Federal Practitioner

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency requiring timely evaluation and treatment. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk for life-threatening infection, and fever may be the only sign.^1,2 Unrecognized fever can progress to sepsis and may result in increased morbidity and mortality. FN is defined as the presence of fever with a single temperature of  ≥ 38.3 °C or a sustained temperature > 38 °C sustained over 1 hour with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of < 500 cells/mm³ or < 1000 cells/mm³ and expected to decrease to < 500 within 48 hours.^2,3 It is critical to quickly identify these patients on presentation to the emergency department (ED) and take appropriate steps to initiate treatment as soon as possible. To streamline care, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that laboratory assessments be initiated within 15 minutes of triage and empiric antibiotic therapy be administered within 1 hour.²

In alignment with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) highlights the importance of the initial assessment of fever and neutropenia and presents available treatment options for both inpatient and outpatient management of FN.¹ Once patients are identified, the appropriate laboratory tests and physical assessments should be initiated immediately. These tests include a complete blood count with differential, complete metabolic panel (CMP), and blood cultures from 2 separate IV sites.^1-3 The guidelines offer additional suggestions for cultures and radiographic assessments that may be completed based on clinical presentation.

Several available studies provide insight into methods of protocol creation and possible barriers to timely management. Previous research showed that an FN protocol for pediatric oncology patients aimed at antibiotic administration within 1 hour showed significant improvement from 35.0% to 55.4% of patients being treated on time.^3,4 Prescribers became more comfortable in using the protocol, and timing improved as the study progressed. Barriers noted were inconsistent ED triage, rotating ED staff, and limited understanding of the protocol.³ Yoshida and colleagues worked with the same population. Over the course of 1 year, 60% of patients were receiving antibiotics within 1 hour. The mean time decreased from 83 to 65 minutes, which the study investigators noted would continue to decrease with increased protocol comfort and use.⁵ Mattison and colleagues used nursing staff to identify patients with FN and begin antibiotic treatment. On triage, nurses took note of a temperature of > 38 °C or a sepsislike clinical picture that initiated their antibiotic proforma.^4,6 This resulted in 48.1% of patients receiving antibiotics within 15 minutes and 63.3% overall within 30 minutes of arrival.⁵ Other barriers to consider are ED crowding and the admission of higher acuity patients, which may delay the treatment of patients with FN.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana is a level 1A facility serving about 62,000 veterans annually and more than 13,000 unique veterans visiting the ED. RLRVAMC ED staff rotate often so the creation of a process will facilitate appropriate treatment as quickly as possible. The purpose of this protocol was to improve the mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics for patients with FN presenting to the ED.

Implementation

To quantify the perceived delay in antibiotic prescribing, a pre- and postprotocol retrospective chart review of patients who presented with FN to the RLRVAMC ED was conducted. Patients were identified through the electronic health record (EHR) based on 3 criteria: recorded/reported fever as defined above, ANC < 1000 cells/mm³, and administration of cancer treatment (IV and oral) within 4 weeks. The data collected in the postimplementation phase were identical to the pre-implementation phase. This included timing of blood cultures, choice/appropriateness of antibiotics based on guidelines, and length of admission. The pre-implementation period started on August 1, 2018, and ended on August 1, 2019, to allow for an adequate pre-implementation sample size. The protocol was then implemented on October 1, 2019, and data collection for the postimplementation phase began on October 1, 2019, and ended on October 1, 2020.

The protocol was accompanied by EHR order sets initiated by both nurses and health care practitioners (HCPs), including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The nursing order set consisted of vitals and appropriate laboratory monitoring, and the practitioner order set housed medication orders and additional clinical monitoring for more patient-specific scenarios. On identification of at-risk patients, the nursing staff could initiate the neutropenic fever protocol without consulting an HCP. The patient was then assigned a higher acuity rank, and the HCP was tasked with seeing the patient immediately. In conjunction with a complete physical assessment, the HCP ordered appropriate antibiotics through the designated order set to streamline antibiotic selection. Antibiotic options included cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin when clinically indicated. Alternatives for patients allergic to penicillin also were available. The protocol intended to streamline workup and antibiotic selection but was not designed as a substitute for solid clinical decision making and complete assessment on behalf of the HCP; therefore, additional workup may have been necessary and documented in the EHR.

Findings

This patient population comprised 17 patients pre-implementation and 12 patients postimplementation, most of whom had solid tumor malignancies (88.2% and 83.3%, respectively) receiving platinum, taxane, or antimetabolite-based chemotherapy. In the pre-implementation group, most patients (70.5%) coming through the ED were treated with palliative intent. Only 25% of these received any prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) based on risk for FN. The mean time from triage to the first dose of antibiotics decreased from 3.3 hours before protocol implementation to 2.3 hours after. Only 6% in the pre-implementation group compared with 17% in the postimplementation group received the first dose of antibiotics within the recommended 1-hour interval from triage. The most common antibiotics administered were cefepime and vancomycin. Eleven patients in each group (65% and 92%, respectively) were admitted to the inpatient service for further care, with 10 and 8 patients, respectively, experiencing a hospitalization > 72 hours. Of note, 41% of patients died pre-implementation vs 17% postimplementation.

Interpretation

The goal of this protocol was to optimize ED care of patients presenting with FN to better align with guideline-recommended time lines and antibiotics. The mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics decreased by 1.0 hour from the pre- to postimplementation phase, similar to the study by Mattison and colleagues.³ When removing an outlier from the postimplementation group, the mean time from triage to first dose further decreased to 1.8 hours. The percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage nearly tripled from 6% to 17%. Additionally, the percentage of patients empirically treated with appropriate antibiotics consistent with NCCN/ASCO/IDSA guidelines increased from 65% to 83%. Although goals for the optimization of care have not yet been reached, this protocol is the first step in the right direction.

Limitations

Several limitations and concerns arise when implementing a new protocol or workflow process. Overall, these limitations may contribute to delays, such as the willingness of team members to use an unfamiliar protocol or issues locating a new protocol. The nursing staff is challenged to triage patients quickly, which may add to an already busy environment. Frequent physician turnover may require more frequent education sessions. Also, a lag time between implementation and using the protocol may result in decreased protocol use during the designated postimplementation data collection phase.

On review, ED staff were excited to find a protocol that streamlined decision making and increased awareness for patients at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic may have been a confounder for the postimplementation phase. Data may have been skewed as some patients might have elected to stay at home to avoid potential COVID-19 exposure in the ED. Additionally, increased ED use by patients with COVID-19 may have resulted in longer wait times for an available bed, thereby minimizing the impact of the protocol on time from triage to administration of antibiotics. COVID-19 may also have contributed to postimplementation mortality. Of note, barcode medication administration (BCMA) was implemented in the ED in May 2019, which may account for undocumented delays in antibiotic administration as staff may have been unfamiliar with BCMA workflow.

Due to the retrospective nature of a chart review, the data rely on the timely input and accuracy of documented information. Data after the patient’s ED encounter (except inpatient hospitalization and deaths during the implementation period) were not collected due to the scope of the program being limited to the ED only. Last, this protocol was implemented at a single site, and the generalizability to implement the same protocol at other VA medical centers may be limited. After reaching out to other VA sites and several non-VA facilities, we were unable to find a site with a similar protocol or program emphasizing the importance of timely care, although there may have been established laboratory test and medication order sets within the EHR.

Future Direction

The newly established FN order sets will continue to streamline clinical decision making and antibiotic selection in this population. In our study, we learned that most patients coming through the ED were being treated with palliative intent. As a result, these patients also may have a higher risk for complications like FN. We hope to further analyze the impact on this group and consider the role of empiric dose reduction or increased G-CSF support to minimize FN.

More than half of the patients who were admitted to the inpatient service, remained in extended care for > 72 hours. Inpatient recovery time may cause delays in future cancer treatment cycles, dose reductions, and contribute to an overall decline in performance status. Six patients in the pre-implementation phase and 1 in the postimplementation phase were eligible for outpatient management per independent Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer assessment. To increase comfort, a future goal would be to create an outpatient treatment order set on discharge from the ED to help identify and outline treatment options for low-risk patients. In addition to the ED, training staff in clinics with a similar protocol may enhance the identification of patients with FN. This may require a tailored protocol for this location using health technicians in taking vital signs before the HCP visit.

This protocol helped establish “code sepsis.” Code sepsis alerts are broadcast to alert pertinent members of the health care team to provide immediate medical attention to the veteran. Pharmacy can expedite the compounding of antibiotics and record review while radiology prioritizes the portable X-ray for quick and efficient imaging. The nursing team comes ready to administer antibiotics once cultures are drawn. The HCP's attention is focused on the physical examination to determine any additional steps/care that need to be accomplished. At our site, we plan to continue HCP, nursing, and other team member education on this oncologic emergency and the availability of a streamlined protocol. We would like to re-assess the data with a long team study now that the protocol has been in place for 3 years. We hope to continue to provide strong patient care with enhanced adherence to guidelines for patients with FN presenting to RLRVAMC.

Conclusions

Early identification and timely empiric antibiotic therapy are critical to improving outcomes for patients presenting to the ED with FN. The neutropenic fever protocol reduced time to antibiotics by about 1 hour with a higher percentage of patients receiving them in < 1 hour. Additional optimization of the order sets along with increased protocol comfort and staff education will help further reduce the time to antibiotic administration in alignment with guideline recommendations.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency requiring timely evaluation and treatment. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk for life-threatening infection, and fever may be the only sign.^1,2 Unrecognized fever can progress to sepsis and may result in increased morbidity and mortality. FN is defined as the presence of fever with a single temperature of  ≥ 38.3 °C or a sustained temperature > 38 °C sustained over 1 hour with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of < 500 cells/mm³ or < 1000 cells/mm³ and expected to decrease to < 500 within 48 hours.^2,3 It is critical to quickly identify these patients on presentation to the emergency department (ED) and take appropriate steps to initiate treatment as soon as possible. To streamline care, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that laboratory assessments be initiated within 15 minutes of triage and empiric antibiotic therapy be administered within 1 hour.²

In alignment with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) highlights the importance of the initial assessment of fever and neutropenia and presents available treatment options for both inpatient and outpatient management of FN.¹ Once patients are identified, the appropriate laboratory tests and physical assessments should be initiated immediately. These tests include a complete blood count with differential, complete metabolic panel (CMP), and blood cultures from 2 separate IV sites.^1-3 The guidelines offer additional suggestions for cultures and radiographic assessments that may be completed based on clinical presentation.

Several available studies provide insight into methods of protocol creation and possible barriers to timely management. Previous research showed that an FN protocol for pediatric oncology patients aimed at antibiotic administration within 1 hour showed significant improvement from 35.0% to 55.4% of patients being treated on time.^3,4 Prescribers became more comfortable in using the protocol, and timing improved as the study progressed. Barriers noted were inconsistent ED triage, rotating ED staff, and limited understanding of the protocol.³ Yoshida and colleagues worked with the same population. Over the course of 1 year, 60% of patients were receiving antibiotics within 1 hour. The mean time decreased from 83 to 65 minutes, which the study investigators noted would continue to decrease with increased protocol comfort and use.⁵ Mattison and colleagues used nursing staff to identify patients with FN and begin antibiotic treatment. On triage, nurses took note of a temperature of > 38 °C or a sepsislike clinical picture that initiated their antibiotic proforma.^4,6 This resulted in 48.1% of patients receiving antibiotics within 15 minutes and 63.3% overall within 30 minutes of arrival.⁵ Other barriers to consider are ED crowding and the admission of higher acuity patients, which may delay the treatment of patients with FN.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana is a level 1A facility serving about 62,000 veterans annually and more than 13,000 unique veterans visiting the ED. RLRVAMC ED staff rotate often so the creation of a process will facilitate appropriate treatment as quickly as possible. The purpose of this protocol was to improve the mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics for patients with FN presenting to the ED.

Implementation

To quantify the perceived delay in antibiotic prescribing, a pre- and postprotocol retrospective chart review of patients who presented with FN to the RLRVAMC ED was conducted. Patients were identified through the electronic health record (EHR) based on 3 criteria: recorded/reported fever as defined above, ANC < 1000 cells/mm³, and administration of cancer treatment (IV and oral) within 4 weeks. The data collected in the postimplementation phase were identical to the pre-implementation phase. This included timing of blood cultures, choice/appropriateness of antibiotics based on guidelines, and length of admission. The pre-implementation period started on August 1, 2018, and ended on August 1, 2019, to allow for an adequate pre-implementation sample size. The protocol was then implemented on October 1, 2019, and data collection for the postimplementation phase began on October 1, 2019, and ended on October 1, 2020.

The protocol was accompanied by EHR order sets initiated by both nurses and health care practitioners (HCPs), including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The nursing order set consisted of vitals and appropriate laboratory monitoring, and the practitioner order set housed medication orders and additional clinical monitoring for more patient-specific scenarios. On identification of at-risk patients, the nursing staff could initiate the neutropenic fever protocol without consulting an HCP. The patient was then assigned a higher acuity rank, and the HCP was tasked with seeing the patient immediately. In conjunction with a complete physical assessment, the HCP ordered appropriate antibiotics through the designated order set to streamline antibiotic selection. Antibiotic options included cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin when clinically indicated. Alternatives for patients allergic to penicillin also were available. The protocol intended to streamline workup and antibiotic selection but was not designed as a substitute for solid clinical decision making and complete assessment on behalf of the HCP; therefore, additional workup may have been necessary and documented in the EHR.

Findings

This patient population comprised 17 patients pre-implementation and 12 patients postimplementation, most of whom had solid tumor malignancies (88.2% and 83.3%, respectively) receiving platinum, taxane, or antimetabolite-based chemotherapy. In the pre-implementation group, most patients (70.5%) coming through the ED were treated with palliative intent. Only 25% of these received any prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) based on risk for FN. The mean time from triage to the first dose of antibiotics decreased from 3.3 hours before protocol implementation to 2.3 hours after. Only 6% in the pre-implementation group compared with 17% in the postimplementation group received the first dose of antibiotics within the recommended 1-hour interval from triage. The most common antibiotics administered were cefepime and vancomycin. Eleven patients in each group (65% and 92%, respectively) were admitted to the inpatient service for further care, with 10 and 8 patients, respectively, experiencing a hospitalization > 72 hours. Of note, 41% of patients died pre-implementation vs 17% postimplementation.

Interpretation

The goal of this protocol was to optimize ED care of patients presenting with FN to better align with guideline-recommended time lines and antibiotics. The mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics decreased by 1.0 hour from the pre- to postimplementation phase, similar to the study by Mattison and colleagues.³ When removing an outlier from the postimplementation group, the mean time from triage to first dose further decreased to 1.8 hours. The percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage nearly tripled from 6% to 17%. Additionally, the percentage of patients empirically treated with appropriate antibiotics consistent with NCCN/ASCO/IDSA guidelines increased from 65% to 83%. Although goals for the optimization of care have not yet been reached, this protocol is the first step in the right direction.

Limitations

Several limitations and concerns arise when implementing a new protocol or workflow process. Overall, these limitations may contribute to delays, such as the willingness of team members to use an unfamiliar protocol or issues locating a new protocol. The nursing staff is challenged to triage patients quickly, which may add to an already busy environment. Frequent physician turnover may require more frequent education sessions. Also, a lag time between implementation and using the protocol may result in decreased protocol use during the designated postimplementation data collection phase.

On review, ED staff were excited to find a protocol that streamlined decision making and increased awareness for patients at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic may have been a confounder for the postimplementation phase. Data may have been skewed as some patients might have elected to stay at home to avoid potential COVID-19 exposure in the ED. Additionally, increased ED use by patients with COVID-19 may have resulted in longer wait times for an available bed, thereby minimizing the impact of the protocol on time from triage to administration of antibiotics. COVID-19 may also have contributed to postimplementation mortality. Of note, barcode medication administration (BCMA) was implemented in the ED in May 2019, which may account for undocumented delays in antibiotic administration as staff may have been unfamiliar with BCMA workflow.

Due to the retrospective nature of a chart review, the data rely on the timely input and accuracy of documented information. Data after the patient’s ED encounter (except inpatient hospitalization and deaths during the implementation period) were not collected due to the scope of the program being limited to the ED only. Last, this protocol was implemented at a single site, and the generalizability to implement the same protocol at other VA medical centers may be limited. After reaching out to other VA sites and several non-VA facilities, we were unable to find a site with a similar protocol or program emphasizing the importance of timely care, although there may have been established laboratory test and medication order sets within the EHR.

Future Direction

The newly established FN order sets will continue to streamline clinical decision making and antibiotic selection in this population. In our study, we learned that most patients coming through the ED were being treated with palliative intent. As a result, these patients also may have a higher risk for complications like FN. We hope to further analyze the impact on this group and consider the role of empiric dose reduction or increased G-CSF support to minimize FN.

More than half of the patients who were admitted to the inpatient service, remained in extended care for > 72 hours. Inpatient recovery time may cause delays in future cancer treatment cycles, dose reductions, and contribute to an overall decline in performance status. Six patients in the pre-implementation phase and 1 in the postimplementation phase were eligible for outpatient management per independent Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer assessment. To increase comfort, a future goal would be to create an outpatient treatment order set on discharge from the ED to help identify and outline treatment options for low-risk patients. In addition to the ED, training staff in clinics with a similar protocol may enhance the identification of patients with FN. This may require a tailored protocol for this location using health technicians in taking vital signs before the HCP visit.

This protocol helped establish “code sepsis.” Code sepsis alerts are broadcast to alert pertinent members of the health care team to provide immediate medical attention to the veteran. Pharmacy can expedite the compounding of antibiotics and record review while radiology prioritizes the portable X-ray for quick and efficient imaging. The nursing team comes ready to administer antibiotics once cultures are drawn. The HCP's attention is focused on the physical examination to determine any additional steps/care that need to be accomplished. At our site, we plan to continue HCP, nursing, and other team member education on this oncologic emergency and the availability of a streamlined protocol. We would like to re-assess the data with a long team study now that the protocol has been in place for 3 years. We hope to continue to provide strong patient care with enhanced adherence to guidelines for patients with FN presenting to RLRVAMC.

Conclusions

Early identification and timely empiric antibiotic therapy are critical to improving outcomes for patients presenting to the ED with FN. The neutropenic fever protocol reduced time to antibiotics by about 1 hour with a higher percentage of patients receiving them in < 1 hour. Additional optimization of the order sets along with increased protocol comfort and staff education will help further reduce the time to antibiotic administration in alignment with guideline recommendations.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency requiring timely evaluation and treatment. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk for life-threatening infection, and fever may be the only sign.^1,2 Unrecognized fever can progress to sepsis and may result in increased morbidity and mortality. FN is defined as the presence of fever with a single temperature of  ≥ 38.3 °C or a sustained temperature > 38 °C sustained over 1 hour with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of < 500 cells/mm³ or < 1000 cells/mm³ and expected to decrease to < 500 within 48 hours.^2,3 It is critical to quickly identify these patients on presentation to the emergency department (ED) and take appropriate steps to initiate treatment as soon as possible. To streamline care, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that laboratory assessments be initiated within 15 minutes of triage and empiric antibiotic therapy be administered within 1 hour.²

In alignment with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) highlights the importance of the initial assessment of fever and neutropenia and presents available treatment options for both inpatient and outpatient management of FN.¹ Once patients are identified, the appropriate laboratory tests and physical assessments should be initiated immediately. These tests include a complete blood count with differential, complete metabolic panel (CMP), and blood cultures from 2 separate IV sites.^1-3 The guidelines offer additional suggestions for cultures and radiographic assessments that may be completed based on clinical presentation.

Several available studies provide insight into methods of protocol creation and possible barriers to timely management. Previous research showed that an FN protocol for pediatric oncology patients aimed at antibiotic administration within 1 hour showed significant improvement from 35.0% to 55.4% of patients being treated on time.^3,4 Prescribers became more comfortable in using the protocol, and timing improved as the study progressed. Barriers noted were inconsistent ED triage, rotating ED staff, and limited understanding of the protocol.³ Yoshida and colleagues worked with the same population. Over the course of 1 year, 60% of patients were receiving antibiotics within 1 hour. The mean time decreased from 83 to 65 minutes, which the study investigators noted would continue to decrease with increased protocol comfort and use.⁵ Mattison and colleagues used nursing staff to identify patients with FN and begin antibiotic treatment. On triage, nurses took note of a temperature of > 38 °C or a sepsislike clinical picture that initiated their antibiotic proforma.^4,6 This resulted in 48.1% of patients receiving antibiotics within 15 minutes and 63.3% overall within 30 minutes of arrival.⁵ Other barriers to consider are ED crowding and the admission of higher acuity patients, which may delay the treatment of patients with FN.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana is a level 1A facility serving about 62,000 veterans annually and more than 13,000 unique veterans visiting the ED. RLRVAMC ED staff rotate often so the creation of a process will facilitate appropriate treatment as quickly as possible. The purpose of this protocol was to improve the mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics for patients with FN presenting to the ED.

Implementation

To quantify the perceived delay in antibiotic prescribing, a pre- and postprotocol retrospective chart review of patients who presented with FN to the RLRVAMC ED was conducted. Patients were identified through the electronic health record (EHR) based on 3 criteria: recorded/reported fever as defined above, ANC < 1000 cells/mm³, and administration of cancer treatment (IV and oral) within 4 weeks. The data collected in the postimplementation phase were identical to the pre-implementation phase. This included timing of blood cultures, choice/appropriateness of antibiotics based on guidelines, and length of admission. The pre-implementation period started on August 1, 2018, and ended on August 1, 2019, to allow for an adequate pre-implementation sample size. The protocol was then implemented on October 1, 2019, and data collection for the postimplementation phase began on October 1, 2019, and ended on October 1, 2020.

The protocol was accompanied by EHR order sets initiated by both nurses and health care practitioners (HCPs), including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The nursing order set consisted of vitals and appropriate laboratory monitoring, and the practitioner order set housed medication orders and additional clinical monitoring for more patient-specific scenarios. On identification of at-risk patients, the nursing staff could initiate the neutropenic fever protocol without consulting an HCP. The patient was then assigned a higher acuity rank, and the HCP was tasked with seeing the patient immediately. In conjunction with a complete physical assessment, the HCP ordered appropriate antibiotics through the designated order set to streamline antibiotic selection. Antibiotic options included cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin when clinically indicated. Alternatives for patients allergic to penicillin also were available. The protocol intended to streamline workup and antibiotic selection but was not designed as a substitute for solid clinical decision making and complete assessment on behalf of the HCP; therefore, additional workup may have been necessary and documented in the EHR.

Findings

This patient population comprised 17 patients pre-implementation and 12 patients postimplementation, most of whom had solid tumor malignancies (88.2% and 83.3%, respectively) receiving platinum, taxane, or antimetabolite-based chemotherapy. In the pre-implementation group, most patients (70.5%) coming through the ED were treated with palliative intent. Only 25% of these received any prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) based on risk for FN. The mean time from triage to the first dose of antibiotics decreased from 3.3 hours before protocol implementation to 2.3 hours after. Only 6% in the pre-implementation group compared with 17% in the postimplementation group received the first dose of antibiotics within the recommended 1-hour interval from triage. The most common antibiotics administered were cefepime and vancomycin. Eleven patients in each group (65% and 92%, respectively) were admitted to the inpatient service for further care, with 10 and 8 patients, respectively, experiencing a hospitalization > 72 hours. Of note, 41% of patients died pre-implementation vs 17% postimplementation.

Interpretation

The goal of this protocol was to optimize ED care of patients presenting with FN to better align with guideline-recommended time lines and antibiotics. The mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics decreased by 1.0 hour from the pre- to postimplementation phase, similar to the study by Mattison and colleagues.³ When removing an outlier from the postimplementation group, the mean time from triage to first dose further decreased to 1.8 hours. The percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage nearly tripled from 6% to 17%. Additionally, the percentage of patients empirically treated with appropriate antibiotics consistent with NCCN/ASCO/IDSA guidelines increased from 65% to 83%. Although goals for the optimization of care have not yet been reached, this protocol is the first step in the right direction.

Limitations

Several limitations and concerns arise when implementing a new protocol or workflow process. Overall, these limitations may contribute to delays, such as the willingness of team members to use an unfamiliar protocol or issues locating a new protocol. The nursing staff is challenged to triage patients quickly, which may add to an already busy environment. Frequent physician turnover may require more frequent education sessions. Also, a lag time between implementation and using the protocol may result in decreased protocol use during the designated postimplementation data collection phase.

On review, ED staff were excited to find a protocol that streamlined decision making and increased awareness for patients at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic may have been a confounder for the postimplementation phase. Data may have been skewed as some patients might have elected to stay at home to avoid potential COVID-19 exposure in the ED. Additionally, increased ED use by patients with COVID-19 may have resulted in longer wait times for an available bed, thereby minimizing the impact of the protocol on time from triage to administration of antibiotics. COVID-19 may also have contributed to postimplementation mortality. Of note, barcode medication administration (BCMA) was implemented in the ED in May 2019, which may account for undocumented delays in antibiotic administration as staff may have been unfamiliar with BCMA workflow.

Due to the retrospective nature of a chart review, the data rely on the timely input and accuracy of documented information. Data after the patient’s ED encounter (except inpatient hospitalization and deaths during the implementation period) were not collected due to the scope of the program being limited to the ED only. Last, this protocol was implemented at a single site, and the generalizability to implement the same protocol at other VA medical centers may be limited. After reaching out to other VA sites and several non-VA facilities, we were unable to find a site with a similar protocol or program emphasizing the importance of timely care, although there may have been established laboratory test and medication order sets within the EHR.

Future Direction

The newly established FN order sets will continue to streamline clinical decision making and antibiotic selection in this population. In our study, we learned that most patients coming through the ED were being treated with palliative intent. As a result, these patients also may have a higher risk for complications like FN. We hope to further analyze the impact on this group and consider the role of empiric dose reduction or increased G-CSF support to minimize FN.

More than half of the patients who were admitted to the inpatient service, remained in extended care for > 72 hours. Inpatient recovery time may cause delays in future cancer treatment cycles, dose reductions, and contribute to an overall decline in performance status. Six patients in the pre-implementation phase and 1 in the postimplementation phase were eligible for outpatient management per independent Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer assessment. To increase comfort, a future goal would be to create an outpatient treatment order set on discharge from the ED to help identify and outline treatment options for low-risk patients. In addition to the ED, training staff in clinics with a similar protocol may enhance the identification of patients with FN. This may require a tailored protocol for this location using health technicians in taking vital signs before the HCP visit.

This protocol helped establish “code sepsis.” Code sepsis alerts are broadcast to alert pertinent members of the health care team to provide immediate medical attention to the veteran. Pharmacy can expedite the compounding of antibiotics and record review while radiology prioritizes the portable X-ray for quick and efficient imaging. The nursing team comes ready to administer antibiotics once cultures are drawn. The HCP's attention is focused on the physical examination to determine any additional steps/care that need to be accomplished. At our site, we plan to continue HCP, nursing, and other team member education on this oncologic emergency and the availability of a streamlined protocol. We would like to re-assess the data with a long team study now that the protocol has been in place for 3 years. We hope to continue to provide strong patient care with enhanced adherence to guidelines for patients with FN presenting to RLRVAMC.

Conclusions

Early identification and timely empiric antibiotic therapy are critical to improving outcomes for patients presenting to the ED with FN. The neutropenic fever protocol reduced time to antibiotics by about 1 hour with a higher percentage of patients receiving them in < 1 hour. Additional optimization of the order sets along with increased protocol comfort and staff education will help further reduce the time to antibiotic administration in alignment with guideline recommendations.

The reversible oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with superior endoscopic outcomes at 12 weeks and 1 year compared with placebo among people with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.

The findings of this subanalysis come from two phase 3 induction trials (U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED) and one maintenance study (U-ENDURE) of upadacitinib in this patient population.

“Upadacitinib shows large differences relative to placebo in endoscopic response and remission ... in a difficult-to-treat population of patients, the majority of whom had failed an advanced therapy,” lead investigator Brian Feagan, MD, senior scientific director of the GI contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, said in an interview.

“The absolute magnitude of the finding was unanticipated – a greater treatment effect than might be anticipated for these outcomes compared with other advanced treatments for Crohn’s disease in these higher-risk patients,” he said.

Dr. Feagan presented the research at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

Research methodology

At baseline, participants had an average daily stool frequency of 4 or more and/or an abdominal pain score of 2 or greater. They also had a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease of 6 or more, excluding a narrowing component, or a score of 4 or more for isolated ileal Crohn’s disease.

In the treatment induction phase, patients were randomly assigned 2:1, with 674 people receiving 45 mg upadacitinib and 347 taking a placebo once daily for 12 weeks.

Participants who experienced at least a 30% decrease in stool frequency and/or daily abdominal pain scores were enrolled in the maintenance phase of the study. For this phase, patients were randomly assigned again, with 168 receiving 30 mg upadacitinib, 169 receiving 15 mg upadacitinib, and 165 taking a placebo once daily for 52 weeks.

In each induction and maintenance cohort, more than 70% of patients had failed one prior biologic therapy, with failure defined as inadequate response or intolerance. Among those who failed a previous biologic in induction, 96% had also failed prior treatment with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) inhibitor.

Participants’ mean age was 38-40 years, and 52%-55% were men. Patients who had not failed previous therapy had Crohn’s disease for a median of 6-7 years. In contrast, the prior-failure group had Crohn’s disease for a median of 9-10 years.
 

Key outcomes

At 12 weeks, endoscopic response among patients who had not failed a prior biologic was 52% in the treatment group versus 16% of the placebo group. In the prior-failure group, endoscopic response was observed in 36% and 5%, respectively.

Endoscopic remission at 12 weeks among patients who had not failed a prior biologic was 36% in the treatment group versus 10% in the placebo group. In the prior-failure group, endoscopic remission was 20% in the treatment group versus 3% in those who took placebo.

Participants in the treatment groups of the 52-week maintenance phase of the study experienced higher endoscopic response and endoscopic remission rates compared with those who received placebo.

Endoscopic response in the group without prior biologic failure was 44% in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 40% in the 15-mg group, and 18% in the placebo group. Among those with prior biologic failure, endoscopic response was seen in 39% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 23% of the 15-mg group, and 4% of the placebo group.

There is a “very striking difference in endoscopic response rates between the high dose and placebo,” Dr. Feagan said. “That difference here is in the response rate. You see dose separation.”

Endoscopic remission among those without prior biologic failure was observed in 34% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 27% of the 15-mg group, and 16% of the placebo group. Among those with prior biologic failure, endoscopic remission was seen in 27% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 16% of the 15-mg group, and 2% of the placebo group.

The results show “a clear advantage for the 30-mg dose versus the 15-mg in the maintenance component, especially in patients who had failed an advanced therapy,” Dr. Feagan said.
 

Safety signals

Upadacitinib was well tolerated in the induction and maintenance phases, and no new safety risks were observed compared with the known safety profile of the drug, the researchers noted.

For example, during the induction studies, the rate of any adverse event among patients without prior biologic failure was 60% in the 45-mg upadacitinib group and 53% in the placebo group. Among those who failed a prior biologic, the rates were 67% in the 45-mg upadacitinib group and 66% in the placebo group.

The adverse events were “issues that have already been identified with JAK inhibitors, the biochemical abnormalities with CPK [creatine phosphokinase] elevations and transaminase elevations,” Dr. Feagan said.

There were no cases of herpes zoster among patients who received placebo compared with five cases in the 45-mg upadacitinib group without prior biologic failure and 10 cases in the prior biologic failure group.

“The zoster signal is there even at induction with the 45-mg dose versus placebo,” Dr. Feagan said.
 

‘Encouraging’ results

The study indicates that upadacitinib is effective in improving endoscopic outcomes for patients with Crohn’s disease, regardless of their prior biologic treatments, Robin L. Dalal, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study.

“This is important because, as the treatment landscape for Crohn’s disease has expanded, sequencing of therapies has become more complex,” added Dr. Dalal, who was not involved in the research. “For upadacitinib in Crohn’s disease, prior biologic use may not be a factor in endoscopic response rates.”

The findings are “very encouraging for physicians and practitioners who treat IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients,” Maithili Chitnavis, MD, of the inflammatory bowel disease section at Atrium Health Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., said when asked for comment.

“We clearly care about how patients feel overall, but endoscopic and histologic outcomes are important to investigate because we want to ensure there is internal healing to prevent a lot of the longstanding complications of Crohn’s disease, such as malignancy, strictures, fistulizing/penetrating disease, and need for surgery,” said Dr. Chitnavis, who was not involved with the study.

Upadacitinib is an oral agent, which distinguishes it from the injectable or infusion-based biologic therapies for Crohn’s disease, Dr. Chitnavis noted.

The finding that the medication works in patients with or without prior biologic failure is important, she said.

“With its anticipated ... approval for Crohn’s disease [by the Food and Drug Administration], it is expected that patients will have had to have demonstrated a lack of or loss of response to another biologic, specifically in the anti-TNF category (for example, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab) prior to starting upadacitinib due to concerns of potential side effects associated with the class of medications to which it belongs,” Dr. Chitnavis said. “Therefore, it makes it even more relevant to know how patients who have failed a prior biologic respond to this therapy.”

Dr. Feagan has reported serving as a consultant and speaker for AbbVie. Dr. Dalal has reported being a consultant for AbbVie in 2021. Dr. Chitnavis has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The reversible oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with superior endoscopic outcomes at 12 weeks and 1 year compared with placebo among people with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.

The findings of this subanalysis come from two phase 3 induction trials (U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED) and one maintenance study (U-ENDURE) of upadacitinib in this patient population.

“Upadacitinib shows large differences relative to placebo in endoscopic response and remission ... in a difficult-to-treat population of patients, the majority of whom had failed an advanced therapy,” lead investigator Brian Feagan, MD, senior scientific director of the GI contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, said in an interview.

“The absolute magnitude of the finding was unanticipated – a greater treatment effect than might be anticipated for these outcomes compared with other advanced treatments for Crohn’s disease in these higher-risk patients,” he said.

Dr. Feagan presented the research at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

Research methodology

At baseline, participants had an average daily stool frequency of 4 or more and/or an abdominal pain score of 2 or greater. They also had a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease of 6 or more, excluding a narrowing component, or a score of 4 or more for isolated ileal Crohn’s disease.

In the treatment induction phase, patients were randomly assigned 2:1, with 674 people receiving 45 mg upadacitinib and 347 taking a placebo once daily for 12 weeks.

Participants who experienced at least a 30% decrease in stool frequency and/or daily abdominal pain scores were enrolled in the maintenance phase of the study. For this phase, patients were randomly assigned again, with 168 receiving 30 mg upadacitinib, 169 receiving 15 mg upadacitinib, and 165 taking a placebo once daily for 52 weeks.

In each induction and maintenance cohort, more than 70% of patients had failed one prior biologic therapy, with failure defined as inadequate response or intolerance. Among those who failed a previous biologic in induction, 96% had also failed prior treatment with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) inhibitor.

Participants’ mean age was 38-40 years, and 52%-55% were men. Patients who had not failed previous therapy had Crohn’s disease for a median of 6-7 years. In contrast, the prior-failure group had Crohn’s disease for a median of 9-10 years.
 

Key outcomes

At 12 weeks, endoscopic response among patients who had not failed a prior biologic was 52% in the treatment group versus 16% of the placebo group. In the prior-failure group, endoscopic response was observed in 36% and 5%, respectively.

Endoscopic remission at 12 weeks among patients who had not failed a prior biologic was 36% in the treatment group versus 10% in the placebo group. In the prior-failure group, endoscopic remission was 20% in the treatment group versus 3% in those who took placebo.

Participants in the treatment groups of the 52-week maintenance phase of the study experienced higher endoscopic response and endoscopic remission rates compared with those who received placebo.

Endoscopic response in the group without prior biologic failure was 44% in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 40% in the 15-mg group, and 18% in the placebo group. Among those with prior biologic failure, endoscopic response was seen in 39% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 23% of the 15-mg group, and 4% of the placebo group.

There is a “very striking difference in endoscopic response rates between the high dose and placebo,” Dr. Feagan said. “That difference here is in the response rate. You see dose separation.”

Endoscopic remission among those without prior biologic failure was observed in 34% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 27% of the 15-mg group, and 16% of the placebo group. Among those with prior biologic failure, endoscopic remission was seen in 27% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 16% of the 15-mg group, and 2% of the placebo group.

The results show “a clear advantage for the 30-mg dose versus the 15-mg in the maintenance component, especially in patients who had failed an advanced therapy,” Dr. Feagan said.
 

Safety signals

Upadacitinib was well tolerated in the induction and maintenance phases, and no new safety risks were observed compared with the known safety profile of the drug, the researchers noted.

For example, during the induction studies, the rate of any adverse event among patients without prior biologic failure was 60% in the 45-mg upadacitinib group and 53% in the placebo group. Among those who failed a prior biologic, the rates were 67% in the 45-mg upadacitinib group and 66% in the placebo group.

The adverse events were “issues that have already been identified with JAK inhibitors, the biochemical abnormalities with CPK [creatine phosphokinase] elevations and transaminase elevations,” Dr. Feagan said.

There were no cases of herpes zoster among patients who received placebo compared with five cases in the 45-mg upadacitinib group without prior biologic failure and 10 cases in the prior biologic failure group.

“The zoster signal is there even at induction with the 45-mg dose versus placebo,” Dr. Feagan said.
 

‘Encouraging’ results

The study indicates that upadacitinib is effective in improving endoscopic outcomes for patients with Crohn’s disease, regardless of their prior biologic treatments, Robin L. Dalal, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study.

“This is important because, as the treatment landscape for Crohn’s disease has expanded, sequencing of therapies has become more complex,” added Dr. Dalal, who was not involved in the research. “For upadacitinib in Crohn’s disease, prior biologic use may not be a factor in endoscopic response rates.”

The findings are “very encouraging for physicians and practitioners who treat IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients,” Maithili Chitnavis, MD, of the inflammatory bowel disease section at Atrium Health Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., said when asked for comment.

“We clearly care about how patients feel overall, but endoscopic and histologic outcomes are important to investigate because we want to ensure there is internal healing to prevent a lot of the longstanding complications of Crohn’s disease, such as malignancy, strictures, fistulizing/penetrating disease, and need for surgery,” said Dr. Chitnavis, who was not involved with the study.

Upadacitinib is an oral agent, which distinguishes it from the injectable or infusion-based biologic therapies for Crohn’s disease, Dr. Chitnavis noted.

The finding that the medication works in patients with or without prior biologic failure is important, she said.

“With its anticipated ... approval for Crohn’s disease [by the Food and Drug Administration], it is expected that patients will have had to have demonstrated a lack of or loss of response to another biologic, specifically in the anti-TNF category (for example, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab) prior to starting upadacitinib due to concerns of potential side effects associated with the class of medications to which it belongs,” Dr. Chitnavis said. “Therefore, it makes it even more relevant to know how patients who have failed a prior biologic respond to this therapy.”

Dr. Feagan has reported serving as a consultant and speaker for AbbVie. Dr. Dalal has reported being a consultant for AbbVie in 2021. Dr. Chitnavis has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The reversible oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with superior endoscopic outcomes at 12 weeks and 1 year compared with placebo among people with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.

The findings of this subanalysis come from two phase 3 induction trials (U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED) and one maintenance study (U-ENDURE) of upadacitinib in this patient population.

“Upadacitinib shows large differences relative to placebo in endoscopic response and remission ... in a difficult-to-treat population of patients, the majority of whom had failed an advanced therapy,” lead investigator Brian Feagan, MD, senior scientific director of the GI contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, said in an interview.

“The absolute magnitude of the finding was unanticipated – a greater treatment effect than might be anticipated for these outcomes compared with other advanced treatments for Crohn’s disease in these higher-risk patients,” he said.

Dr. Feagan presented the research at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

Research methodology

At baseline, participants had an average daily stool frequency of 4 or more and/or an abdominal pain score of 2 or greater. They also had a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease of 6 or more, excluding a narrowing component, or a score of 4 or more for isolated ileal Crohn’s disease.

In the treatment induction phase, patients were randomly assigned 2:1, with 674 people receiving 45 mg upadacitinib and 347 taking a placebo once daily for 12 weeks.

Participants who experienced at least a 30% decrease in stool frequency and/or daily abdominal pain scores were enrolled in the maintenance phase of the study. For this phase, patients were randomly assigned again, with 168 receiving 30 mg upadacitinib, 169 receiving 15 mg upadacitinib, and 165 taking a placebo once daily for 52 weeks.

In each induction and maintenance cohort, more than 70% of patients had failed one prior biologic therapy, with failure defined as inadequate response or intolerance. Among those who failed a previous biologic in induction, 96% had also failed prior treatment with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) inhibitor.

Participants’ mean age was 38-40 years, and 52%-55% were men. Patients who had not failed previous therapy had Crohn’s disease for a median of 6-7 years. In contrast, the prior-failure group had Crohn’s disease for a median of 9-10 years.
 

Key outcomes

At 12 weeks, endoscopic response among patients who had not failed a prior biologic was 52% in the treatment group versus 16% of the placebo group. In the prior-failure group, endoscopic response was observed in 36% and 5%, respectively.

Endoscopic remission at 12 weeks among patients who had not failed a prior biologic was 36% in the treatment group versus 10% in the placebo group. In the prior-failure group, endoscopic remission was 20% in the treatment group versus 3% in those who took placebo.

Participants in the treatment groups of the 52-week maintenance phase of the study experienced higher endoscopic response and endoscopic remission rates compared with those who received placebo.

Endoscopic response in the group without prior biologic failure was 44% in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 40% in the 15-mg group, and 18% in the placebo group. Among those with prior biologic failure, endoscopic response was seen in 39% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 23% of the 15-mg group, and 4% of the placebo group.

There is a “very striking difference in endoscopic response rates between the high dose and placebo,” Dr. Feagan said. “That difference here is in the response rate. You see dose separation.”

Endoscopic remission among those without prior biologic failure was observed in 34% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 27% of the 15-mg group, and 16% of the placebo group. Among those with prior biologic failure, endoscopic remission was seen in 27% of the 30-mg upadacitinib group, 16% of the 15-mg group, and 2% of the placebo group.

The results show “a clear advantage for the 30-mg dose versus the 15-mg in the maintenance component, especially in patients who had failed an advanced therapy,” Dr. Feagan said.
 

Safety signals

Upadacitinib was well tolerated in the induction and maintenance phases, and no new safety risks were observed compared with the known safety profile of the drug, the researchers noted.

For example, during the induction studies, the rate of any adverse event among patients without prior biologic failure was 60% in the 45-mg upadacitinib group and 53% in the placebo group. Among those who failed a prior biologic, the rates were 67% in the 45-mg upadacitinib group and 66% in the placebo group.

The adverse events were “issues that have already been identified with JAK inhibitors, the biochemical abnormalities with CPK [creatine phosphokinase] elevations and transaminase elevations,” Dr. Feagan said.

There were no cases of herpes zoster among patients who received placebo compared with five cases in the 45-mg upadacitinib group without prior biologic failure and 10 cases in the prior biologic failure group.

“The zoster signal is there even at induction with the 45-mg dose versus placebo,” Dr. Feagan said.
 

‘Encouraging’ results

The study indicates that upadacitinib is effective in improving endoscopic outcomes for patients with Crohn’s disease, regardless of their prior biologic treatments, Robin L. Dalal, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study.

“This is important because, as the treatment landscape for Crohn’s disease has expanded, sequencing of therapies has become more complex,” added Dr. Dalal, who was not involved in the research. “For upadacitinib in Crohn’s disease, prior biologic use may not be a factor in endoscopic response rates.”

The findings are “very encouraging for physicians and practitioners who treat IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients,” Maithili Chitnavis, MD, of the inflammatory bowel disease section at Atrium Health Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., said when asked for comment.

“We clearly care about how patients feel overall, but endoscopic and histologic outcomes are important to investigate because we want to ensure there is internal healing to prevent a lot of the longstanding complications of Crohn’s disease, such as malignancy, strictures, fistulizing/penetrating disease, and need for surgery,” said Dr. Chitnavis, who was not involved with the study.

Upadacitinib is an oral agent, which distinguishes it from the injectable or infusion-based biologic therapies for Crohn’s disease, Dr. Chitnavis noted.

The finding that the medication works in patients with or without prior biologic failure is important, she said.

“With its anticipated ... approval for Crohn’s disease [by the Food and Drug Administration], it is expected that patients will have had to have demonstrated a lack of or loss of response to another biologic, specifically in the anti-TNF category (for example, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab) prior to starting upadacitinib due to concerns of potential side effects associated with the class of medications to which it belongs,” Dr. Chitnavis said. “Therefore, it makes it even more relevant to know how patients who have failed a prior biologic respond to this therapy.”

Dr. Feagan has reported serving as a consultant and speaker for AbbVie. Dr. Dalal has reported being a consultant for AbbVie in 2021. Dr. Chitnavis has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In 2012, a small group of specialists, consisting of a critical care pulmonologist, cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, and vascular specialist, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, met to Monday morning quarterback an acute pulmonary embolism case that didn’t go as well as they’d hoped. They came up with a concept known as the pulmonary embolism response team – PERT for short – an idea that soon took hold in other centers and served as the vanguard to other innovative approaches to managing critical care patients with PE, which is the third-leading cause of cardiovascular death in the United States (Intern Emerg Med. 2023. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-03180-w).

Leisa Thompson/Michigan Medicine

Three years later the PERT Consortium came together, which today has 102 members, according to the organization’s website (www.pertconsortium.org), and members in South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Since then, PE strategies have evolved to target mental health issues recovering patients have, improve follow-up after discharge, and even investigate artificial intelligence and apps to expedite diagnosis and treatment. The PERT Consortium, meanwhile, is in the process of creating the PE Centers of Excellence program to certify centers that meet certain requirements.

Harvard Medical School

“Part of the reason we recognized that a discussion across specialties was important was because there weren’t the large clinical trials that could tell us exactly what to do for any given case,” said Christopher Kabrhel, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Vascular Emergencies at Mass General and a professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who assembled that formative meeting. “Without a clear basis in data, it was really important to have all the different specialists weigh in and give their perspective and talk about what was the best approach for the patient’s care.”
 

Filling data gaps

Some of those data gaps persist today, Dr. Kabrhel said. “It’s precisely that lack of head-to-head data that existed in 2012, and to a great extent still exists today, that led us to create this system.” The American Heart Association just this January issued a scientific statement on surgical management and mechanical circulatory support in high-risk PE (Circulation. 2023;147:e628­­-47).

But the intervening research has been uneven. The Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis (PEITHO) trial in 2014 evaluated systemic thrombolysis and anticoagulation alone (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1402-11), but head-to-head studies of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), which was just emerging in 2012, and either systemic thrombolysis or anticoagulation have been lacking, Dr. Kabrhel said. The Hi-PEITHO trial in high-risk PE patients is evaluating ultrasound-guided CDT plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone (Am Heart J. 2022:251:43-54), but it isn’t complete.

“The therapeutic landscape for PE is evolving incredibly rapidly,” he said. “When we first started PERT we were just starting to see CDT. Since then, we’ve seen several new thrombolytic catheters come onto the market, but there’s also been a proliferation of suction embolectomy catheters and we’ve seen a potentially larger role for surgery and the use of ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or cardiac bypass to bridge patients to definitive therapy. With the rapid evolution and the seemingly daily addition of new therapeutic options, I think the need for PERT is only increasing.”

A recent study out of the University of Michigan reported that the PERT there led to a decrease in the use of advanced therapies given to acute PE patients without reducing mortality or extending hospital stays (Thromb Res. 2023;221:73-8). A study in Spain reported that patients with high-risk and intermediate high-risk PE who had PERT-coordinated care had half the 12-month mortality rate of non-PERT counterparts, 9% vs. 22.2% (P = .02) (Med Clin [Barc]. 2023;S0025-7753(23)00017-9). And a 2021 study at University Hospitals in Cleveland reported that PERT-managed PE patients had a 60% lower rate of adverse outcomes at 90 days than non–PERT-managed patients (J Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33:E173-E180).

Michigan Medicine

Nelish Ardeshna, MD, MA, the lead author of the Michigan study, said the PERT there was formed in 2017. Besides the multispecialty team that can be summoned to a teleconference on short notice, the protocol includes having at least one noninvasive specialist, such as a cardiologist or hospitalist, and one interventionalist, such as a radiologist, always on call. The PERT gets activated through the paging system after a hospital or emergency department physician identifies a suspected or established high-risk PE.

“High-risk PE patients can present in all settings, including the emergency department, ICU, surgical floor, or medical floor,” said Dr. Ardeshna, an internal medicine resident. “Management for these patients is equally varied from anticoagulation to systemic thrombolytics. Not all providers may be familiar with current guidelines to select the optimal therapy for high-risk pulmonary embolism patients. PERT aims to bridge that gap by providing a multidisciplinary discussion with PE specialists that can help identify the correct therapeutic options for optimal outcomes.”

Cleveland Clinic

At Cleveland Clinic, where the PERT has been in place since 2012, the PERT can consist of six to eight different specialties and involve up to 15 providers on a conference call, said Leben Tefera, MD, a vascular specialist and head of the PERT team there.

“Each patient will come in and have certain comorbidities,” Dr. Tefera said. “The unfortunate thing about a majority of the PEs that we see, in particular ones [in patients] that are very sick and require inpatient treatment, is that they don’t really fit into a box; you can’t come up with one kind of generic care routine or care path that treats the majority of patients with PE.”
 

Evolving to follow-up care

As the PERT protocol led to better inpatient outcomes, the teams became more aware that discharged PE patients were struggling with mental health and other quality-of-life issues – symptoms that have been understudied, according to a protocol Dr. Tefera coauthored for a prospective observational study of psychological distress symptoms in PE survivors. By contrast, the protocol noted, these symptoms have been studied extensively in myocardial infarction and stroke patients (Res Pract Thromb Hemost. 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.10045). Other studies have found that 35%-50% of patients reported mental health symptoms 3 months after PE (Chest. 2021;159:2428-38; Qual Life Res. 2019;28:2111-24).

“A lot of physicians have known it for quite some time, but it wasn’t really until the last couple of years that physicians started saying psychological stress is something that we need to quantify and that we need to actually treat, that we actually need to address,” Dr. Tefera said. That led Dr. Tefera and his Cleveland Clinic PERT colleagues to set up a follow-up clinic for PE patients.

At their follow-up visits, patients complete validated questionnaires about anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, PE-specific quality of life, and posttraumatic stress disorder. “If they flag as positive, we give them a referral to an in-house psychologist,” he said. “One thing I can report is that patients absolutely, positively love this, because it’s something that they are all experiencing that a lot of physicians just aren’t addressing.”
 

Artificial intelligence emerges

At the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the PERT has started evaluating artificial intelligence to aid in PE diagnosis. Belinda Rivera-Lebron, MD, director of the acute and chronic embolism program at Pitt, explained that the AI protocol hasn’t been adopted yet, but the concept is to have a platform that’s compatible with the hospital system’s electronic medical record.

University of Pittsburgh

She described how AI would work once the PERT is activated. “Once the patient goes through the CT scanner, within 60 seconds of that scan being completed, the scan gets uploaded into the cloud and the app or the platform is able to tell you whether there is PE present or absent, and whether there is right ventricle dilation on that scan. This is even before you probably even think about opening up the computer to look at the scan, and even before radiology opens up the scan to read,” she said. “It’s so fast.”

The idea is to send the scans rapidly to the PERT. “It will send you a text, a notification on your phone that will tell you Mr. Smith is PE positive,” Dr. Rivera-Lebron said. “Then you open it and you are able to scroll through the CT scan in your phone. So, it’s really remarkable.”
 

Clinical trials worth watching

Meanwhile, a number of clinical trials have started to enroll patients, or will soon, that Dr. Rivera-Lebron said are worth paying attention to.

PEITHO-3 is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with long-term follow-up comparing the efficacy of a reduced-dose alteplase regimen or standard heparin anticoagulation in patients with intermediate to high-risk PE (Thromb Haemost. 2022;122:867-66).

PEERLESS is a prospective randomized trial comparing mechanical thrombectomy and CDT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05111613).

PE-Thrombus Removal with Catheter-directed Therapy (PE-TRACT) is an open-label Phase 3 trial comparing anticoagulation and CDT that’s not yet recruiting (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05591118).

FlowTriever for Acute Massive Pulmonary Embolism (FLAME) is a prospective cohort study evaluating a clot-retrieving device in high-risk PE patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04795167).

When completed and published, these trials could provide PERTs more evidence for their decision-making.

Dr. Ardeshna and Dr. Tefera have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Rivera-Lebron disclosed relationships with INARI Catheter and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Kabrhel disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer.

In 2012, a small group of specialists, consisting of a critical care pulmonologist, cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, and vascular specialist, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, met to Monday morning quarterback an acute pulmonary embolism case that didn’t go as well as they’d hoped. They came up with a concept known as the pulmonary embolism response team – PERT for short – an idea that soon took hold in other centers and served as the vanguard to other innovative approaches to managing critical care patients with PE, which is the third-leading cause of cardiovascular death in the United States (Intern Emerg Med. 2023. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-03180-w).

Leisa Thompson/Michigan Medicine

Three years later the PERT Consortium came together, which today has 102 members, according to the organization’s website (www.pertconsortium.org), and members in South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Since then, PE strategies have evolved to target mental health issues recovering patients have, improve follow-up after discharge, and even investigate artificial intelligence and apps to expedite diagnosis and treatment. The PERT Consortium, meanwhile, is in the process of creating the PE Centers of Excellence program to certify centers that meet certain requirements.

Harvard Medical School

“Part of the reason we recognized that a discussion across specialties was important was because there weren’t the large clinical trials that could tell us exactly what to do for any given case,” said Christopher Kabrhel, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Vascular Emergencies at Mass General and a professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who assembled that formative meeting. “Without a clear basis in data, it was really important to have all the different specialists weigh in and give their perspective and talk about what was the best approach for the patient’s care.”
 

Filling data gaps

Some of those data gaps persist today, Dr. Kabrhel said. “It’s precisely that lack of head-to-head data that existed in 2012, and to a great extent still exists today, that led us to create this system.” The American Heart Association just this January issued a scientific statement on surgical management and mechanical circulatory support in high-risk PE (Circulation. 2023;147:e628­­-47).

But the intervening research has been uneven. The Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis (PEITHO) trial in 2014 evaluated systemic thrombolysis and anticoagulation alone (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1402-11), but head-to-head studies of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), which was just emerging in 2012, and either systemic thrombolysis or anticoagulation have been lacking, Dr. Kabrhel said. The Hi-PEITHO trial in high-risk PE patients is evaluating ultrasound-guided CDT plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone (Am Heart J. 2022:251:43-54), but it isn’t complete.

“The therapeutic landscape for PE is evolving incredibly rapidly,” he said. “When we first started PERT we were just starting to see CDT. Since then, we’ve seen several new thrombolytic catheters come onto the market, but there’s also been a proliferation of suction embolectomy catheters and we’ve seen a potentially larger role for surgery and the use of ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or cardiac bypass to bridge patients to definitive therapy. With the rapid evolution and the seemingly daily addition of new therapeutic options, I think the need for PERT is only increasing.”

A recent study out of the University of Michigan reported that the PERT there led to a decrease in the use of advanced therapies given to acute PE patients without reducing mortality or extending hospital stays (Thromb Res. 2023;221:73-8). A study in Spain reported that patients with high-risk and intermediate high-risk PE who had PERT-coordinated care had half the 12-month mortality rate of non-PERT counterparts, 9% vs. 22.2% (P = .02) (Med Clin [Barc]. 2023;S0025-7753(23)00017-9). And a 2021 study at University Hospitals in Cleveland reported that PERT-managed PE patients had a 60% lower rate of adverse outcomes at 90 days than non–PERT-managed patients (J Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33:E173-E180).

Michigan Medicine

Nelish Ardeshna, MD, MA, the lead author of the Michigan study, said the PERT there was formed in 2017. Besides the multispecialty team that can be summoned to a teleconference on short notice, the protocol includes having at least one noninvasive specialist, such as a cardiologist or hospitalist, and one interventionalist, such as a radiologist, always on call. The PERT gets activated through the paging system after a hospital or emergency department physician identifies a suspected or established high-risk PE.

“High-risk PE patients can present in all settings, including the emergency department, ICU, surgical floor, or medical floor,” said Dr. Ardeshna, an internal medicine resident. “Management for these patients is equally varied from anticoagulation to systemic thrombolytics. Not all providers may be familiar with current guidelines to select the optimal therapy for high-risk pulmonary embolism patients. PERT aims to bridge that gap by providing a multidisciplinary discussion with PE specialists that can help identify the correct therapeutic options for optimal outcomes.”

Cleveland Clinic

At Cleveland Clinic, where the PERT has been in place since 2012, the PERT can consist of six to eight different specialties and involve up to 15 providers on a conference call, said Leben Tefera, MD, a vascular specialist and head of the PERT team there.

“Each patient will come in and have certain comorbidities,” Dr. Tefera said. “The unfortunate thing about a majority of the PEs that we see, in particular ones [in patients] that are very sick and require inpatient treatment, is that they don’t really fit into a box; you can’t come up with one kind of generic care routine or care path that treats the majority of patients with PE.”
 

Evolving to follow-up care

As the PERT protocol led to better inpatient outcomes, the teams became more aware that discharged PE patients were struggling with mental health and other quality-of-life issues – symptoms that have been understudied, according to a protocol Dr. Tefera coauthored for a prospective observational study of psychological distress symptoms in PE survivors. By contrast, the protocol noted, these symptoms have been studied extensively in myocardial infarction and stroke patients (Res Pract Thromb Hemost. 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.10045). Other studies have found that 35%-50% of patients reported mental health symptoms 3 months after PE (Chest. 2021;159:2428-38; Qual Life Res. 2019;28:2111-24).

“A lot of physicians have known it for quite some time, but it wasn’t really until the last couple of years that physicians started saying psychological stress is something that we need to quantify and that we need to actually treat, that we actually need to address,” Dr. Tefera said. That led Dr. Tefera and his Cleveland Clinic PERT colleagues to set up a follow-up clinic for PE patients.

At their follow-up visits, patients complete validated questionnaires about anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, PE-specific quality of life, and posttraumatic stress disorder. “If they flag as positive, we give them a referral to an in-house psychologist,” he said. “One thing I can report is that patients absolutely, positively love this, because it’s something that they are all experiencing that a lot of physicians just aren’t addressing.”
 

Artificial intelligence emerges

At the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the PERT has started evaluating artificial intelligence to aid in PE diagnosis. Belinda Rivera-Lebron, MD, director of the acute and chronic embolism program at Pitt, explained that the AI protocol hasn’t been adopted yet, but the concept is to have a platform that’s compatible with the hospital system’s electronic medical record.

University of Pittsburgh

She described how AI would work once the PERT is activated. “Once the patient goes through the CT scanner, within 60 seconds of that scan being completed, the scan gets uploaded into the cloud and the app or the platform is able to tell you whether there is PE present or absent, and whether there is right ventricle dilation on that scan. This is even before you probably even think about opening up the computer to look at the scan, and even before radiology opens up the scan to read,” she said. “It’s so fast.”

The idea is to send the scans rapidly to the PERT. “It will send you a text, a notification on your phone that will tell you Mr. Smith is PE positive,” Dr. Rivera-Lebron said. “Then you open it and you are able to scroll through the CT scan in your phone. So, it’s really remarkable.”
 

Clinical trials worth watching

Meanwhile, a number of clinical trials have started to enroll patients, or will soon, that Dr. Rivera-Lebron said are worth paying attention to.

PEITHO-3 is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with long-term follow-up comparing the efficacy of a reduced-dose alteplase regimen or standard heparin anticoagulation in patients with intermediate to high-risk PE (Thromb Haemost. 2022;122:867-66).

PEERLESS is a prospective randomized trial comparing mechanical thrombectomy and CDT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05111613).

PE-Thrombus Removal with Catheter-directed Therapy (PE-TRACT) is an open-label Phase 3 trial comparing anticoagulation and CDT that’s not yet recruiting (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05591118).

FlowTriever for Acute Massive Pulmonary Embolism (FLAME) is a prospective cohort study evaluating a clot-retrieving device in high-risk PE patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04795167).

When completed and published, these trials could provide PERTs more evidence for their decision-making.

Dr. Ardeshna and Dr. Tefera have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Rivera-Lebron disclosed relationships with INARI Catheter and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Kabrhel disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer.

In 2012, a small group of specialists, consisting of a critical care pulmonologist, cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, and vascular specialist, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, met to Monday morning quarterback an acute pulmonary embolism case that didn’t go as well as they’d hoped. They came up with a concept known as the pulmonary embolism response team – PERT for short – an idea that soon took hold in other centers and served as the vanguard to other innovative approaches to managing critical care patients with PE, which is the third-leading cause of cardiovascular death in the United States (Intern Emerg Med. 2023. doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-03180-w).

Leisa Thompson/Michigan Medicine

Three years later the PERT Consortium came together, which today has 102 members, according to the organization’s website (www.pertconsortium.org), and members in South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Since then, PE strategies have evolved to target mental health issues recovering patients have, improve follow-up after discharge, and even investigate artificial intelligence and apps to expedite diagnosis and treatment. The PERT Consortium, meanwhile, is in the process of creating the PE Centers of Excellence program to certify centers that meet certain requirements.

Harvard Medical School

“Part of the reason we recognized that a discussion across specialties was important was because there weren’t the large clinical trials that could tell us exactly what to do for any given case,” said Christopher Kabrhel, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Vascular Emergencies at Mass General and a professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who assembled that formative meeting. “Without a clear basis in data, it was really important to have all the different specialists weigh in and give their perspective and talk about what was the best approach for the patient’s care.”
 

Filling data gaps

Some of those data gaps persist today, Dr. Kabrhel said. “It’s precisely that lack of head-to-head data that existed in 2012, and to a great extent still exists today, that led us to create this system.” The American Heart Association just this January issued a scientific statement on surgical management and mechanical circulatory support in high-risk PE (Circulation. 2023;147:e628­­-47).

But the intervening research has been uneven. The Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis (PEITHO) trial in 2014 evaluated systemic thrombolysis and anticoagulation alone (N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1402-11), but head-to-head studies of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), which was just emerging in 2012, and either systemic thrombolysis or anticoagulation have been lacking, Dr. Kabrhel said. The Hi-PEITHO trial in high-risk PE patients is evaluating ultrasound-guided CDT plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone (Am Heart J. 2022:251:43-54), but it isn’t complete.

“The therapeutic landscape for PE is evolving incredibly rapidly,” he said. “When we first started PERT we were just starting to see CDT. Since then, we’ve seen several new thrombolytic catheters come onto the market, but there’s also been a proliferation of suction embolectomy catheters and we’ve seen a potentially larger role for surgery and the use of ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or cardiac bypass to bridge patients to definitive therapy. With the rapid evolution and the seemingly daily addition of new therapeutic options, I think the need for PERT is only increasing.”

A recent study out of the University of Michigan reported that the PERT there led to a decrease in the use of advanced therapies given to acute PE patients without reducing mortality or extending hospital stays (Thromb Res. 2023;221:73-8). A study in Spain reported that patients with high-risk and intermediate high-risk PE who had PERT-coordinated care had half the 12-month mortality rate of non-PERT counterparts, 9% vs. 22.2% (P = .02) (Med Clin [Barc]. 2023;S0025-7753(23)00017-9). And a 2021 study at University Hospitals in Cleveland reported that PERT-managed PE patients had a 60% lower rate of adverse outcomes at 90 days than non–PERT-managed patients (J Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33:E173-E180).

Michigan Medicine

Nelish Ardeshna, MD, MA, the lead author of the Michigan study, said the PERT there was formed in 2017. Besides the multispecialty team that can be summoned to a teleconference on short notice, the protocol includes having at least one noninvasive specialist, such as a cardiologist or hospitalist, and one interventionalist, such as a radiologist, always on call. The PERT gets activated through the paging system after a hospital or emergency department physician identifies a suspected or established high-risk PE.

“High-risk PE patients can present in all settings, including the emergency department, ICU, surgical floor, or medical floor,” said Dr. Ardeshna, an internal medicine resident. “Management for these patients is equally varied from anticoagulation to systemic thrombolytics. Not all providers may be familiar with current guidelines to select the optimal therapy for high-risk pulmonary embolism patients. PERT aims to bridge that gap by providing a multidisciplinary discussion with PE specialists that can help identify the correct therapeutic options for optimal outcomes.”

Cleveland Clinic

At Cleveland Clinic, where the PERT has been in place since 2012, the PERT can consist of six to eight different specialties and involve up to 15 providers on a conference call, said Leben Tefera, MD, a vascular specialist and head of the PERT team there.

“Each patient will come in and have certain comorbidities,” Dr. Tefera said. “The unfortunate thing about a majority of the PEs that we see, in particular ones [in patients] that are very sick and require inpatient treatment, is that they don’t really fit into a box; you can’t come up with one kind of generic care routine or care path that treats the majority of patients with PE.”
 

Evolving to follow-up care

As the PERT protocol led to better inpatient outcomes, the teams became more aware that discharged PE patients were struggling with mental health and other quality-of-life issues – symptoms that have been understudied, according to a protocol Dr. Tefera coauthored for a prospective observational study of psychological distress symptoms in PE survivors. By contrast, the protocol noted, these symptoms have been studied extensively in myocardial infarction and stroke patients (Res Pract Thromb Hemost. 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.10045). Other studies have found that 35%-50% of patients reported mental health symptoms 3 months after PE (Chest. 2021;159:2428-38; Qual Life Res. 2019;28:2111-24).

“A lot of physicians have known it for quite some time, but it wasn’t really until the last couple of years that physicians started saying psychological stress is something that we need to quantify and that we need to actually treat, that we actually need to address,” Dr. Tefera said. That led Dr. Tefera and his Cleveland Clinic PERT colleagues to set up a follow-up clinic for PE patients.

At their follow-up visits, patients complete validated questionnaires about anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, PE-specific quality of life, and posttraumatic stress disorder. “If they flag as positive, we give them a referral to an in-house psychologist,” he said. “One thing I can report is that patients absolutely, positively love this, because it’s something that they are all experiencing that a lot of physicians just aren’t addressing.”
 

Artificial intelligence emerges

At the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the PERT has started evaluating artificial intelligence to aid in PE diagnosis. Belinda Rivera-Lebron, MD, director of the acute and chronic embolism program at Pitt, explained that the AI protocol hasn’t been adopted yet, but the concept is to have a platform that’s compatible with the hospital system’s electronic medical record.

University of Pittsburgh

She described how AI would work once the PERT is activated. “Once the patient goes through the CT scanner, within 60 seconds of that scan being completed, the scan gets uploaded into the cloud and the app or the platform is able to tell you whether there is PE present or absent, and whether there is right ventricle dilation on that scan. This is even before you probably even think about opening up the computer to look at the scan, and even before radiology opens up the scan to read,” she said. “It’s so fast.”

The idea is to send the scans rapidly to the PERT. “It will send you a text, a notification on your phone that will tell you Mr. Smith is PE positive,” Dr. Rivera-Lebron said. “Then you open it and you are able to scroll through the CT scan in your phone. So, it’s really remarkable.”
 

Clinical trials worth watching

Meanwhile, a number of clinical trials have started to enroll patients, or will soon, that Dr. Rivera-Lebron said are worth paying attention to.

PEITHO-3 is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with long-term follow-up comparing the efficacy of a reduced-dose alteplase regimen or standard heparin anticoagulation in patients with intermediate to high-risk PE (Thromb Haemost. 2022;122:867-66).

PEERLESS is a prospective randomized trial comparing mechanical thrombectomy and CDT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05111613).

PE-Thrombus Removal with Catheter-directed Therapy (PE-TRACT) is an open-label Phase 3 trial comparing anticoagulation and CDT that’s not yet recruiting (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05591118).

FlowTriever for Acute Massive Pulmonary Embolism (FLAME) is a prospective cohort study evaluating a clot-retrieving device in high-risk PE patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04795167).

When completed and published, these trials could provide PERTs more evidence for their decision-making.

Dr. Ardeshna and Dr. Tefera have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Rivera-Lebron disclosed relationships with INARI Catheter and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Kabrhel disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer.

A hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery system improved time-in-range for blood glucose, compared with standard care, for children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week trial.

The hybrid closed-loop system, also called automated insulin delivery or artificial pancreas, was composed of a t:slim X2 insulin pump, a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and Control-IQ technology system algorithm software (Tandem Diabetes Care). The system was approved in the United States in 2018 for adults and children as young as 6 years.

Type 1 diabetes treatment is particularly challenging in children younger than 6 because of their small insulin dosing requirements and unpredictable eating and activity habits, lead author R. Paul Wadwa, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.

Thus far in the United States, only the Medtronic MiniMed 770G and the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery systems are approved for children as young as 2 years, they noted.

In the current study of 102 children with type 1 diabetes aged at least 2 years but younger than 6 years, time-in-range over 13 weeks was higher for those randomized to the hybrid closed-loop system, compared with standard of care; the latter included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections plus a separate Dexcom G6 CGM.

The hybrid closed-loop system added an average of about 3 hours in ideal blood glucose range over the 13 weeks, compared with no change with standard care.

Moreover, the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating virtual care for most of the study participants. As a result, more than 80% of the training on use of the system and over 90% of all the visits were conducted virtually.

“Successful use of the closed-loop system under these conditions is an important finding that could affect the approach to initiating and monitoring the use of the closed-loop system and expand the use of such systems, particularly in patients living in areas without an endocrinologist but with reliable internet access,” the investigators wrote.

Their findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These results suggest that, in very young children, closed-loop systems are superior to standard care with respect to glucose control,” Daniela Bruttomesso, MD, PhD, of the University of Padua (Italy) wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Moreover, they show that the closed-loop system can be started remotely in children in this age range, with results that are similar to those obtained when parents or guardians receive face-to-face education about the use of these systems. The closed-loop system used in this trial appeared to be safe and effective.”

Dr. Bruttomesso added: “Although the results were solid, the trial period was only 13 weeks, and there were more unscheduled contacts in the closed-loop group than in the standard care group. In addition, the authors compared a closed-loop system with standard care, rather than in-person initiation of a closed-loop system with remote initiation.”
 

More time-in-range, no hypoglycemia with automated system

The 102 children were enrolled in the trial between April 28, 2021, and Jan. 13, 2022, at three different U.S. study sites; 68 children were randomized to the closed-loop system and 34 children to standard care. All but one participant completed the 13-week study.

Both groups had virtual or in-person trial visits at 2, 6, and 13 weeks after randomization, and telephone contact at 1 and 10 weeks. Training was virtual for 55 of the 68 children in the closed-loop group (81%). A total of 91% of 407 study visits in the closed-loop and 96% of 204 study visits in the standard-care group were also virtual.

The mean percentage of time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 56.9% at baseline to 69.3% at 13 weeks for the closed-loop group, compared with virtually no change, from 54.9% to 55.9%, in the standard-care group. The mean adjusted difference between the two groups was significant (P < .001).

The closed-loop group also spent significantly less time than the standard-care group with glucose levels above 250 mg/dL during the study period (8.4% vs. 15.0%; P < .001), had lower mean glucose levels (155 vs. 174 mg/dL; P < .001), and lower hemoglobin A1c (7.0% vs. 7.5%; P < .001).

However, time spent with glucose levels below 70 mg/dL (3.0% vs. 3.0%; P = .57) and below 54 mg/dL (0.6% vs. 0.5%) didn’t differ between the groups. 

There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis related to infusion set failure occurred in the closed-loop group versus none in the standard-care group.

Dr. Bruttomesso commented that a virtual approach has several advantages over in-person visits, including “a more relaxed environment, lower travel costs, and greater ease of contact with clinicians.”

At the same time, though, “patient preferences, possible legal issues, and accessibility to technology ... are all important considerations in choosing the most appropriate way to communicate with patients at the initiation of a closed-loop system or during routine follow-up.” The families of the patients in this trial had above-average incomes, she pointed out.

Ultimately, she said, “A mix of face-to-face visits and virtual clinic meetings may become routine in the management of diabetes in young children.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Wadwa reported receiving grants/contracts from Beta Bionics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and MannKind, travel fees from Eli Lilly, and lecture fees from Tandem Diabetes Care, and serves as a consultant for Dexcom. Dr. Bruttomesso reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery system improved time-in-range for blood glucose, compared with standard care, for children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week trial.

The hybrid closed-loop system, also called automated insulin delivery or artificial pancreas, was composed of a t:slim X2 insulin pump, a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and Control-IQ technology system algorithm software (Tandem Diabetes Care). The system was approved in the United States in 2018 for adults and children as young as 6 years.

Type 1 diabetes treatment is particularly challenging in children younger than 6 because of their small insulin dosing requirements and unpredictable eating and activity habits, lead author R. Paul Wadwa, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.

Thus far in the United States, only the Medtronic MiniMed 770G and the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery systems are approved for children as young as 2 years, they noted.

In the current study of 102 children with type 1 diabetes aged at least 2 years but younger than 6 years, time-in-range over 13 weeks was higher for those randomized to the hybrid closed-loop system, compared with standard of care; the latter included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections plus a separate Dexcom G6 CGM.

The hybrid closed-loop system added an average of about 3 hours in ideal blood glucose range over the 13 weeks, compared with no change with standard care.

Moreover, the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating virtual care for most of the study participants. As a result, more than 80% of the training on use of the system and over 90% of all the visits were conducted virtually.

“Successful use of the closed-loop system under these conditions is an important finding that could affect the approach to initiating and monitoring the use of the closed-loop system and expand the use of such systems, particularly in patients living in areas without an endocrinologist but with reliable internet access,” the investigators wrote.

Their findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These results suggest that, in very young children, closed-loop systems are superior to standard care with respect to glucose control,” Daniela Bruttomesso, MD, PhD, of the University of Padua (Italy) wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Moreover, they show that the closed-loop system can be started remotely in children in this age range, with results that are similar to those obtained when parents or guardians receive face-to-face education about the use of these systems. The closed-loop system used in this trial appeared to be safe and effective.”

Dr. Bruttomesso added: “Although the results were solid, the trial period was only 13 weeks, and there were more unscheduled contacts in the closed-loop group than in the standard care group. In addition, the authors compared a closed-loop system with standard care, rather than in-person initiation of a closed-loop system with remote initiation.”
 

More time-in-range, no hypoglycemia with automated system

The 102 children were enrolled in the trial between April 28, 2021, and Jan. 13, 2022, at three different U.S. study sites; 68 children were randomized to the closed-loop system and 34 children to standard care. All but one participant completed the 13-week study.

Both groups had virtual or in-person trial visits at 2, 6, and 13 weeks after randomization, and telephone contact at 1 and 10 weeks. Training was virtual for 55 of the 68 children in the closed-loop group (81%). A total of 91% of 407 study visits in the closed-loop and 96% of 204 study visits in the standard-care group were also virtual.

The mean percentage of time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 56.9% at baseline to 69.3% at 13 weeks for the closed-loop group, compared with virtually no change, from 54.9% to 55.9%, in the standard-care group. The mean adjusted difference between the two groups was significant (P < .001).

The closed-loop group also spent significantly less time than the standard-care group with glucose levels above 250 mg/dL during the study period (8.4% vs. 15.0%; P < .001), had lower mean glucose levels (155 vs. 174 mg/dL; P < .001), and lower hemoglobin A1c (7.0% vs. 7.5%; P < .001).

However, time spent with glucose levels below 70 mg/dL (3.0% vs. 3.0%; P = .57) and below 54 mg/dL (0.6% vs. 0.5%) didn’t differ between the groups. 

There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis related to infusion set failure occurred in the closed-loop group versus none in the standard-care group.

Dr. Bruttomesso commented that a virtual approach has several advantages over in-person visits, including “a more relaxed environment, lower travel costs, and greater ease of contact with clinicians.”

At the same time, though, “patient preferences, possible legal issues, and accessibility to technology ... are all important considerations in choosing the most appropriate way to communicate with patients at the initiation of a closed-loop system or during routine follow-up.” The families of the patients in this trial had above-average incomes, she pointed out.

Ultimately, she said, “A mix of face-to-face visits and virtual clinic meetings may become routine in the management of diabetes in young children.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Wadwa reported receiving grants/contracts from Beta Bionics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and MannKind, travel fees from Eli Lilly, and lecture fees from Tandem Diabetes Care, and serves as a consultant for Dexcom. Dr. Bruttomesso reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery system improved time-in-range for blood glucose, compared with standard care, for children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week trial.

The hybrid closed-loop system, also called automated insulin delivery or artificial pancreas, was composed of a t:slim X2 insulin pump, a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and Control-IQ technology system algorithm software (Tandem Diabetes Care). The system was approved in the United States in 2018 for adults and children as young as 6 years.

Type 1 diabetes treatment is particularly challenging in children younger than 6 because of their small insulin dosing requirements and unpredictable eating and activity habits, lead author R. Paul Wadwa, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.

Thus far in the United States, only the Medtronic MiniMed 770G and the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery systems are approved for children as young as 2 years, they noted.

In the current study of 102 children with type 1 diabetes aged at least 2 years but younger than 6 years, time-in-range over 13 weeks was higher for those randomized to the hybrid closed-loop system, compared with standard of care; the latter included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections plus a separate Dexcom G6 CGM.

The hybrid closed-loop system added an average of about 3 hours in ideal blood glucose range over the 13 weeks, compared with no change with standard care.

Moreover, the trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating virtual care for most of the study participants. As a result, more than 80% of the training on use of the system and over 90% of all the visits were conducted virtually.

“Successful use of the closed-loop system under these conditions is an important finding that could affect the approach to initiating and monitoring the use of the closed-loop system and expand the use of such systems, particularly in patients living in areas without an endocrinologist but with reliable internet access,” the investigators wrote.

Their findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These results suggest that, in very young children, closed-loop systems are superior to standard care with respect to glucose control,” Daniela Bruttomesso, MD, PhD, of the University of Padua (Italy) wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Moreover, they show that the closed-loop system can be started remotely in children in this age range, with results that are similar to those obtained when parents or guardians receive face-to-face education about the use of these systems. The closed-loop system used in this trial appeared to be safe and effective.”

Dr. Bruttomesso added: “Although the results were solid, the trial period was only 13 weeks, and there were more unscheduled contacts in the closed-loop group than in the standard care group. In addition, the authors compared a closed-loop system with standard care, rather than in-person initiation of a closed-loop system with remote initiation.”
 

More time-in-range, no hypoglycemia with automated system

The 102 children were enrolled in the trial between April 28, 2021, and Jan. 13, 2022, at three different U.S. study sites; 68 children were randomized to the closed-loop system and 34 children to standard care. All but one participant completed the 13-week study.

Both groups had virtual or in-person trial visits at 2, 6, and 13 weeks after randomization, and telephone contact at 1 and 10 weeks. Training was virtual for 55 of the 68 children in the closed-loop group (81%). A total of 91% of 407 study visits in the closed-loop and 96% of 204 study visits in the standard-care group were also virtual.

The mean percentage of time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 56.9% at baseline to 69.3% at 13 weeks for the closed-loop group, compared with virtually no change, from 54.9% to 55.9%, in the standard-care group. The mean adjusted difference between the two groups was significant (P < .001).

The closed-loop group also spent significantly less time than the standard-care group with glucose levels above 250 mg/dL during the study period (8.4% vs. 15.0%; P < .001), had lower mean glucose levels (155 vs. 174 mg/dL; P < .001), and lower hemoglobin A1c (7.0% vs. 7.5%; P < .001).

However, time spent with glucose levels below 70 mg/dL (3.0% vs. 3.0%; P = .57) and below 54 mg/dL (0.6% vs. 0.5%) didn’t differ between the groups. 

There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis related to infusion set failure occurred in the closed-loop group versus none in the standard-care group.

Dr. Bruttomesso commented that a virtual approach has several advantages over in-person visits, including “a more relaxed environment, lower travel costs, and greater ease of contact with clinicians.”

At the same time, though, “patient preferences, possible legal issues, and accessibility to technology ... are all important considerations in choosing the most appropriate way to communicate with patients at the initiation of a closed-loop system or during routine follow-up.” The families of the patients in this trial had above-average incomes, she pointed out.

Ultimately, she said, “A mix of face-to-face visits and virtual clinic meetings may become routine in the management of diabetes in young children.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Wadwa reported receiving grants/contracts from Beta Bionics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and MannKind, travel fees from Eli Lilly, and lecture fees from Tandem Diabetes Care, and serves as a consultant for Dexcom. Dr. Bruttomesso reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians are admired for their sacrifice and dedication. Yet beneath the surface lies a painful, quiet reality: Physicians take their lives more than any other professional, reported at 40 per 100,000. Nearly one doctor dies by suicide every day.

The Physicians Foundation says that 55% of physicians know a doctor who considered, attempted, or died by suicide. Doctor’s Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023 asked more than 9,000 doctors if they had suicidal thoughts. Nine percent of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said yes.
 

Why do so many doctors take their own lives?

“It’s not a new phenomenon,” says Rajnish Jaiswal, MD, associate chief of emergency medicine at NYC H+H Metropolitan Hospital and assistant professor of emergency medicine at New York Medical College. “There was a paper 150 years ago, published in England, which commented on the high rates of physician suicides compared to other professionals, and that trend has continued.”

Dr. Jaiswal says that the feeling in the physician community is that the numbers are even higher than what’s reported, unfortunately, which is an opinion echoed by other doctors this news organization spoke with for this story.
 

A perfect storm

Jodie Eckleberry-Hunt, PhD, a board-certified health psychologist, executive coach, and author, says the most significant culprit historically may be a rigid mindset that many physicians have. “There’s black and white, there’s a right answer and a wrong answer, there’s good and bad, and some physicians have a really hard time flexing,” she says.

Psychological flexibility underlies resilience. Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says, “Think about your bounce factor and how that resilience is protective. Life isn’t always going to go well. You have to be able to flex and bounce, and some physicians (not all of them, of course) tend to be lower on cognitive flexibility.”

Brad Fern, coach and psychotherapist at Fern Executive and Physician Consulting, Minneapolis, says he uses two analogies that help when he works with physicians. One is the evil twins, and the other is the pressure cooker.

Mr. Fern says that the evil twins are silence and isolation and that several professions, including physicians, fall prey to these. To put any dent in suicidal ideations and suicide, Mr. Fern says, these must be addressed.

“Physicians tend not to talk about what’s bothering them, and that’s for many different reasons. They disproportionally tend to be great at helping other people but not great at receiving help themselves.”

On top of that, there’s a pressure cooker where they work. Mr. Fern doesn’t think anyone would argue that the health care system in the United States is not dysfunctional, at least to some degree. He says that this dysfunction acts like the physicians’ pressure cooker.

Add in circumstances, cultures, and day-to-day issues everyone has, like relational issues, parenting issues, and mental health problems. Then, toss in an individual’s lower resiliency, the inability to receive help, and a predicament for good measure – a loss, a divorce, or financial woes, for instance, which can overwhelm. Mr. Fern says it can be a mathematical equation for suicidal ideation.
 

Is there a why?

“Some people think there’s a reason for suicide, but often, there’s a spectrum of reasons,” says Mr. Fern. He says that some physicians are trying to escape emotional pain. For others, it can be fear or a revenge thing, like, “the hell with you, I’m going to kill myself.” It can be getting attention the way teens do, as professionals have seen. Then there’s the organic component, like brain trauma, brain imbalance, depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder. And finally, a drug or alcohol issue.

“But the reason why physician suicide is elevated, I think, is because there’s this ethos around being silent and, ‘I’m going to listen to and solve everyone else’s problems, but I’m not going to reach out and get help for my own,’ ” says Mr. Fern. “If you take advantage of mental health services, you’re implying that you’re mentally ill. And most physicians aren’t going to do that.”

On the positive side, Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that she sees many younger physicians discussing trauma. As a result, they’re more open to receiving help than previous generations. She speculates whether physicians have always had trauma from their past and whether current-day issues are now triggering it or whether they have more trauma these days. “Are they talking about it more, or is it experienced more?”
 

The failure of the system

The building blocks for physician suicide may have been there from the beginning. “From your first day of medical school and throughout your career, there was a very rigid system in place that is quite unforgiving, is quite stressful, and demands a lot,” says Dr. Jaiswal. And it’s within this system that physicians must operate.

“You have all the corporations, entities, organizations, [and] medical societies talking about physician wellness, burnout, and suicide, but the reality is it’s not making that much of a difference,” he says.

In her report, “What I’ve Learned From 1,710 Doctor Suicides,” Pamelia Wible, MD, who runs a physician suicide helpline that physicians can email and get an immediate callback, likens the current system to assembly line medicine.

Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt thinks the message has been bungled in health care. Everyone discusses burnout, meditation, self-care, and other essential constructs. “But we don’t deal with the root cause [of suicide]. Instead, we teach you soothing strategies.”

Further, Dr. Jaiswal says that not all physicians who commit suicide experience burnout or are experiencing burnout and that the vast majority of physicians who experience burnout don’t have suicidal ideation. “In the sense, that ‘let’s address physician burnout and that will hopefully translate to a reduced number of physician suicides’ – there is a very tenuous argument to be made for that because that is just one aspect in this complex system,” he says.
 

We need more than just lip service on suicide

Overall, the experts interviewed for this article acknowledged that the system is at least talking about physician suicide, which is a big first step. However, most agree that where big health entities go wrong is that they set up wellness or mental health programs, they implement a wellness officer, they write up talking points for physicians who need mental health care to get that care, and they think they’ve done their job, that they’ve done what’s required to address the problem.

But Dr. Jaiswal thinks these are often mostly public-relations rebuttals. Mr. Fern suggests, “It’s a show that’s not effective.” And Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that “even if you had a legit, well-funded well-being program for health care providers, you would still have a baseline rate of physician suicide, and that gets down to having drug and alcohol education and talking about having a system for physicians to access that doesn’t come along with insurance billing” – one that doesn’t create a paper trail and follow physician licensure and job applications for the rest of their career; one that doesn’t associate their mental health care with their work institution; one that offers confidentiality.

“For most folks, there is still a big distrust in the system. As physicians, very few of them feel that the system that they’re operating in has their best interest at heart. And that is why very few physicians will self-report any mental health issues, depression, or even ideation to colleagues, superiors, or managers,” says Dr. Jaiswal. Many more feel skeptical about the confidentiality of the programs in place.

The experts acknowledge that many people are trying to work on this and bring about change on multiple levels – grassroots, department levels, state, and federal. “But I think the biggest thing that the system has to do is earn back the trust of the physician,” Dr. Jaiswal adds.

“Physician suicide is a very visible problem in a very broken system. So, it’ll be very difficult in isolation to treat it without making any systemic changes, because that’s happening right now, and it’s not working,” says Dr. Jaiswal.

“The thing that I am most hopeful about is that I am seeing an influx of younger physicians who seek me out, and granted, their training programs tell them to come and see me, but they are ready and willing to talk about their mental health separate from work. They’re not coming in saying, ‘Here are all the people who I blame.’ They’re saying, ‘These are my struggles, and I want to be a better, happier physician,’ ” says Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt.

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

Physicians are admired for their sacrifice and dedication. Yet beneath the surface lies a painful, quiet reality: Physicians take their lives more than any other professional, reported at 40 per 100,000. Nearly one doctor dies by suicide every day.

The Physicians Foundation says that 55% of physicians know a doctor who considered, attempted, or died by suicide. Doctor’s Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023 asked more than 9,000 doctors if they had suicidal thoughts. Nine percent of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said yes.
 

Why do so many doctors take their own lives?

“It’s not a new phenomenon,” says Rajnish Jaiswal, MD, associate chief of emergency medicine at NYC H+H Metropolitan Hospital and assistant professor of emergency medicine at New York Medical College. “There was a paper 150 years ago, published in England, which commented on the high rates of physician suicides compared to other professionals, and that trend has continued.”

Dr. Jaiswal says that the feeling in the physician community is that the numbers are even higher than what’s reported, unfortunately, which is an opinion echoed by other doctors this news organization spoke with for this story.
 

A perfect storm

Jodie Eckleberry-Hunt, PhD, a board-certified health psychologist, executive coach, and author, says the most significant culprit historically may be a rigid mindset that many physicians have. “There’s black and white, there’s a right answer and a wrong answer, there’s good and bad, and some physicians have a really hard time flexing,” she says.

Psychological flexibility underlies resilience. Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says, “Think about your bounce factor and how that resilience is protective. Life isn’t always going to go well. You have to be able to flex and bounce, and some physicians (not all of them, of course) tend to be lower on cognitive flexibility.”

Brad Fern, coach and psychotherapist at Fern Executive and Physician Consulting, Minneapolis, says he uses two analogies that help when he works with physicians. One is the evil twins, and the other is the pressure cooker.

Mr. Fern says that the evil twins are silence and isolation and that several professions, including physicians, fall prey to these. To put any dent in suicidal ideations and suicide, Mr. Fern says, these must be addressed.

“Physicians tend not to talk about what’s bothering them, and that’s for many different reasons. They disproportionally tend to be great at helping other people but not great at receiving help themselves.”

On top of that, there’s a pressure cooker where they work. Mr. Fern doesn’t think anyone would argue that the health care system in the United States is not dysfunctional, at least to some degree. He says that this dysfunction acts like the physicians’ pressure cooker.

Add in circumstances, cultures, and day-to-day issues everyone has, like relational issues, parenting issues, and mental health problems. Then, toss in an individual’s lower resiliency, the inability to receive help, and a predicament for good measure – a loss, a divorce, or financial woes, for instance, which can overwhelm. Mr. Fern says it can be a mathematical equation for suicidal ideation.
 

Is there a why?

“Some people think there’s a reason for suicide, but often, there’s a spectrum of reasons,” says Mr. Fern. He says that some physicians are trying to escape emotional pain. For others, it can be fear or a revenge thing, like, “the hell with you, I’m going to kill myself.” It can be getting attention the way teens do, as professionals have seen. Then there’s the organic component, like brain trauma, brain imbalance, depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder. And finally, a drug or alcohol issue.

“But the reason why physician suicide is elevated, I think, is because there’s this ethos around being silent and, ‘I’m going to listen to and solve everyone else’s problems, but I’m not going to reach out and get help for my own,’ ” says Mr. Fern. “If you take advantage of mental health services, you’re implying that you’re mentally ill. And most physicians aren’t going to do that.”

On the positive side, Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that she sees many younger physicians discussing trauma. As a result, they’re more open to receiving help than previous generations. She speculates whether physicians have always had trauma from their past and whether current-day issues are now triggering it or whether they have more trauma these days. “Are they talking about it more, or is it experienced more?”
 

The failure of the system

The building blocks for physician suicide may have been there from the beginning. “From your first day of medical school and throughout your career, there was a very rigid system in place that is quite unforgiving, is quite stressful, and demands a lot,” says Dr. Jaiswal. And it’s within this system that physicians must operate.

“You have all the corporations, entities, organizations, [and] medical societies talking about physician wellness, burnout, and suicide, but the reality is it’s not making that much of a difference,” he says.

In her report, “What I’ve Learned From 1,710 Doctor Suicides,” Pamelia Wible, MD, who runs a physician suicide helpline that physicians can email and get an immediate callback, likens the current system to assembly line medicine.

Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt thinks the message has been bungled in health care. Everyone discusses burnout, meditation, self-care, and other essential constructs. “But we don’t deal with the root cause [of suicide]. Instead, we teach you soothing strategies.”

Further, Dr. Jaiswal says that not all physicians who commit suicide experience burnout or are experiencing burnout and that the vast majority of physicians who experience burnout don’t have suicidal ideation. “In the sense, that ‘let’s address physician burnout and that will hopefully translate to a reduced number of physician suicides’ – there is a very tenuous argument to be made for that because that is just one aspect in this complex system,” he says.
 

We need more than just lip service on suicide

Overall, the experts interviewed for this article acknowledged that the system is at least talking about physician suicide, which is a big first step. However, most agree that where big health entities go wrong is that they set up wellness or mental health programs, they implement a wellness officer, they write up talking points for physicians who need mental health care to get that care, and they think they’ve done their job, that they’ve done what’s required to address the problem.

But Dr. Jaiswal thinks these are often mostly public-relations rebuttals. Mr. Fern suggests, “It’s a show that’s not effective.” And Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that “even if you had a legit, well-funded well-being program for health care providers, you would still have a baseline rate of physician suicide, and that gets down to having drug and alcohol education and talking about having a system for physicians to access that doesn’t come along with insurance billing” – one that doesn’t create a paper trail and follow physician licensure and job applications for the rest of their career; one that doesn’t associate their mental health care with their work institution; one that offers confidentiality.

“For most folks, there is still a big distrust in the system. As physicians, very few of them feel that the system that they’re operating in has their best interest at heart. And that is why very few physicians will self-report any mental health issues, depression, or even ideation to colleagues, superiors, or managers,” says Dr. Jaiswal. Many more feel skeptical about the confidentiality of the programs in place.

The experts acknowledge that many people are trying to work on this and bring about change on multiple levels – grassroots, department levels, state, and federal. “But I think the biggest thing that the system has to do is earn back the trust of the physician,” Dr. Jaiswal adds.

“Physician suicide is a very visible problem in a very broken system. So, it’ll be very difficult in isolation to treat it without making any systemic changes, because that’s happening right now, and it’s not working,” says Dr. Jaiswal.

“The thing that I am most hopeful about is that I am seeing an influx of younger physicians who seek me out, and granted, their training programs tell them to come and see me, but they are ready and willing to talk about their mental health separate from work. They’re not coming in saying, ‘Here are all the people who I blame.’ They’re saying, ‘These are my struggles, and I want to be a better, happier physician,’ ” says Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt.

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

Physicians are admired for their sacrifice and dedication. Yet beneath the surface lies a painful, quiet reality: Physicians take their lives more than any other professional, reported at 40 per 100,000. Nearly one doctor dies by suicide every day.

The Physicians Foundation says that 55% of physicians know a doctor who considered, attempted, or died by suicide. Doctor’s Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023 asked more than 9,000 doctors if they had suicidal thoughts. Nine percent of male physicians and 11% of female physicians said yes.
 

Why do so many doctors take their own lives?

“It’s not a new phenomenon,” says Rajnish Jaiswal, MD, associate chief of emergency medicine at NYC H+H Metropolitan Hospital and assistant professor of emergency medicine at New York Medical College. “There was a paper 150 years ago, published in England, which commented on the high rates of physician suicides compared to other professionals, and that trend has continued.”

Dr. Jaiswal says that the feeling in the physician community is that the numbers are even higher than what’s reported, unfortunately, which is an opinion echoed by other doctors this news organization spoke with for this story.
 

A perfect storm

Jodie Eckleberry-Hunt, PhD, a board-certified health psychologist, executive coach, and author, says the most significant culprit historically may be a rigid mindset that many physicians have. “There’s black and white, there’s a right answer and a wrong answer, there’s good and bad, and some physicians have a really hard time flexing,” she says.

Psychological flexibility underlies resilience. Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says, “Think about your bounce factor and how that resilience is protective. Life isn’t always going to go well. You have to be able to flex and bounce, and some physicians (not all of them, of course) tend to be lower on cognitive flexibility.”

Brad Fern, coach and psychotherapist at Fern Executive and Physician Consulting, Minneapolis, says he uses two analogies that help when he works with physicians. One is the evil twins, and the other is the pressure cooker.

Mr. Fern says that the evil twins are silence and isolation and that several professions, including physicians, fall prey to these. To put any dent in suicidal ideations and suicide, Mr. Fern says, these must be addressed.

“Physicians tend not to talk about what’s bothering them, and that’s for many different reasons. They disproportionally tend to be great at helping other people but not great at receiving help themselves.”

On top of that, there’s a pressure cooker where they work. Mr. Fern doesn’t think anyone would argue that the health care system in the United States is not dysfunctional, at least to some degree. He says that this dysfunction acts like the physicians’ pressure cooker.

Add in circumstances, cultures, and day-to-day issues everyone has, like relational issues, parenting issues, and mental health problems. Then, toss in an individual’s lower resiliency, the inability to receive help, and a predicament for good measure – a loss, a divorce, or financial woes, for instance, which can overwhelm. Mr. Fern says it can be a mathematical equation for suicidal ideation.
 

Is there a why?

“Some people think there’s a reason for suicide, but often, there’s a spectrum of reasons,” says Mr. Fern. He says that some physicians are trying to escape emotional pain. For others, it can be fear or a revenge thing, like, “the hell with you, I’m going to kill myself.” It can be getting attention the way teens do, as professionals have seen. Then there’s the organic component, like brain trauma, brain imbalance, depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder. And finally, a drug or alcohol issue.

“But the reason why physician suicide is elevated, I think, is because there’s this ethos around being silent and, ‘I’m going to listen to and solve everyone else’s problems, but I’m not going to reach out and get help for my own,’ ” says Mr. Fern. “If you take advantage of mental health services, you’re implying that you’re mentally ill. And most physicians aren’t going to do that.”

On the positive side, Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that she sees many younger physicians discussing trauma. As a result, they’re more open to receiving help than previous generations. She speculates whether physicians have always had trauma from their past and whether current-day issues are now triggering it or whether they have more trauma these days. “Are they talking about it more, or is it experienced more?”
 

The failure of the system

The building blocks for physician suicide may have been there from the beginning. “From your first day of medical school and throughout your career, there was a very rigid system in place that is quite unforgiving, is quite stressful, and demands a lot,” says Dr. Jaiswal. And it’s within this system that physicians must operate.

“You have all the corporations, entities, organizations, [and] medical societies talking about physician wellness, burnout, and suicide, but the reality is it’s not making that much of a difference,” he says.

In her report, “What I’ve Learned From 1,710 Doctor Suicides,” Pamelia Wible, MD, who runs a physician suicide helpline that physicians can email and get an immediate callback, likens the current system to assembly line medicine.

Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt thinks the message has been bungled in health care. Everyone discusses burnout, meditation, self-care, and other essential constructs. “But we don’t deal with the root cause [of suicide]. Instead, we teach you soothing strategies.”

Further, Dr. Jaiswal says that not all physicians who commit suicide experience burnout or are experiencing burnout and that the vast majority of physicians who experience burnout don’t have suicidal ideation. “In the sense, that ‘let’s address physician burnout and that will hopefully translate to a reduced number of physician suicides’ – there is a very tenuous argument to be made for that because that is just one aspect in this complex system,” he says.
 

We need more than just lip service on suicide

Overall, the experts interviewed for this article acknowledged that the system is at least talking about physician suicide, which is a big first step. However, most agree that where big health entities go wrong is that they set up wellness or mental health programs, they implement a wellness officer, they write up talking points for physicians who need mental health care to get that care, and they think they’ve done their job, that they’ve done what’s required to address the problem.

But Dr. Jaiswal thinks these are often mostly public-relations rebuttals. Mr. Fern suggests, “It’s a show that’s not effective.” And Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt says that “even if you had a legit, well-funded well-being program for health care providers, you would still have a baseline rate of physician suicide, and that gets down to having drug and alcohol education and talking about having a system for physicians to access that doesn’t come along with insurance billing” – one that doesn’t create a paper trail and follow physician licensure and job applications for the rest of their career; one that doesn’t associate their mental health care with their work institution; one that offers confidentiality.

“For most folks, there is still a big distrust in the system. As physicians, very few of them feel that the system that they’re operating in has their best interest at heart. And that is why very few physicians will self-report any mental health issues, depression, or even ideation to colleagues, superiors, or managers,” says Dr. Jaiswal. Many more feel skeptical about the confidentiality of the programs in place.

The experts acknowledge that many people are trying to work on this and bring about change on multiple levels – grassroots, department levels, state, and federal. “But I think the biggest thing that the system has to do is earn back the trust of the physician,” Dr. Jaiswal adds.

“Physician suicide is a very visible problem in a very broken system. So, it’ll be very difficult in isolation to treat it without making any systemic changes, because that’s happening right now, and it’s not working,” says Dr. Jaiswal.

“The thing that I am most hopeful about is that I am seeing an influx of younger physicians who seek me out, and granted, their training programs tell them to come and see me, but they are ready and willing to talk about their mental health separate from work. They’re not coming in saying, ‘Here are all the people who I blame.’ They’re saying, ‘These are my struggles, and I want to be a better, happier physician,’ ” says Dr. Eckleberry-Hunt.

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

Diagnosed prevalent cases of ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United States and seven other countries are projected to increase from 1.9 million in 2021 to 2.1 million in 2031, at an annual growth rate of 0.63%, according to a new report by GlobalData.

The data and analytics company’s report offers projections for diagnosed incident and prevalent cases of UC in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Japan, Italy, France, and Canada.

In 2031, the United States will have the highest number of diagnosed prevalent cases of UC, with 655,317 cases, whereas Canada will have the fewest, with 91,186 cases, the company projects.

“UC can occur at any age, although most people are diagnosed in their mid-thirties. Men and women are equally likely to be affected, but older men are more likely to be diagnosed than older women,” Bharti Prabhakar, MPH, associate project manager at GlobalData, said in a statement.

In all eight countries, adults aged 30-69 years accounted for more than 65% of the diagnosed prevalent cases of UC, whereas those younger than 20 years made up less than 3% of the cases, GlobalData noted.
 

Incidence also rising

Diagnosed incident cases of UC in the eight countries are expected to increase from 160,122 cases in 2021 to 168,467 cases in 2031, at an annual growth rate of 0.52%, the company said.

In 2031, the United States will have the highest number of diagnosed incident cases of UC, with 104,795 cases, and France will have the fewest, with 2972 cases, the company predicted.

GlobalData epidemiologists attribute the predicted increases in UC prevalence and incidence to changes in population dynamics in each country.

The forecast is supported by historical data obtained from peer-reviewed articles and population-based studies, the firm noted.

The methodology was kept consistent across the eight countries to allow for a meaningful comparison of the forecast incident and prevalent cases of UC across these markets, GlobalData added.

“UC can affect people of any racial or ethnic group,” Ms. Prabhakar stated. “Genes, abnormal immune reactions, the microbiome, diet, stress, and the environment have all been suggested as triggers, but there is no definite evidence that any one of these factors is the cause of UC.”

Western countries have reported high incidence and prevalence of UC, Ms. Prabhaker noted. “Therefore, environmental factors may either suppress or reinforce inherent predispositions for UC and might also be crucial in triggering disease onset.”

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

Diagnosed prevalent cases of ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United States and seven other countries are projected to increase from 1.9 million in 2021 to 2.1 million in 2031, at an annual growth rate of 0.63%, according to a new report by GlobalData.

The data and analytics company’s report offers projections for diagnosed incident and prevalent cases of UC in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Japan, Italy, France, and Canada.

In 2031, the United States will have the highest number of diagnosed prevalent cases of UC, with 655,317 cases, whereas Canada will have the fewest, with 91,186 cases, the company projects.

“UC can occur at any age, although most people are diagnosed in their mid-thirties. Men and women are equally likely to be affected, but older men are more likely to be diagnosed than older women,” Bharti Prabhakar, MPH, associate project manager at GlobalData, said in a statement.

In all eight countries, adults aged 30-69 years accounted for more than 65% of the diagnosed prevalent cases of UC, whereas those younger than 20 years made up less than 3% of the cases, GlobalData noted.
 

Incidence also rising

Diagnosed incident cases of UC in the eight countries are expected to increase from 160,122 cases in 2021 to 168,467 cases in 2031, at an annual growth rate of 0.52%, the company said.

In 2031, the United States will have the highest number of diagnosed incident cases of UC, with 104,795 cases, and France will have the fewest, with 2972 cases, the company predicted.

GlobalData epidemiologists attribute the predicted increases in UC prevalence and incidence to changes in population dynamics in each country.

The forecast is supported by historical data obtained from peer-reviewed articles and population-based studies, the firm noted.

The methodology was kept consistent across the eight countries to allow for a meaningful comparison of the forecast incident and prevalent cases of UC across these markets, GlobalData added.

“UC can affect people of any racial or ethnic group,” Ms. Prabhakar stated. “Genes, abnormal immune reactions, the microbiome, diet, stress, and the environment have all been suggested as triggers, but there is no definite evidence that any one of these factors is the cause of UC.”

Western countries have reported high incidence and prevalence of UC, Ms. Prabhaker noted. “Therefore, environmental factors may either suppress or reinforce inherent predispositions for UC and might also be crucial in triggering disease onset.”

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

Diagnosed prevalent cases of ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United States and seven other countries are projected to increase from 1.9 million in 2021 to 2.1 million in 2031, at an annual growth rate of 0.63%, according to a new report by GlobalData.

The data and analytics company’s report offers projections for diagnosed incident and prevalent cases of UC in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Japan, Italy, France, and Canada.

In 2031, the United States will have the highest number of diagnosed prevalent cases of UC, with 655,317 cases, whereas Canada will have the fewest, with 91,186 cases, the company projects.

“UC can occur at any age, although most people are diagnosed in their mid-thirties. Men and women are equally likely to be affected, but older men are more likely to be diagnosed than older women,” Bharti Prabhakar, MPH, associate project manager at GlobalData, said in a statement.

In all eight countries, adults aged 30-69 years accounted for more than 65% of the diagnosed prevalent cases of UC, whereas those younger than 20 years made up less than 3% of the cases, GlobalData noted.
 

Incidence also rising

Diagnosed incident cases of UC in the eight countries are expected to increase from 160,122 cases in 2021 to 168,467 cases in 2031, at an annual growth rate of 0.52%, the company said.

In 2031, the United States will have the highest number of diagnosed incident cases of UC, with 104,795 cases, and France will have the fewest, with 2972 cases, the company predicted.

GlobalData epidemiologists attribute the predicted increases in UC prevalence and incidence to changes in population dynamics in each country.

The forecast is supported by historical data obtained from peer-reviewed articles and population-based studies, the firm noted.

The methodology was kept consistent across the eight countries to allow for a meaningful comparison of the forecast incident and prevalent cases of UC across these markets, GlobalData added.

“UC can affect people of any racial or ethnic group,” Ms. Prabhakar stated. “Genes, abnormal immune reactions, the microbiome, diet, stress, and the environment have all been suggested as triggers, but there is no definite evidence that any one of these factors is the cause of UC.”

Western countries have reported high incidence and prevalence of UC, Ms. Prabhaker noted. “Therefore, environmental factors may either suppress or reinforce inherent predispositions for UC and might also be crucial in triggering disease onset.”

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