This billing infrastructure will encourage adoption and uptake,” she said.

Hundreds of hospitals across the United States have already adopted the technology, for everything from childbirth pain to wound debridement, said Josh Sackman, the president and cofounder of AppliedVR, the company that developed RelieVRx.

“Over the next few years, we may see hundreds more deploy unique applications [for VR] that can handle multiple clinical indications,” he said. “Given the modality’s ability to scale and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions, it has the power to improve the cost and quality of care.”

Hospital systems like Geisinger and Cedars-Sinai are already finding unique ways to implement the technology, he said, like using VR to reduce “scanxiety” during imaging service.

Other VR innovations are already being introduced, from the Smileyscope, a VR device for children that’s been proven to lessen the pain of a blood draw or intravenous insertion (it was cleared by the FDA last November) to several VR platforms launched by Cedars-Sinai in recent months, for applications that range from gastrointestinal issues to mental health therapy. “There may already be a thousand hospitals using VR in some capacity,” said Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical innovations don’t happen overnight — but in today’s digital world, they happen pretty fast. Some are advancing faster than you think.

We’re not talking theory or hoped-for breakthroughs in the next decade. These technologies are already a reality for many doctors and expected to grow rapidly in the next 1-3 years.

Are you ready? Let’s find out.

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Scribes

You may already be using this or, at the very least, have heard about it.

Physician burnout is a growing problem, with many doctors spending 2 hours on paperwork for every hour with patients. But some doctors, such as Gregory Ator, MD, chief medical informatics officer at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, have found a better way.

“I have been using it for 9 months now, and it truly is a life changer,” Dr. Ator said of Abridge, an AI helper that transcribes and summarizes his conversations with patients. “Now, I go into the room, place my phone just about anywhere, and I can just listen.” He estimated that the tech saves him between 3 and 10 minutes per patient. “At 20 patients a day, that saves me around 2 hours,” he said.

Bonus: Patients “get a doctor’s full attention instead of just looking at the top of his head while they play with the computer,” Dr. Ator said. “I have yet to have a patient who didn’t think that was a positive thing.”

Several companies are already selling these AI devices, including Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, Nuance, and Suki, and they offer more than just transcriptions, said John D. Halamka, MD, president of Mayo Clinic Platform, who oversees Mayo’s adoption of AI. They also generate notes for treatment and billing and update data in the electronic health record.

“It’s preparation of documentation based on ambient listening of doctor-patient conversations,” Dr. Halamka explained. “I’m very optimistic about the use of emerging AI technologies to enable every clinician to practice at the top of their license.”

Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford Health Care, has spent much of the last year co-running the medical center’s pilot program for AI scribes, and she’s so impressed with the technology that she “expects it’ll become more widely available as an option for any clinician that wants to use it in the next 12-18 months.”

2. Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing

Although 3D-printed organs may not happen anytime soon, the future is here for some 3D-printed prosthetics and implants — everything from dentures to spinal implants to prosthetic fingers and noses.

“In the next few years, I see rapid growth in the use of 3D printing technology across orthopedic surgery,” said Rishin J. Kadakia, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta. “It’s becoming more common not just at large academic institutions. More and more providers will turn to using 3D printing technology to help tackle challenging cases that previously did not have good solutions.”

Dr. Kadakia has experienced this firsthand with his patients at the Emory Orthopaedics & Spine Center. One female patient developed talar avascular necrosis due to a bone break she’d sustained in a serious car crash. An ankle and subtalar joint fusion would repair the damage but limit her mobility and change her gait. So instead, in August of 2021, Dr. Kadakia and fellow orthopedic surgeon Jason Bariteau, MD, created for her a 3D-printed cobalt chrome talus implant.

“It provided an opportunity for her to keep her ankle’s range of motion, and also mobilize faster than with a subtalar and ankle joint fusion,” said Dr. Kadakia.

The technology is also playing a role in customized medical devices — patient-specific tools for greater precision — and 3D-printed anatomical models, built to the exact specifications of individual patients. Mayo Clinic already has 3D modeling units in three states, and other hospitals are following suit. The models not only help doctors prepare for complicated surgeries but also can dramatically cut down on costs. A 2021 study from Durham University reported that 3D models helped reduce surgery time by between 1.5 and 2.5 hours in lengthy procedures.

3. Drones

For patients who can’t make it to a pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, either because of distance or lack of transportation, drones — which can deliver medications onto a customer’s back yard or front porch — offer a compelling solution.

Several companies and hospitals are already experimenting with drones, like WellSpan Health in Pennsylvania, Amazon Pharmacy, and the Cleveland Clinic, which announced a partnership with drone delivery company Zipline and plans to begin prescription deliveries across Northeast Ohio by 2025.

Healthcare systems are just beginning to explore the potential of drone deliveries, for everything from lab samples to medical and surgical supplies — even defibrillators that could arrive at an ailing patient’s front door before an emergency medical technician arrives.

“For many providers, when you take a sample from a patient, that sample waits around for hours until a courier picks up all of the facility’s samples and drives them to an outside facility for processing,” said Hillary Brendzel, head of Zipline’s US Healthcare Practice.

According to a 2022 survey from American Nurse Journal, 71% of nurses said that medical courier delays and errors negatively affected their ability to provide patient care. But with drone delivery, “lab samples can be sent for processing immediately, on-demand, resulting in faster diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately better outcomes,” said Ms. Brendzel.

4. Portable Ultrasound

Within the next 2 years, portable ultrasound — pocket-sized devices that connect to a smartphone or tablet — will become the “21st-century stethoscope,” said Abhilash Hareendranathan, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

AI can make these devices easy to use, allowing clinicians with minimal imaging training to capture clear images and understand the results. Dr. Hareendranathan developed the Ultrasound Arm Injury Detection tool, a portable ultrasound that uses AI to detect fracture.

“We plan to introduce this technology in emergency departments, where it could be used by triage nurses to perform quick examinations to detect fractures of the wrist, elbow, or shoulder,” he said.

More pocket-sized scanners like these could “reshape the way diagnostic care is provided in rural and remote communities,” Dr. Hareendranathan said, and will “reduce wait times in crowded emergency departments.” Bill Gates believes enough in portable ultrasound that last September, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted $44 million to GE HealthCare to develop the technology for under-resourced communities.

5. Virtual Reality (VR)

When RelieVRx became the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved VR therapy for chronic back pain in 2021, the technology was used in just a handful of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. But today, thousands of VR headsets have been deployed to more than 160 VA medical centers and clinics across the country.

“The VR experiences encompass pain neuroscience education, mindfulness, pleasant and relaxing distraction, and key skills to calm the nervous system,” said Beth Darnall, PhD, director of the Stanford Pain Relief Innovations Lab, who helped design the RelieVRx. She expects VR to go mainstream soon, not just because of increasing evidence that it works but also thanks to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which recently issued a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code for VR. “This billing infrastructure will encourage adoption and uptake,” she said.

Hundreds of hospitals across the United States have already adopted the technology, for everything from childbirth pain to wound debridement, said Josh Sackman, the president and cofounder of AppliedVR, the company that developed RelieVRx.

“Over the next few years, we may see hundreds more deploy unique applications [for VR] that can handle multiple clinical indications,” he said. “Given the modality’s ability to scale and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions, it has the power to improve the cost and quality of care.”

Hospital systems like Geisinger and Cedars-Sinai are already finding unique ways to implement the technology, he said, like using VR to reduce “scanxiety” during imaging service.

Other VR innovations are already being introduced, from the Smileyscope, a VR device for children that’s been proven to lessen the pain of a blood draw or intravenous insertion (it was cleared by the FDA last November) to several VR platforms launched by Cedars-Sinai in recent months, for applications that range from gastrointestinal issues to mental health therapy. “There may already be a thousand hospitals using VR in some capacity,” said Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical innovations don’t happen overnight — but in today’s digital world, they happen pretty fast. Some are advancing faster than you think.

We’re not talking theory or hoped-for breakthroughs in the next decade. These technologies are already a reality for many doctors and expected to grow rapidly in the next 1-3 years.

Are you ready? Let’s find out.

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Medical Scribes

You may already be using this or, at the very least, have heard about it.

Physician burnout is a growing problem, with many doctors spending 2 hours on paperwork for every hour with patients. But some doctors, such as Gregory Ator, MD, chief medical informatics officer at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, have found a better way.

“I have been using it for 9 months now, and it truly is a life changer,” Dr. Ator said of Abridge, an AI helper that transcribes and summarizes his conversations with patients. “Now, I go into the room, place my phone just about anywhere, and I can just listen.” He estimated that the tech saves him between 3 and 10 minutes per patient. “At 20 patients a day, that saves me around 2 hours,” he said.

Bonus: Patients “get a doctor’s full attention instead of just looking at the top of his head while they play with the computer,” Dr. Ator said. “I have yet to have a patient who didn’t think that was a positive thing.”

Several companies are already selling these AI devices, including Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, Nuance, and Suki, and they offer more than just transcriptions, said John D. Halamka, MD, president of Mayo Clinic Platform, who oversees Mayo’s adoption of AI. They also generate notes for treatment and billing and update data in the electronic health record.

“It’s preparation of documentation based on ambient listening of doctor-patient conversations,” Dr. Halamka explained. “I’m very optimistic about the use of emerging AI technologies to enable every clinician to practice at the top of their license.”

Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford Health Care, has spent much of the last year co-running the medical center’s pilot program for AI scribes, and she’s so impressed with the technology that she “expects it’ll become more widely available as an option for any clinician that wants to use it in the next 12-18 months.”

2. Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing

Although 3D-printed organs may not happen anytime soon, the future is here for some 3D-printed prosthetics and implants — everything from dentures to spinal implants to prosthetic fingers and noses.

“In the next few years, I see rapid growth in the use of 3D printing technology across orthopedic surgery,” said Rishin J. Kadakia, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta. “It’s becoming more common not just at large academic institutions. More and more providers will turn to using 3D printing technology to help tackle challenging cases that previously did not have good solutions.”

Dr. Kadakia has experienced this firsthand with his patients at the Emory Orthopaedics & Spine Center. One female patient developed talar avascular necrosis due to a bone break she’d sustained in a serious car crash. An ankle and subtalar joint fusion would repair the damage but limit her mobility and change her gait. So instead, in August of 2021, Dr. Kadakia and fellow orthopedic surgeon Jason Bariteau, MD, created for her a 3D-printed cobalt chrome talus implant.

“It provided an opportunity for her to keep her ankle’s range of motion, and also mobilize faster than with a subtalar and ankle joint fusion,” said Dr. Kadakia.

The technology is also playing a role in customized medical devices — patient-specific tools for greater precision — and 3D-printed anatomical models, built to the exact specifications of individual patients. Mayo Clinic already has 3D modeling units in three states, and other hospitals are following suit. The models not only help doctors prepare for complicated surgeries but also can dramatically cut down on costs. A 2021 study from Durham University reported that 3D models helped reduce surgery time by between 1.5 and 2.5 hours in lengthy procedures.

3. Drones

For patients who can’t make it to a pharmacy to pick up their prescriptions, either because of distance or lack of transportation, drones — which can deliver medications onto a customer’s back yard or front porch — offer a compelling solution.

Several companies and hospitals are already experimenting with drones, like WellSpan Health in Pennsylvania, Amazon Pharmacy, and the Cleveland Clinic, which announced a partnership with drone delivery company Zipline and plans to begin prescription deliveries across Northeast Ohio by 2025.

Healthcare systems are just beginning to explore the potential of drone deliveries, for everything from lab samples to medical and surgical supplies — even defibrillators that could arrive at an ailing patient’s front door before an emergency medical technician arrives.

“For many providers, when you take a sample from a patient, that sample waits around for hours until a courier picks up all of the facility’s samples and drives them to an outside facility for processing,” said Hillary Brendzel, head of Zipline’s US Healthcare Practice.

According to a 2022 survey from American Nurse Journal, 71% of nurses said that medical courier delays and errors negatively affected their ability to provide patient care. But with drone delivery, “lab samples can be sent for processing immediately, on-demand, resulting in faster diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately better outcomes,” said Ms. Brendzel.

4. Portable Ultrasound

Within the next 2 years, portable ultrasound — pocket-sized devices that connect to a smartphone or tablet — will become the “21st-century stethoscope,” said Abhilash Hareendranathan, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

AI can make these devices easy to use, allowing clinicians with minimal imaging training to capture clear images and understand the results. Dr. Hareendranathan developed the Ultrasound Arm Injury Detection tool, a portable ultrasound that uses AI to detect fracture.

“We plan to introduce this technology in emergency departments, where it could be used by triage nurses to perform quick examinations to detect fractures of the wrist, elbow, or shoulder,” he said.

More pocket-sized scanners like these could “reshape the way diagnostic care is provided in rural and remote communities,” Dr. Hareendranathan said, and will “reduce wait times in crowded emergency departments.” Bill Gates believes enough in portable ultrasound that last September, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation granted $44 million to GE HealthCare to develop the technology for under-resourced communities.

5. Virtual Reality (VR)

When RelieVRx became the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved VR therapy for chronic back pain in 2021, the technology was used in just a handful of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. But today, thousands of VR headsets have been deployed to more than 160 VA medical centers and clinics across the country.

“The VR experiences encompass pain neuroscience education, mindfulness, pleasant and relaxing distraction, and key skills to calm the nervous system,” said Beth Darnall, PhD, director of the Stanford Pain Relief Innovations Lab, who helped design the RelieVRx. She expects VR to go mainstream soon, not just because of increasing evidence that it works but also thanks to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which recently issued a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code for VR. “This billing infrastructure will encourage adoption and uptake,” she said.

Hundreds of hospitals across the United States have already adopted the technology, for everything from childbirth pain to wound debridement, said Josh Sackman, the president and cofounder of AppliedVR, the company that developed RelieVRx.

“Over the next few years, we may see hundreds more deploy unique applications [for VR] that can handle multiple clinical indications,” he said. “Given the modality’s ability to scale and reduce reliance on pharmacological interventions, it has the power to improve the cost and quality of care.”

Hospital systems like Geisinger and Cedars-Sinai are already finding unique ways to implement the technology, he said, like using VR to reduce “scanxiety” during imaging service.

Other VR innovations are already being introduced, from the Smileyscope, a VR device for children that’s been proven to lessen the pain of a blood draw or intravenous insertion (it was cleared by the FDA last November) to several VR platforms launched by Cedars-Sinai in recent months, for applications that range from gastrointestinal issues to mental health therapy. “There may already be a thousand hospitals using VR in some capacity,” said Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When child psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, MD, PhD, was a few years into his career, he found himself doing it all. “I was in a leadership role academically at the medical school, I had a leadership role at the hospital, and I was seeing as many patients as I could. I could work all day every day.”

“It still wouldn’t have been enough,” he said.

Whenever there was a shift available, Dr. Sukhera would take it. His job was stressful, but as a new physician with a young family, he saw this obsession with work as necessary. “I began to cope with the stress from work by doing extra work and feeling like I needed to be everywhere. It was like I became a hamster on a spinning wheel. I was just running, running, running.”

Things shifted for Dr. Sukhera when he realized that while he was emotionally available for the children who were his patients, at home, his own children weren’t getting the best of him. “There was a specific moment when I thought my son was afraid of me,” he said. “I just stopped and realized that there was something happening that I needed to break. I needed to make a change.”

Dr. Sukhera, now chair of psychiatry at the Institute of Living and chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, believes what he experienced was a steep fall into work addiction. “Workaholism,” often dismissed as simply working hard, is a nonclinical addiction that could fall under the umbrella of a behavioral addiction, and healthcare professionals may be especially at risk.
 

What Does Work Addiction Look Like for Doctors?

Behavioral addictions are fairly new in the addiction space. When gambling disorder, the first and only behavioral addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, was added in 2013, it was seen as a “breakthrough addiction,” said Mark D. Griffiths, PhD, a leading behavioral addiction researcher and a distinguished professor at Nottingham Trent University.

Because there is not enough evidence yet to classify work addiction as a formal diagnosis, there is no clear consensus on how to define it. To further complicate things, the terms “workaholism” and “work addiction” can be used interchangeably, and some experts say the two are not the same, though they can overlap.

That said, a 2018 review of literature from several countries found that work addiction “fits very well into recently postulated criteria for conceptualization of a behavioral addiction.

“If you accept that gambling can be genuinely addictive, then there’s no reason to think that something like work, exercise, or video game playing couldn’t be an addiction as well,” said Dr. Griffiths.

“The neurobiology of addiction is that we get drawn to something that gives us a dopamine hit,” Dr. Sukhera added. “But to do that all day, every day, has consequences. It drains our emotional reserves, and it can greatly impact our relationships.”

On top of that, work addiction has been linked with poor sleep, poor cardiovascular health, high blood pressure, burnout, the development of autoimmune disorders, and other health issues.

Physicians are particularly susceptible. Doctors, after all, are expected to work long hours and put their patients’ needs first, even at the expense of their own health and well-being.

“Workaholism is not just socially acceptable in medicine,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s baked into the system and built into the structures. The healthcare system has largely functioned on the emotional labor of health workers, whose tendency to show up and work harder can, at times, in certain organizations, be exploited.”

Dr. Griffiths agreed that with the limited amount of data available, work addiction does appear to exist at higher rates in medicine than in other fields. As early as the 1970s, medical literature describes work as a “socially acceptable” addiction among doctors. A 2014 study published in Occupational Medicine reported that of 445 physicians who took part in the research, nearly half exhibited some level of work addiction with 13% “highly work addicted.”

Of course, working hard or even meeting unreasonable demands from work is not the same as work addiction, as Dr. Griffiths clarified in a 2023 editorial in BMJ Quality & Safety. The difference, as with other behavioral addictions, is when people obsess about work and use it to cope with stress. It can be easier to stay distracted and busy to gain a sense of control rather than learning to deal with complex emotions.

A 2021 study that Dr. Sukhera conducted with resident physicians found that working harder was one of the main ways they dealt with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This idea that we deal with the stress of being burnt out by doing more and more of what burns us out is fairly ubiquitous at all stages of medical professionals’ careers,” he said.

Financial incentives also can fuel work addiction, said Dr. Sukhera. In residency, there are some safeguards around overwork and duty hours. When you become an attending, those limits no longer exist. As a young physician, Dr. Sukhera had student debt to pay off and a family to support. When he found opportunities to earn more by working more, his answer was always “yes.”

Pressure to produce medical research also can pose issues. Some physicians can become addicted to publishing studies, fearing that they might lose their professional status or position if they stop. It’s a cycle that can force a doctor to not only work long hours doing their job but also practically take on a second one.
 

How Physicians Can Recognize Work Addiction in Themselves

Work addiction can look and feel different for every person, said Malissa Clark, PhD, associate professor at the University of Georgia and author of the recent book Never Not Working: Why the Always-On Culture Is Bad for Business—and How to Fix It.

Dr. Clark noted that people who are highly engaged in their work tend to be driven by intrinsic motivation: “You work because you love it.” With work addiction, “you work because you feel like you ought to be working all the time.”

Of course, it’s not always so cut and dried; you can experience both forms of motivation and not necessarily become addicted to work. But if you are solely driven by the feeling that you ought to be working all the time, that can be a red flag.

Dr. Griffiths said that while many people may have problematic work habits or work too much, true work addicts must meet six criteria that apply to all addictions:

1. Salience: Work is the single most important thing in your life, to the point of neglecting everything else. Even if you’re on vacation, your mind might be flooded with work thoughts.

2. Mood modification: You use work to modify your mood, either to get a “high” or to cope with stress.

3. Tolerance: Over time, you’ve gone from working 8 or 10 hours a day to 12 hours a day, to a point where you’re working all the time.

4. Withdrawal: On a physiological level, you will have symptoms such as anxiety, nausea, or headaches when unable to work.

5. Conflict: You feel conflicted with yourself (you know you’re working too much) or with others (partners, friends, and children) about work, but you can’t stop.

6. Relapse: If you manage to cut down your hours but can’t resist overworking 1 day, you wind up right back where you were.
 

When It’s Time to Address Work Addiction

The lack of a formal diagnosis for work addiction makes getting treatment difficult. But there are ways to seek help. Unlike the drug and alcohol literature, abstinence is not the goal. “The therapeutic goal is getting a behavior under control and looking for the triggers of why you’re compulsively working,” said Dr. Griffiths.

Practice self-compassion

Dr. Sukhera eventually realized that his work addiction stemmed from the fear of being somehow excluded or unworthy. He actively corrected much of this through self-compassion and self-kindness, which helped him set boundaries. “Self-compassion is the root of everything,” he said. “Reminding ourselves that we’re doing our best is an important ingredient in breaking the cycle.”

Slowly expose yourself to relaxation

Many workaholics find rest very difficult. “When I conducted interviews with people [who considered themselves workaholics], a very common thing I heard was, ‘I have a very hard time being idle,’ ” said Dr. Clark. If rest feels hard, Dr. Sukhera suggests practicing relaxation for 2 minutes to start. Even small periods of downtime can challenge the belief that you must be constantly productive.

Reframe your to-do list 

For work addicts, to-do lists can seem like they must be finished, which prolongs work hours. Instead, use to-do lists to help prioritize what is urgent, identify what can wait, and delegate out tasks to others, Dr. Clark recommends.

Pick up a mastery experience

Research from professor Sabine Sonnentag, Dr. rer. nat., at the University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, suggests that mastery experiences — leisure activities that require thought and focus like learning a new language or taking a woodworking class — can help you actively disengage from work.

Try cognitive behavioral therapy

Widely used for other forms of addiction, cognitive behavioral therapy centers around recognizing emotions, challenging thought patterns, and changing behaviors. However, Dr. Clark admits the research on its impact on work addiction, in particular, is “pretty nascent.”

Shift your mindset

It seems logical to think that detaching from your feelings will allow you to “do more,” but experts say that idea is both untrue and dangerous. “The safest hospitals are the hospitals where people are attuned to their humanness,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s normal to overwork in medicine, and if you’re challenging a norm, you really have to be thoughtful about how you frame that for yourself.”

Most importantly: Seek support

Today, there is increased awareness about work addiction and more resources for physicians who are struggling, including programs such as Workaholics Anonymous or Physicians Anonymous and workplace wellness initiatives. But try not to overwhelm yourself with choosing whom to talk to or what specific resource to utilize, Dr. Sukhera advised. “Just talk to someone about it. You don’t have to carry this on your own.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When child psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, MD, PhD, was a few years into his career, he found himself doing it all. “I was in a leadership role academically at the medical school, I had a leadership role at the hospital, and I was seeing as many patients as I could. I could work all day every day.”

“It still wouldn’t have been enough,” he said.

Whenever there was a shift available, Dr. Sukhera would take it. His job was stressful, but as a new physician with a young family, he saw this obsession with work as necessary. “I began to cope with the stress from work by doing extra work and feeling like I needed to be everywhere. It was like I became a hamster on a spinning wheel. I was just running, running, running.”

Things shifted for Dr. Sukhera when he realized that while he was emotionally available for the children who were his patients, at home, his own children weren’t getting the best of him. “There was a specific moment when I thought my son was afraid of me,” he said. “I just stopped and realized that there was something happening that I needed to break. I needed to make a change.”

Dr. Sukhera, now chair of psychiatry at the Institute of Living and chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, believes what he experienced was a steep fall into work addiction. “Workaholism,” often dismissed as simply working hard, is a nonclinical addiction that could fall under the umbrella of a behavioral addiction, and healthcare professionals may be especially at risk.
 

What Does Work Addiction Look Like for Doctors?

Behavioral addictions are fairly new in the addiction space. When gambling disorder, the first and only behavioral addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, was added in 2013, it was seen as a “breakthrough addiction,” said Mark D. Griffiths, PhD, a leading behavioral addiction researcher and a distinguished professor at Nottingham Trent University.

Because there is not enough evidence yet to classify work addiction as a formal diagnosis, there is no clear consensus on how to define it. To further complicate things, the terms “workaholism” and “work addiction” can be used interchangeably, and some experts say the two are not the same, though they can overlap.

That said, a 2018 review of literature from several countries found that work addiction “fits very well into recently postulated criteria for conceptualization of a behavioral addiction.

“If you accept that gambling can be genuinely addictive, then there’s no reason to think that something like work, exercise, or video game playing couldn’t be an addiction as well,” said Dr. Griffiths.

“The neurobiology of addiction is that we get drawn to something that gives us a dopamine hit,” Dr. Sukhera added. “But to do that all day, every day, has consequences. It drains our emotional reserves, and it can greatly impact our relationships.”

On top of that, work addiction has been linked with poor sleep, poor cardiovascular health, high blood pressure, burnout, the development of autoimmune disorders, and other health issues.

Physicians are particularly susceptible. Doctors, after all, are expected to work long hours and put their patients’ needs first, even at the expense of their own health and well-being.

“Workaholism is not just socially acceptable in medicine,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s baked into the system and built into the structures. The healthcare system has largely functioned on the emotional labor of health workers, whose tendency to show up and work harder can, at times, in certain organizations, be exploited.”

Dr. Griffiths agreed that with the limited amount of data available, work addiction does appear to exist at higher rates in medicine than in other fields. As early as the 1970s, medical literature describes work as a “socially acceptable” addiction among doctors. A 2014 study published in Occupational Medicine reported that of 445 physicians who took part in the research, nearly half exhibited some level of work addiction with 13% “highly work addicted.”

Of course, working hard or even meeting unreasonable demands from work is not the same as work addiction, as Dr. Griffiths clarified in a 2023 editorial in BMJ Quality & Safety. The difference, as with other behavioral addictions, is when people obsess about work and use it to cope with stress. It can be easier to stay distracted and busy to gain a sense of control rather than learning to deal with complex emotions.

A 2021 study that Dr. Sukhera conducted with resident physicians found that working harder was one of the main ways they dealt with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This idea that we deal with the stress of being burnt out by doing more and more of what burns us out is fairly ubiquitous at all stages of medical professionals’ careers,” he said.

Financial incentives also can fuel work addiction, said Dr. Sukhera. In residency, there are some safeguards around overwork and duty hours. When you become an attending, those limits no longer exist. As a young physician, Dr. Sukhera had student debt to pay off and a family to support. When he found opportunities to earn more by working more, his answer was always “yes.”

Pressure to produce medical research also can pose issues. Some physicians can become addicted to publishing studies, fearing that they might lose their professional status or position if they stop. It’s a cycle that can force a doctor to not only work long hours doing their job but also practically take on a second one.
 

How Physicians Can Recognize Work Addiction in Themselves

Work addiction can look and feel different for every person, said Malissa Clark, PhD, associate professor at the University of Georgia and author of the recent book Never Not Working: Why the Always-On Culture Is Bad for Business—and How to Fix It.

Dr. Clark noted that people who are highly engaged in their work tend to be driven by intrinsic motivation: “You work because you love it.” With work addiction, “you work because you feel like you ought to be working all the time.”

Of course, it’s not always so cut and dried; you can experience both forms of motivation and not necessarily become addicted to work. But if you are solely driven by the feeling that you ought to be working all the time, that can be a red flag.

Dr. Griffiths said that while many people may have problematic work habits or work too much, true work addicts must meet six criteria that apply to all addictions:

1. Salience: Work is the single most important thing in your life, to the point of neglecting everything else. Even if you’re on vacation, your mind might be flooded with work thoughts.

2. Mood modification: You use work to modify your mood, either to get a “high” or to cope with stress.

3. Tolerance: Over time, you’ve gone from working 8 or 10 hours a day to 12 hours a day, to a point where you’re working all the time.

4. Withdrawal: On a physiological level, you will have symptoms such as anxiety, nausea, or headaches when unable to work.

5. Conflict: You feel conflicted with yourself (you know you’re working too much) or with others (partners, friends, and children) about work, but you can’t stop.

6. Relapse: If you manage to cut down your hours but can’t resist overworking 1 day, you wind up right back where you were.
 

When It’s Time to Address Work Addiction

The lack of a formal diagnosis for work addiction makes getting treatment difficult. But there are ways to seek help. Unlike the drug and alcohol literature, abstinence is not the goal. “The therapeutic goal is getting a behavior under control and looking for the triggers of why you’re compulsively working,” said Dr. Griffiths.

Practice self-compassion

Dr. Sukhera eventually realized that his work addiction stemmed from the fear of being somehow excluded or unworthy. He actively corrected much of this through self-compassion and self-kindness, which helped him set boundaries. “Self-compassion is the root of everything,” he said. “Reminding ourselves that we’re doing our best is an important ingredient in breaking the cycle.”

Slowly expose yourself to relaxation

Many workaholics find rest very difficult. “When I conducted interviews with people [who considered themselves workaholics], a very common thing I heard was, ‘I have a very hard time being idle,’ ” said Dr. Clark. If rest feels hard, Dr. Sukhera suggests practicing relaxation for 2 minutes to start. Even small periods of downtime can challenge the belief that you must be constantly productive.

Reframe your to-do list 

For work addicts, to-do lists can seem like they must be finished, which prolongs work hours. Instead, use to-do lists to help prioritize what is urgent, identify what can wait, and delegate out tasks to others, Dr. Clark recommends.

Pick up a mastery experience

Research from professor Sabine Sonnentag, Dr. rer. nat., at the University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, suggests that mastery experiences — leisure activities that require thought and focus like learning a new language or taking a woodworking class — can help you actively disengage from work.

Try cognitive behavioral therapy

Widely used for other forms of addiction, cognitive behavioral therapy centers around recognizing emotions, challenging thought patterns, and changing behaviors. However, Dr. Clark admits the research on its impact on work addiction, in particular, is “pretty nascent.”

Shift your mindset

It seems logical to think that detaching from your feelings will allow you to “do more,” but experts say that idea is both untrue and dangerous. “The safest hospitals are the hospitals where people are attuned to their humanness,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s normal to overwork in medicine, and if you’re challenging a norm, you really have to be thoughtful about how you frame that for yourself.”

Most importantly: Seek support

Today, there is increased awareness about work addiction and more resources for physicians who are struggling, including programs such as Workaholics Anonymous or Physicians Anonymous and workplace wellness initiatives. But try not to overwhelm yourself with choosing whom to talk to or what specific resource to utilize, Dr. Sukhera advised. “Just talk to someone about it. You don’t have to carry this on your own.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When child psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, MD, PhD, was a few years into his career, he found himself doing it all. “I was in a leadership role academically at the medical school, I had a leadership role at the hospital, and I was seeing as many patients as I could. I could work all day every day.”

“It still wouldn’t have been enough,” he said.

Whenever there was a shift available, Dr. Sukhera would take it. His job was stressful, but as a new physician with a young family, he saw this obsession with work as necessary. “I began to cope with the stress from work by doing extra work and feeling like I needed to be everywhere. It was like I became a hamster on a spinning wheel. I was just running, running, running.”

Things shifted for Dr. Sukhera when he realized that while he was emotionally available for the children who were his patients, at home, his own children weren’t getting the best of him. “There was a specific moment when I thought my son was afraid of me,” he said. “I just stopped and realized that there was something happening that I needed to break. I needed to make a change.”

Dr. Sukhera, now chair of psychiatry at the Institute of Living and chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, believes what he experienced was a steep fall into work addiction. “Workaholism,” often dismissed as simply working hard, is a nonclinical addiction that could fall under the umbrella of a behavioral addiction, and healthcare professionals may be especially at risk.
 

What Does Work Addiction Look Like for Doctors?

Behavioral addictions are fairly new in the addiction space. When gambling disorder, the first and only behavioral addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, was added in 2013, it was seen as a “breakthrough addiction,” said Mark D. Griffiths, PhD, a leading behavioral addiction researcher and a distinguished professor at Nottingham Trent University.

Because there is not enough evidence yet to classify work addiction as a formal diagnosis, there is no clear consensus on how to define it. To further complicate things, the terms “workaholism” and “work addiction” can be used interchangeably, and some experts say the two are not the same, though they can overlap.

That said, a 2018 review of literature from several countries found that work addiction “fits very well into recently postulated criteria for conceptualization of a behavioral addiction.

“If you accept that gambling can be genuinely addictive, then there’s no reason to think that something like work, exercise, or video game playing couldn’t be an addiction as well,” said Dr. Griffiths.

“The neurobiology of addiction is that we get drawn to something that gives us a dopamine hit,” Dr. Sukhera added. “But to do that all day, every day, has consequences. It drains our emotional reserves, and it can greatly impact our relationships.”

On top of that, work addiction has been linked with poor sleep, poor cardiovascular health, high blood pressure, burnout, the development of autoimmune disorders, and other health issues.

Physicians are particularly susceptible. Doctors, after all, are expected to work long hours and put their patients’ needs first, even at the expense of their own health and well-being.

“Workaholism is not just socially acceptable in medicine,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s baked into the system and built into the structures. The healthcare system has largely functioned on the emotional labor of health workers, whose tendency to show up and work harder can, at times, in certain organizations, be exploited.”

Dr. Griffiths agreed that with the limited amount of data available, work addiction does appear to exist at higher rates in medicine than in other fields. As early as the 1970s, medical literature describes work as a “socially acceptable” addiction among doctors. A 2014 study published in Occupational Medicine reported that of 445 physicians who took part in the research, nearly half exhibited some level of work addiction with 13% “highly work addicted.”

Of course, working hard or even meeting unreasonable demands from work is not the same as work addiction, as Dr. Griffiths clarified in a 2023 editorial in BMJ Quality & Safety. The difference, as with other behavioral addictions, is when people obsess about work and use it to cope with stress. It can be easier to stay distracted and busy to gain a sense of control rather than learning to deal with complex emotions.

A 2021 study that Dr. Sukhera conducted with resident physicians found that working harder was one of the main ways they dealt with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This idea that we deal with the stress of being burnt out by doing more and more of what burns us out is fairly ubiquitous at all stages of medical professionals’ careers,” he said.

Financial incentives also can fuel work addiction, said Dr. Sukhera. In residency, there are some safeguards around overwork and duty hours. When you become an attending, those limits no longer exist. As a young physician, Dr. Sukhera had student debt to pay off and a family to support. When he found opportunities to earn more by working more, his answer was always “yes.”

Pressure to produce medical research also can pose issues. Some physicians can become addicted to publishing studies, fearing that they might lose their professional status or position if they stop. It’s a cycle that can force a doctor to not only work long hours doing their job but also practically take on a second one.
 

How Physicians Can Recognize Work Addiction in Themselves

Work addiction can look and feel different for every person, said Malissa Clark, PhD, associate professor at the University of Georgia and author of the recent book Never Not Working: Why the Always-On Culture Is Bad for Business—and How to Fix It.

Dr. Clark noted that people who are highly engaged in their work tend to be driven by intrinsic motivation: “You work because you love it.” With work addiction, “you work because you feel like you ought to be working all the time.”

Of course, it’s not always so cut and dried; you can experience both forms of motivation and not necessarily become addicted to work. But if you are solely driven by the feeling that you ought to be working all the time, that can be a red flag.

Dr. Griffiths said that while many people may have problematic work habits or work too much, true work addicts must meet six criteria that apply to all addictions:

1. Salience: Work is the single most important thing in your life, to the point of neglecting everything else. Even if you’re on vacation, your mind might be flooded with work thoughts.

2. Mood modification: You use work to modify your mood, either to get a “high” or to cope with stress.

3. Tolerance: Over time, you’ve gone from working 8 or 10 hours a day to 12 hours a day, to a point where you’re working all the time.

4. Withdrawal: On a physiological level, you will have symptoms such as anxiety, nausea, or headaches when unable to work.

5. Conflict: You feel conflicted with yourself (you know you’re working too much) or with others (partners, friends, and children) about work, but you can’t stop.

6. Relapse: If you manage to cut down your hours but can’t resist overworking 1 day, you wind up right back where you were.
 

When It’s Time to Address Work Addiction

The lack of a formal diagnosis for work addiction makes getting treatment difficult. But there are ways to seek help. Unlike the drug and alcohol literature, abstinence is not the goal. “The therapeutic goal is getting a behavior under control and looking for the triggers of why you’re compulsively working,” said Dr. Griffiths.

Practice self-compassion

Dr. Sukhera eventually realized that his work addiction stemmed from the fear of being somehow excluded or unworthy. He actively corrected much of this through self-compassion and self-kindness, which helped him set boundaries. “Self-compassion is the root of everything,” he said. “Reminding ourselves that we’re doing our best is an important ingredient in breaking the cycle.”

Slowly expose yourself to relaxation

Many workaholics find rest very difficult. “When I conducted interviews with people [who considered themselves workaholics], a very common thing I heard was, ‘I have a very hard time being idle,’ ” said Dr. Clark. If rest feels hard, Dr. Sukhera suggests practicing relaxation for 2 minutes to start. Even small periods of downtime can challenge the belief that you must be constantly productive.

Reframe your to-do list 

For work addicts, to-do lists can seem like they must be finished, which prolongs work hours. Instead, use to-do lists to help prioritize what is urgent, identify what can wait, and delegate out tasks to others, Dr. Clark recommends.

Pick up a mastery experience

Research from professor Sabine Sonnentag, Dr. rer. nat., at the University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, suggests that mastery experiences — leisure activities that require thought and focus like learning a new language or taking a woodworking class — can help you actively disengage from work.

Try cognitive behavioral therapy

Widely used for other forms of addiction, cognitive behavioral therapy centers around recognizing emotions, challenging thought patterns, and changing behaviors. However, Dr. Clark admits the research on its impact on work addiction, in particular, is “pretty nascent.”

Shift your mindset

It seems logical to think that detaching from your feelings will allow you to “do more,” but experts say that idea is both untrue and dangerous. “The safest hospitals are the hospitals where people are attuned to their humanness,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s normal to overwork in medicine, and if you’re challenging a norm, you really have to be thoughtful about how you frame that for yourself.”

Most importantly: Seek support

Today, there is increased awareness about work addiction and more resources for physicians who are struggling, including programs such as Workaholics Anonymous or Physicians Anonymous and workplace wellness initiatives. But try not to overwhelm yourself with choosing whom to talk to or what specific resource to utilize, Dr. Sukhera advised. “Just talk to someone about it. You don’t have to carry this on your own.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.