Commentary

Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic, getting opioid prescriptions filled in a timely manner with the clinician’s drug of choice can feel like a Sisyphean task.

A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.

She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.

Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.

Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.

Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic, getting opioid prescriptions filled in a timely manner with the clinician’s drug of choice can feel like a Sisyphean task.

A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.

She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.

Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.

Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.

Pain management is a huge part of how we in palliative care help patients – and most of the time, I think we do it well, but in the regulatory environment of the opioid epidemic, getting opioid prescriptions filled in a timely manner with the clinician’s drug of choice can feel like a Sisyphean task.

A patient – let’s call her Joan – calls me in distress. She is a 62-year-old woman with widespread metastatic breast cancer. Her pain is mainly due to bone metastases, but she also has discomfort due to the cancer’s invasion of the thin membranes that line her lungs and abdomen.

She was started on a combination opioid and acetaminophen tablet about 2 months ago by her oncologist, but is now requiring it around the clock, nearing the ceiling dose for this particular medication.

Given that her pain is escalating, Joan and I discuss starting a long-acting opioid to better manage the peak and trough effect of short-acting opioids, which can make a patient feel that the pain is relieved only for a few hours at a time, with sharp spikes throughout the day that mandate the next dose of short-acting opioid. This tethers the patient to the clock, having to take as many as six or eight doses of medication per day, and can be very disruptive to daily life.

Sarah F. D’Ambruoso, NP, is a palliative care nurse practitioner in Santa Monica, Calif.

This has been an unfortunate, but not an atypical year, for the children in Maine whose lives have intersected with the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. In 2021, 25 children died of abuse and neglect or in homes with prior involvement with the child protective system. Four cases not included in that number are currently listed as homicides. At a recent legislative hearing the grandmother of one of those victims told her story to the lawmaker.

Her grandson was removed from his mother’s custody at 3 months of age after a 2-year-old sibling overdosed on methadone. Father and grandmother became his caregivers but when the father was arrested the child was returned to the mother’s custody by a judge despite the pleas of the child’s court-appointed guardian. The child eventually returned to the care of his paternal aunt and father, but when the father was arrested again the then 3-year-old was returned to his mother. Within months he was dead with multiple fractures, including to his spine and with internal and intracranial bleeding (Overton P. Maine’s child welfare system failed a 3-year old who died, grandmother tells lawmakers. 2022 Feb 11. Portland Press Herald).

The grandmother questioned the legislators why a vulnerable child would be returned to the care of a woman with such an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Health and Human Services. While there may have been errors of judgment on the part of department staff, in large part the answer lies in the system’s emphasis on reunification. Like apple pie, motherhood, and more recently fatherhood, have been viewed as something deserving of our unquestioning efforts to preserve.

This is not a recent trend. Some of the most frustrating cases over my 40 years of practice involved the failure of the courts and in some cases social workers to place a child’s welfare in the proper perspective as court schedules and custody decisions were made. Too often the reunification of “the family” seemed to trump the needs of the child. Fortunately, I’m unaware of any of my patients who died as the result of these untimely and poorly made decisions. However, many of my patients lived in unsettled conditions never sure what the next week would bring while the system focused on giving an adult whose life was a mess one more chance to demonstrate his or her ability to parent.

Of course, there are occasions in which child protective workers have been too hasty in pulling a child from his or her parents. But, in my experience those cases pale next to the number of times in which children were exposed to home environments that threatened their psychological health and development. Yes, there are bad foster homes. Many foster homes might do a better job if they were working in a system that put a higher value on the emotional needs and safety of the children in making its custody decisions.

We have a governor here in Maine who has worked hard to do the right thing during the pandemic and has made child health a focus. However, her recent proposed appropriations bill appears to continue the focus on reunification by funneling money into programs such as family reunion training and coaching as well as a parent mentorship program. Certainly, one can’t argue that these kind of programs might be helpful to some families. On the other hand, we can’t let these programs create the impression that an intact family is our primary goal. Not every family is repairable, at least on a time schedule compatible with the emotional and health needs of the children.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of you have experienced a similar frustration when decisions based on an unrealistic goal of family reunification have put your patients at risk.

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

This has been an unfortunate, but not an atypical year, for the children in Maine whose lives have intersected with the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. In 2021, 25 children died of abuse and neglect or in homes with prior involvement with the child protective system. Four cases not included in that number are currently listed as homicides. At a recent legislative hearing the grandmother of one of those victims told her story to the lawmaker.

Her grandson was removed from his mother’s custody at 3 months of age after a 2-year-old sibling overdosed on methadone. Father and grandmother became his caregivers but when the father was arrested the child was returned to the mother’s custody by a judge despite the pleas of the child’s court-appointed guardian. The child eventually returned to the care of his paternal aunt and father, but when the father was arrested again the then 3-year-old was returned to his mother. Within months he was dead with multiple fractures, including to his spine and with internal and intracranial bleeding (Overton P. Maine’s child welfare system failed a 3-year old who died, grandmother tells lawmakers. 2022 Feb 11. Portland Press Herald).

The grandmother questioned the legislators why a vulnerable child would be returned to the care of a woman with such an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Health and Human Services. While there may have been errors of judgment on the part of department staff, in large part the answer lies in the system’s emphasis on reunification. Like apple pie, motherhood, and more recently fatherhood, have been viewed as something deserving of our unquestioning efforts to preserve.

This is not a recent trend. Some of the most frustrating cases over my 40 years of practice involved the failure of the courts and in some cases social workers to place a child’s welfare in the proper perspective as court schedules and custody decisions were made. Too often the reunification of “the family” seemed to trump the needs of the child. Fortunately, I’m unaware of any of my patients who died as the result of these untimely and poorly made decisions. However, many of my patients lived in unsettled conditions never sure what the next week would bring while the system focused on giving an adult whose life was a mess one more chance to demonstrate his or her ability to parent.

Of course, there are occasions in which child protective workers have been too hasty in pulling a child from his or her parents. But, in my experience those cases pale next to the number of times in which children were exposed to home environments that threatened their psychological health and development. Yes, there are bad foster homes. Many foster homes might do a better job if they were working in a system that put a higher value on the emotional needs and safety of the children in making its custody decisions.

We have a governor here in Maine who has worked hard to do the right thing during the pandemic and has made child health a focus. However, her recent proposed appropriations bill appears to continue the focus on reunification by funneling money into programs such as family reunion training and coaching as well as a parent mentorship program. Certainly, one can’t argue that these kind of programs might be helpful to some families. On the other hand, we can’t let these programs create the impression that an intact family is our primary goal. Not every family is repairable, at least on a time schedule compatible with the emotional and health needs of the children.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of you have experienced a similar frustration when decisions based on an unrealistic goal of family reunification have put your patients at risk.

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

This has been an unfortunate, but not an atypical year, for the children in Maine whose lives have intersected with the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. In 2021, 25 children died of abuse and neglect or in homes with prior involvement with the child protective system. Four cases not included in that number are currently listed as homicides. At a recent legislative hearing the grandmother of one of those victims told her story to the lawmaker.

Her grandson was removed from his mother’s custody at 3 months of age after a 2-year-old sibling overdosed on methadone. Father and grandmother became his caregivers but when the father was arrested the child was returned to the mother’s custody by a judge despite the pleas of the child’s court-appointed guardian. The child eventually returned to the care of his paternal aunt and father, but when the father was arrested again the then 3-year-old was returned to his mother. Within months he was dead with multiple fractures, including to his spine and with internal and intracranial bleeding (Overton P. Maine’s child welfare system failed a 3-year old who died, grandmother tells lawmakers. 2022 Feb 11. Portland Press Herald).

The grandmother questioned the legislators why a vulnerable child would be returned to the care of a woman with such an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Health and Human Services. While there may have been errors of judgment on the part of department staff, in large part the answer lies in the system’s emphasis on reunification. Like apple pie, motherhood, and more recently fatherhood, have been viewed as something deserving of our unquestioning efforts to preserve.

This is not a recent trend. Some of the most frustrating cases over my 40 years of practice involved the failure of the courts and in some cases social workers to place a child’s welfare in the proper perspective as court schedules and custody decisions were made. Too often the reunification of “the family” seemed to trump the needs of the child. Fortunately, I’m unaware of any of my patients who died as the result of these untimely and poorly made decisions. However, many of my patients lived in unsettled conditions never sure what the next week would bring while the system focused on giving an adult whose life was a mess one more chance to demonstrate his or her ability to parent.

Of course, there are occasions in which child protective workers have been too hasty in pulling a child from his or her parents. But, in my experience those cases pale next to the number of times in which children were exposed to home environments that threatened their psychological health and development. Yes, there are bad foster homes. Many foster homes might do a better job if they were working in a system that put a higher value on the emotional needs and safety of the children in making its custody decisions.

We have a governor here in Maine who has worked hard to do the right thing during the pandemic and has made child health a focus. However, her recent proposed appropriations bill appears to continue the focus on reunification by funneling money into programs such as family reunion training and coaching as well as a parent mentorship program. Certainly, one can’t argue that these kind of programs might be helpful to some families. On the other hand, we can’t let these programs create the impression that an intact family is our primary goal. Not every family is repairable, at least on a time schedule compatible with the emotional and health needs of the children.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of you have experienced a similar frustration when decisions based on an unrealistic goal of family reunification have put your patients at risk.

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

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem confronting family physicians. In this issue of JFP, we offer 2 articles about AF: one on prevention and one on treatment. Both provide evidence-based guidance to help you refine your care. But gaps remain. I’ll get to that in a bit.

Prevention. This month’s PURL¹ discusses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled moderate alcohol drinkers with AF.² Compared to those who continued to drink moderately, those who reduced their alcohol consumption to 2 drinks per week had a significant reduction in recurrent AF (73% vs 53%), fewer hospitalizations (20% vs 9%), and less moderate or severe symptoms (32% vs 10%). Although previous studies of moderate alcohol consumption have shown positive effects on heart disease, this study and other more recent studies cast serious doubt on this assertion.³

The dilemma is that your patient with a wearable exercise monitoring device will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

Treatment. In their applied evidence article, Osayande and Sharma⁴ pose the question: When is catheter ablation a sound option for your patient with AF? They give us an excellent, evidence-based answer and remind us that we must focus on the treatment goals: to prevent stroke and to control symptoms. They recommend a stepwise approach, starting with rate control, progressing to rhythm control, and saving catheter ablation for resistant cases. In nearly all cases, anticoagulation to prevent stroke must be a part of treatment, with the exception of those with very low risk (so-called “lone atrial fibrillation”).

Screening. And what about screening for asymptomatic AF? The US Preventive Services Task Force recently reaffirmed its conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for screening for asymptomatic AF (a topic discussed in an online Practice Alert Brief⁵).⁶ Since wearable exercise-monitoring devices can detect heart arrhythmias (and are advertised for this purpose), a patient may present after receiving a notification about asymptomatic AF. What shall we do in these cases? The dilemma is that your patient will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

A recently published study suggests that we should be very cautious in recommending treatment. In an RCT of patients ages 70 to 90 years, 1501 patients received an implantable loop recorder, while 4503 received routine health care; median follow-up was 64.5 months.⁷ Although more cases of AF were detected (32% in the monitored group vs 12% in the usual care group), and oral anticoagulation treatment was started more frequently (30% vs 13%, respectively), there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a stroke or systemic arterial embolism (4.5% vs 5.6%).⁷ Until we have more data, reassurance seems to be the best recommendation for asymptomatic AF.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem confronting family physicians. In this issue of JFP, we offer 2 articles about AF: one on prevention and one on treatment. Both provide evidence-based guidance to help you refine your care. But gaps remain. I’ll get to that in a bit.

Prevention. This month’s PURL¹ discusses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled moderate alcohol drinkers with AF.² Compared to those who continued to drink moderately, those who reduced their alcohol consumption to 2 drinks per week had a significant reduction in recurrent AF (73% vs 53%), fewer hospitalizations (20% vs 9%), and less moderate or severe symptoms (32% vs 10%). Although previous studies of moderate alcohol consumption have shown positive effects on heart disease, this study and other more recent studies cast serious doubt on this assertion.³

The dilemma is that your patient with a wearable exercise monitoring device will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

Treatment. In their applied evidence article, Osayande and Sharma⁴ pose the question: When is catheter ablation a sound option for your patient with AF? They give us an excellent, evidence-based answer and remind us that we must focus on the treatment goals: to prevent stroke and to control symptoms. They recommend a stepwise approach, starting with rate control, progressing to rhythm control, and saving catheter ablation for resistant cases. In nearly all cases, anticoagulation to prevent stroke must be a part of treatment, with the exception of those with very low risk (so-called “lone atrial fibrillation”).

Screening. And what about screening for asymptomatic AF? The US Preventive Services Task Force recently reaffirmed its conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for screening for asymptomatic AF (a topic discussed in an online Practice Alert Brief⁵).⁶ Since wearable exercise-monitoring devices can detect heart arrhythmias (and are advertised for this purpose), a patient may present after receiving a notification about asymptomatic AF. What shall we do in these cases? The dilemma is that your patient will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

A recently published study suggests that we should be very cautious in recommending treatment. In an RCT of patients ages 70 to 90 years, 1501 patients received an implantable loop recorder, while 4503 received routine health care; median follow-up was 64.5 months.⁷ Although more cases of AF were detected (32% in the monitored group vs 12% in the usual care group), and oral anticoagulation treatment was started more frequently (30% vs 13%, respectively), there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a stroke or systemic arterial embolism (4.5% vs 5.6%).⁷ Until we have more data, reassurance seems to be the best recommendation for asymptomatic AF.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem confronting family physicians. In this issue of JFP, we offer 2 articles about AF: one on prevention and one on treatment. Both provide evidence-based guidance to help you refine your care. But gaps remain. I’ll get to that in a bit.

Prevention. This month’s PURL¹ discusses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled moderate alcohol drinkers with AF.² Compared to those who continued to drink moderately, those who reduced their alcohol consumption to 2 drinks per week had a significant reduction in recurrent AF (73% vs 53%), fewer hospitalizations (20% vs 9%), and less moderate or severe symptoms (32% vs 10%). Although previous studies of moderate alcohol consumption have shown positive effects on heart disease, this study and other more recent studies cast serious doubt on this assertion.³

The dilemma is that your patient with a wearable exercise monitoring device will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

Treatment. In their applied evidence article, Osayande and Sharma⁴ pose the question: When is catheter ablation a sound option for your patient with AF? They give us an excellent, evidence-based answer and remind us that we must focus on the treatment goals: to prevent stroke and to control symptoms. They recommend a stepwise approach, starting with rate control, progressing to rhythm control, and saving catheter ablation for resistant cases. In nearly all cases, anticoagulation to prevent stroke must be a part of treatment, with the exception of those with very low risk (so-called “lone atrial fibrillation”).

Screening. And what about screening for asymptomatic AF? The US Preventive Services Task Force recently reaffirmed its conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for screening for asymptomatic AF (a topic discussed in an online Practice Alert Brief⁵).⁶ Since wearable exercise-monitoring devices can detect heart arrhythmias (and are advertised for this purpose), a patient may present after receiving a notification about asymptomatic AF. What shall we do in these cases? The dilemma is that your patient will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

A recently published study suggests that we should be very cautious in recommending treatment. In an RCT of patients ages 70 to 90 years, 1501 patients received an implantable loop recorder, while 4503 received routine health care; median follow-up was 64.5 months.⁷ Although more cases of AF were detected (32% in the monitored group vs 12% in the usual care group), and oral anticoagulation treatment was started more frequently (30% vs 13%, respectively), there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a stroke or systemic arterial embolism (4.5% vs 5.6%).⁷ Until we have more data, reassurance seems to be the best recommendation for asymptomatic AF.

In a recent letter to the editor, “25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is key to analyzing vitamin D’s effects” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:472), Dr. Grant links vitamin D supplementation with important health outcomes. He concludes that the positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 was only 5.9% in people with higher concentrations of 25(OH)D vs 12.5% in those with lower concentrations. This is a flawed conclusion on the face of it, because the great confabulatory factor is behavior. Is it possible that those more likely to take supplemental vitamin D do so as a result of overall healthier lifestyles and choices (eg, vaccinations)? As health care representatives, we must be very careful about the data we publish and the commentary we attach to it, lest we advertise inadvertent follies. I see so much of that in our “peer-reviewed literature.”

I came to medicine as a chemist, and the rigors of peer review impressed upon the hard (fundamental) sciences are markedly different from those we “claim” adherence to in medicine. I find that some of the medical literature and study designs fall short of what would pass muster in the fundamental science industry. That is a shame! Such statements, as discussed here, have to be served for public consumption, and even to our colleagues, with a generous helping of skepticism and qualification.

RA Segal, MD, MPH
Gainesville, FL

In a recent letter to the editor, “25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is key to analyzing vitamin D’s effects” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:472), Dr. Grant links vitamin D supplementation with important health outcomes. He concludes that the positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 was only 5.9% in people with higher concentrations of 25(OH)D vs 12.5% in those with lower concentrations. This is a flawed conclusion on the face of it, because the great confabulatory factor is behavior. Is it possible that those more likely to take supplemental vitamin D do so as a result of overall healthier lifestyles and choices (eg, vaccinations)? As health care representatives, we must be very careful about the data we publish and the commentary we attach to it, lest we advertise inadvertent follies. I see so much of that in our “peer-reviewed literature.”

I came to medicine as a chemist, and the rigors of peer review impressed upon the hard (fundamental) sciences are markedly different from those we “claim” adherence to in medicine. I find that some of the medical literature and study designs fall short of what would pass muster in the fundamental science industry. That is a shame! Such statements, as discussed here, have to be served for public consumption, and even to our colleagues, with a generous helping of skepticism and qualification.

RA Segal, MD, MPH
Gainesville, FL

In a recent letter to the editor, “25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is key to analyzing vitamin D’s effects” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:472), Dr. Grant links vitamin D supplementation with important health outcomes. He concludes that the positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 was only 5.9% in people with higher concentrations of 25(OH)D vs 12.5% in those with lower concentrations. This is a flawed conclusion on the face of it, because the great confabulatory factor is behavior. Is it possible that those more likely to take supplemental vitamin D do so as a result of overall healthier lifestyles and choices (eg, vaccinations)? As health care representatives, we must be very careful about the data we publish and the commentary we attach to it, lest we advertise inadvertent follies. I see so much of that in our “peer-reviewed literature.”

I came to medicine as a chemist, and the rigors of peer review impressed upon the hard (fundamental) sciences are markedly different from those we “claim” adherence to in medicine. I find that some of the medical literature and study designs fall short of what would pass muster in the fundamental science industry. That is a shame! Such statements, as discussed here, have to be served for public consumption, and even to our colleagues, with a generous helping of skepticism and qualification.

RA Segal, MD, MPH
Gainesville, FL

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted mental health. Adolescents, adults, and health care professionals (HCPs) report worsening mental health outcomes since the pandemic.^1-3 Anxiety rates have tripled, depression quadrupled, and substance and alcohol use also have increased.³ The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, 93% of countries worldwide documented disruptions to mental health services.⁴ HCP shortages, worsened by the pandemic, have resulted in a mental health crisis. What can we do?

Over the past 20 years, pharmacists have assumed a more significant role in managing patients’ mental health conditions through multidisciplinary team engagement. Pharmacists’ training includes optimizing pharmacotherapy, identifying and managing adverse effects (AEs), improving medication adherence, and reducing unnecessary health care costs.⁵ Pharmacists have assumed pivotal roles in mental health management, including but not limited to screening, drug selection, medication management, and decision-making support for patients and HCPs. Pharmacist-provided services have led to improved medication therapy outcomes and patient satisfaction.⁶

According to the 2012 National Alliance on Mental Illness national survey, > 50% of patients treated for a mental health condition report having a strong relationship with their pharmacist.⁷ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the charge, engaging pharmacists in patient-oriented mental health care,including those specific to accessing mental health care (eg, fear of stigmatization).⁸ After obtaining a 4-year PharmD degree, psychiatric pharmacists receive additional postgraduate residency training (2 years) focused on direct patient care and then are eligible for board certification. There are about 2000 board-certified psychiatric pharmacists in the United States. Qualified psychiatric pharmacists, especially those in underresourced states, have increased the number of available patient-oriented mental health services.⁷ However, to continue expanding and improving access to care, we need more HCPs and pharmacists.

Mental health clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) within the VA work in a variety of settings, including but not limited to, the inpatient psychiatric unit; residential programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse; as part of the Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) team; and in pain, telehealth, and other outpatient clinics. The VA’s mental health CPSs operate under an independent scope of practice (SOP) and manage a variety of mental health disorders. The SOP also allows pharmacists to independently manage medications for psychiatric conditions, request laboratory tests, and change therapy as needed based on patient response. The Table describes pharmacist-reported roles in a single VA facility in various mental health practice sites (eg, inpatient, outpatient, substance misuse). Pharmacist involvement in medication management with the interdisciplinary team improved symptoms, medication adherence, and reduced AEs for conditions such as depression.⁹

Within the VA, the outpatient mental health pharmacist works collaboratively with psychiatrists and HCPs to manage common psychiatric conditions on the phone and in person. VA pharmacists also are involved in the monitoring of patients on second-generation antipsychotics. Pharmacists assist with metabolic monitoring and assessing patients for movements disorders, using standardized rating scales. Pharmacists can manage complex psychiatric patients in collaboration with psychiatrists by providing medication management, laboratory test monitoring, medication counseling, and HCP referrals.

Pharmacists’ expertise is used in diverse ways in the VHA. At one facility, pharmacists functioned as interim prescribers when the facility experienced a turnover in behavioral health professionals. Pharmacists’ involvement decreased inappropriate use of psychiatric emergency services.¹⁰ VA pharmacists who manage patients’ mental health needs in primary care help achieve symptom improvement and medication adherence as well as lower referral rates for specialty mental health services.⁹ Pharmacist-managed electronic consult service provided a costs savings of about $40,000 a year.¹¹

Pharmacists have shown that they can expand their roles. Pharmacists are versatile HCPs, currently working and collaborating with other HCPs in various settings to provide mental health services. Health care systems need to continue to use and expand the number of pharmacists. Including pharmacists in the primary and specialty care teams can increase access to care and improve health outcomes during the pandemic and beyond. The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy in partnership with the American Medical Association established a resource to support and guide institutions interested in embedding pharmacists into different clinical sites.¹² Opportunities for increased services by pharmacists can lead to improved outcomes, timely patient care, appropriate use of psychiatric medications and services, and cost savings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following Boise Veterans Affairs pharmacists: Paul Black, PharmD; Josh Gerving, PharmD; Kristin Helmboldt, PharmD; Samantha Patton, PharmD; Heather Walser, PharmD; and Andrea Winterswyk, PharmD, for contributing information about their practice roles and impact on patient care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted mental health. Adolescents, adults, and health care professionals (HCPs) report worsening mental health outcomes since the pandemic.^1-3 Anxiety rates have tripled, depression quadrupled, and substance and alcohol use also have increased.³ The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, 93% of countries worldwide documented disruptions to mental health services.⁴ HCP shortages, worsened by the pandemic, have resulted in a mental health crisis. What can we do?

Over the past 20 years, pharmacists have assumed a more significant role in managing patients’ mental health conditions through multidisciplinary team engagement. Pharmacists’ training includes optimizing pharmacotherapy, identifying and managing adverse effects (AEs), improving medication adherence, and reducing unnecessary health care costs.⁵ Pharmacists have assumed pivotal roles in mental health management, including but not limited to screening, drug selection, medication management, and decision-making support for patients and HCPs. Pharmacist-provided services have led to improved medication therapy outcomes and patient satisfaction.⁶

According to the 2012 National Alliance on Mental Illness national survey, > 50% of patients treated for a mental health condition report having a strong relationship with their pharmacist.⁷ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the charge, engaging pharmacists in patient-oriented mental health care,including those specific to accessing mental health care (eg, fear of stigmatization).⁸ After obtaining a 4-year PharmD degree, psychiatric pharmacists receive additional postgraduate residency training (2 years) focused on direct patient care and then are eligible for board certification. There are about 2000 board-certified psychiatric pharmacists in the United States. Qualified psychiatric pharmacists, especially those in underresourced states, have increased the number of available patient-oriented mental health services.⁷ However, to continue expanding and improving access to care, we need more HCPs and pharmacists.

Mental health clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) within the VA work in a variety of settings, including but not limited to, the inpatient psychiatric unit; residential programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse; as part of the Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) team; and in pain, telehealth, and other outpatient clinics. The VA’s mental health CPSs operate under an independent scope of practice (SOP) and manage a variety of mental health disorders. The SOP also allows pharmacists to independently manage medications for psychiatric conditions, request laboratory tests, and change therapy as needed based on patient response. The Table describes pharmacist-reported roles in a single VA facility in various mental health practice sites (eg, inpatient, outpatient, substance misuse). Pharmacist involvement in medication management with the interdisciplinary team improved symptoms, medication adherence, and reduced AEs for conditions such as depression.⁹

Within the VA, the outpatient mental health pharmacist works collaboratively with psychiatrists and HCPs to manage common psychiatric conditions on the phone and in person. VA pharmacists also are involved in the monitoring of patients on second-generation antipsychotics. Pharmacists assist with metabolic monitoring and assessing patients for movements disorders, using standardized rating scales. Pharmacists can manage complex psychiatric patients in collaboration with psychiatrists by providing medication management, laboratory test monitoring, medication counseling, and HCP referrals.

Pharmacists’ expertise is used in diverse ways in the VHA. At one facility, pharmacists functioned as interim prescribers when the facility experienced a turnover in behavioral health professionals. Pharmacists’ involvement decreased inappropriate use of psychiatric emergency services.¹⁰ VA pharmacists who manage patients’ mental health needs in primary care help achieve symptom improvement and medication adherence as well as lower referral rates for specialty mental health services.⁹ Pharmacist-managed electronic consult service provided a costs savings of about $40,000 a year.¹¹

Pharmacists have shown that they can expand their roles. Pharmacists are versatile HCPs, currently working and collaborating with other HCPs in various settings to provide mental health services. Health care systems need to continue to use and expand the number of pharmacists. Including pharmacists in the primary and specialty care teams can increase access to care and improve health outcomes during the pandemic and beyond. The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy in partnership with the American Medical Association established a resource to support and guide institutions interested in embedding pharmacists into different clinical sites.¹² Opportunities for increased services by pharmacists can lead to improved outcomes, timely patient care, appropriate use of psychiatric medications and services, and cost savings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following Boise Veterans Affairs pharmacists: Paul Black, PharmD; Josh Gerving, PharmD; Kristin Helmboldt, PharmD; Samantha Patton, PharmD; Heather Walser, PharmD; and Andrea Winterswyk, PharmD, for contributing information about their practice roles and impact on patient care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted mental health. Adolescents, adults, and health care professionals (HCPs) report worsening mental health outcomes since the pandemic.^1-3 Anxiety rates have tripled, depression quadrupled, and substance and alcohol use also have increased.³ The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, 93% of countries worldwide documented disruptions to mental health services.⁴ HCP shortages, worsened by the pandemic, have resulted in a mental health crisis. What can we do?

Over the past 20 years, pharmacists have assumed a more significant role in managing patients’ mental health conditions through multidisciplinary team engagement. Pharmacists’ training includes optimizing pharmacotherapy, identifying and managing adverse effects (AEs), improving medication adherence, and reducing unnecessary health care costs.⁵ Pharmacists have assumed pivotal roles in mental health management, including but not limited to screening, drug selection, medication management, and decision-making support for patients and HCPs. Pharmacist-provided services have led to improved medication therapy outcomes and patient satisfaction.⁶

According to the 2012 National Alliance on Mental Illness national survey, > 50% of patients treated for a mental health condition report having a strong relationship with their pharmacist.⁷ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the charge, engaging pharmacists in patient-oriented mental health care,including those specific to accessing mental health care (eg, fear of stigmatization).⁸ After obtaining a 4-year PharmD degree, psychiatric pharmacists receive additional postgraduate residency training (2 years) focused on direct patient care and then are eligible for board certification. There are about 2000 board-certified psychiatric pharmacists in the United States. Qualified psychiatric pharmacists, especially those in underresourced states, have increased the number of available patient-oriented mental health services.⁷ However, to continue expanding and improving access to care, we need more HCPs and pharmacists.

Mental health clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) within the VA work in a variety of settings, including but not limited to, the inpatient psychiatric unit; residential programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance misuse; as part of the Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) team; and in pain, telehealth, and other outpatient clinics. The VA’s mental health CPSs operate under an independent scope of practice (SOP) and manage a variety of mental health disorders. The SOP also allows pharmacists to independently manage medications for psychiatric conditions, request laboratory tests, and change therapy as needed based on patient response. The Table describes pharmacist-reported roles in a single VA facility in various mental health practice sites (eg, inpatient, outpatient, substance misuse). Pharmacist involvement in medication management with the interdisciplinary team improved symptoms, medication adherence, and reduced AEs for conditions such as depression.⁹

Within the VA, the outpatient mental health pharmacist works collaboratively with psychiatrists and HCPs to manage common psychiatric conditions on the phone and in person. VA pharmacists also are involved in the monitoring of patients on second-generation antipsychotics. Pharmacists assist with metabolic monitoring and assessing patients for movements disorders, using standardized rating scales. Pharmacists can manage complex psychiatric patients in collaboration with psychiatrists by providing medication management, laboratory test monitoring, medication counseling, and HCP referrals.

Pharmacists’ expertise is used in diverse ways in the VHA. At one facility, pharmacists functioned as interim prescribers when the facility experienced a turnover in behavioral health professionals. Pharmacists’ involvement decreased inappropriate use of psychiatric emergency services.¹⁰ VA pharmacists who manage patients’ mental health needs in primary care help achieve symptom improvement and medication adherence as well as lower referral rates for specialty mental health services.⁹ Pharmacist-managed electronic consult service provided a costs savings of about $40,000 a year.¹¹

Pharmacists have shown that they can expand their roles. Pharmacists are versatile HCPs, currently working and collaborating with other HCPs in various settings to provide mental health services. Health care systems need to continue to use and expand the number of pharmacists. Including pharmacists in the primary and specialty care teams can increase access to care and improve health outcomes during the pandemic and beyond. The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy in partnership with the American Medical Association established a resource to support and guide institutions interested in embedding pharmacists into different clinical sites.¹² Opportunities for increased services by pharmacists can lead to improved outcomes, timely patient care, appropriate use of psychiatric medications and services, and cost savings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following Boise Veterans Affairs pharmacists: Paul Black, PharmD; Josh Gerving, PharmD; Kristin Helmboldt, PharmD; Samantha Patton, PharmD; Heather Walser, PharmD; and Andrea Winterswyk, PharmD, for contributing information about their practice roles and impact on patient care.

March is Women’s History Month. Many women have served in all branches of government health care over centuries and are worthy of celebrating. These nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and other allied health professionals devoted their time and talents, compassion, and competence to deliver and improve the care of wounded service members, disabled veterans, and the underresourced in our communities. To honor the collective contribution of women to federal practice in the Indian Health Service, Public Health Service Core, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the US Department of Defense, this column examines one pioneer in women’s federal practice—Margaret D. Craighill, MD—who epitomizes the spirit of the selfless dedication that generations of women have given to public service. Craighill is an ideal choice to represent this noble cadre of women as her career spanned active military duty, public health, and the Veterans Health Administration.

Craighill was a graduate of several of the finest institutions of medical training in the United States. Born in Southport, North Carolina, in 1898, she earned her undergraduate degree Phi Beta Kappa and master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin.² She set her sights on becoming a physician at a period in American history when many prominent medical schools accepted few women. A marked exception—due to the fund raising and lobbying of influential women—was the prestigious Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.³ She graduated in 1924 and held a postgraduate position at Yale Medical School. She then worked as a physiologist at a military arsenal, a pathologist, a general surgeon, and completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology. This broad training gave her the diverse expertise she would need for her future work.⁴

Craighill came from a military family: Her father was a colonel in the engineering corps, and her grandfather rose to become chief engineer of the Army.⁵ Along with many of America’s best and brightest, Craighill left her successful medical career as dean of the Women’s Medical College of Pennsylvania to join the war effort. Author Alan G. Knight points out, more than in civilian medicine, gender stereotypes kept women from entering the military: Women were expected and accepted as nurses, not doctors.⁵ But in 1943 Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the Sparkman-Johnson Bill, enabling women to enter the then all-male Army and Navy Medical Corps. Craighill took advantage of this opportunity and accepted an appointment to the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) as a major in 1943 at age 45 years, becoming the first woman physician to be commissioned an officer in the Army.

Major Craighill’s initial assignment was to the Office of the Surgeon General in the Preventive Medicine Division as the consultant for health and welfare of women. Here, she served as liaison to another innovation in women’s history in military medicine—the WAC. Journeying 56,000 miles to war zones in multiple countries, she assessed the health of 160,000 Army nurses and other staff whose focus was public health and infectious disease and hygiene. The history of women in medicine in and out of federal service is marked by overcoming innumerable biases and barriers. Craighill faced the prevailing presumption that women were unfit for military duty. In an early example of evidence-based medicine, she disproved this theory, showing that women were faring well doing hard jobs in tough environments.⁴

Their fortitude is more remarkable considering induction examinations for women during World War II were cursory and not tailored to address women’s health care needs. Based on her visits to WACs in theater and at home, Craighill observed recruits suffering from previously undiagnosed gynecologic and psychiatric conditions that adversely affected their health and function. She advocated for comprehensive standardized examinations that would detect many of these disorders.⁵

Craighill promoted other prejudices of her era. WAC command wanted to win public approval of women in the service and was concerned that lesbian relationships and “heterosexual promiscuity” would damage their public relations aims. They pressured Craighill to develop induction examinations that would screen lesbians and women with behavioral problems. She urged tolerance of homosexual behavior until it was proven.

Though clearly discriminatory and personally offensive to gay persons in federal service, we must recognize that only last year did the Pentagon move to overturn the prior administration’s prohibition against transgender persons serving in uniform.⁶ In this light Craighill, as the first female physician-leader in a 1940s military, adopted a relatively progressive stance.

Craighill rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and received the Legion of Merit award for her exemplary wartime service. In 1945, she earned another first when she was appointed to be a consultant on the medical care of women veterans. For women veterans, gaining access to newly earned benefits and receiving appropriate care were serious problems that Craighill worked to solve. For many women veterans, those challenges remain, and Craighill’s legacy summons us to take up the charge to empower women in federal health professions to enhance the quality of care women veterans receive in all sectors of US medicine.

Critics and advocates agree that the VA still has a long way to go to achieve equity and excellence in our care for women veterans.^7,8 Craighill’s position stands as a landmark in this effort. During her VA tenure, Craighill entered a residency in the first class of the Menninger School of Psychiatry in Topeka, Kansas, and completed psychoanalytic training. Her wartime experiences had convinced her of the need to provide high-quality mental health care to women veterans. She put her new psychosomatic knowledge and skills to use, serving as the chief of a women’s health clinic at the VA Hospital in Topeka and published several important scholarly papers.^5,9Craighill went on to have a distinguished career in academic medicine, underscoring the long and valuable relationship of US medicine and the scholarly medical community. Once her psychiatric training was finished, she returned to private practice, ending her career as chief psychiatrist at Connecticut College for Women.

Craighill made a significant contribution to the role of women in federal practice. She was a visionary in her conviction that women, whether physicians, nurses, or other health care professionals, had the gifts and the grit to serve with distinction and valor and that their military service entitled them in war and peace to gender-sensitive health care. As the epigraph for this editorial shows, Craighill knew the path for women in federal practice or service while not easy is well worth treading. Her pioneering career can inspire all those women who today and in the future choose to follow in her footsteps.

March is Women’s History Month. Many women have served in all branches of government health care over centuries and are worthy of celebrating. These nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and other allied health professionals devoted their time and talents, compassion, and competence to deliver and improve the care of wounded service members, disabled veterans, and the underresourced in our communities. To honor the collective contribution of women to federal practice in the Indian Health Service, Public Health Service Core, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the US Department of Defense, this column examines one pioneer in women’s federal practice—Margaret D. Craighill, MD—who epitomizes the spirit of the selfless dedication that generations of women have given to public service. Craighill is an ideal choice to represent this noble cadre of women as her career spanned active military duty, public health, and the Veterans Health Administration.

Craighill was a graduate of several of the finest institutions of medical training in the United States. Born in Southport, North Carolina, in 1898, she earned her undergraduate degree Phi Beta Kappa and master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin.² She set her sights on becoming a physician at a period in American history when many prominent medical schools accepted few women. A marked exception—due to the fund raising and lobbying of influential women—was the prestigious Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.³ She graduated in 1924 and held a postgraduate position at Yale Medical School. She then worked as a physiologist at a military arsenal, a pathologist, a general surgeon, and completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology. This broad training gave her the diverse expertise she would need for her future work.⁴

Craighill came from a military family: Her father was a colonel in the engineering corps, and her grandfather rose to become chief engineer of the Army.⁵ Along with many of America’s best and brightest, Craighill left her successful medical career as dean of the Women’s Medical College of Pennsylvania to join the war effort. Author Alan G. Knight points out, more than in civilian medicine, gender stereotypes kept women from entering the military: Women were expected and accepted as nurses, not doctors.⁵ But in 1943 Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the Sparkman-Johnson Bill, enabling women to enter the then all-male Army and Navy Medical Corps. Craighill took advantage of this opportunity and accepted an appointment to the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) as a major in 1943 at age 45 years, becoming the first woman physician to be commissioned an officer in the Army.

Major Craighill’s initial assignment was to the Office of the Surgeon General in the Preventive Medicine Division as the consultant for health and welfare of women. Here, she served as liaison to another innovation in women’s history in military medicine—the WAC. Journeying 56,000 miles to war zones in multiple countries, she assessed the health of 160,000 Army nurses and other staff whose focus was public health and infectious disease and hygiene. The history of women in medicine in and out of federal service is marked by overcoming innumerable biases and barriers. Craighill faced the prevailing presumption that women were unfit for military duty. In an early example of evidence-based medicine, she disproved this theory, showing that women were faring well doing hard jobs in tough environments.⁴

Their fortitude is more remarkable considering induction examinations for women during World War II were cursory and not tailored to address women’s health care needs. Based on her visits to WACs in theater and at home, Craighill observed recruits suffering from previously undiagnosed gynecologic and psychiatric conditions that adversely affected their health and function. She advocated for comprehensive standardized examinations that would detect many of these disorders.⁵

Craighill promoted other prejudices of her era. WAC command wanted to win public approval of women in the service and was concerned that lesbian relationships and “heterosexual promiscuity” would damage their public relations aims. They pressured Craighill to develop induction examinations that would screen lesbians and women with behavioral problems. She urged tolerance of homosexual behavior until it was proven.

Though clearly discriminatory and personally offensive to gay persons in federal service, we must recognize that only last year did the Pentagon move to overturn the prior administration’s prohibition against transgender persons serving in uniform.⁶ In this light Craighill, as the first female physician-leader in a 1940s military, adopted a relatively progressive stance.

Craighill rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and received the Legion of Merit award for her exemplary wartime service. In 1945, she earned another first when she was appointed to be a consultant on the medical care of women veterans. For women veterans, gaining access to newly earned benefits and receiving appropriate care were serious problems that Craighill worked to solve. For many women veterans, those challenges remain, and Craighill’s legacy summons us to take up the charge to empower women in federal health professions to enhance the quality of care women veterans receive in all sectors of US medicine.

Critics and advocates agree that the VA still has a long way to go to achieve equity and excellence in our care for women veterans.^7,8 Craighill’s position stands as a landmark in this effort. During her VA tenure, Craighill entered a residency in the first class of the Menninger School of Psychiatry in Topeka, Kansas, and completed psychoanalytic training. Her wartime experiences had convinced her of the need to provide high-quality mental health care to women veterans. She put her new psychosomatic knowledge and skills to use, serving as the chief of a women’s health clinic at the VA Hospital in Topeka and published several important scholarly papers.^5,9Craighill went on to have a distinguished career in academic medicine, underscoring the long and valuable relationship of US medicine and the scholarly medical community. Once her psychiatric training was finished, she returned to private practice, ending her career as chief psychiatrist at Connecticut College for Women.

Craighill made a significant contribution to the role of women in federal practice. She was a visionary in her conviction that women, whether physicians, nurses, or other health care professionals, had the gifts and the grit to serve with distinction and valor and that their military service entitled them in war and peace to gender-sensitive health care. As the epigraph for this editorial shows, Craighill knew the path for women in federal practice or service while not easy is well worth treading. Her pioneering career can inspire all those women who today and in the future choose to follow in her footsteps.

March is Women’s History Month. Many women have served in all branches of government health care over centuries and are worthy of celebrating. These nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and other allied health professionals devoted their time and talents, compassion, and competence to deliver and improve the care of wounded service members, disabled veterans, and the underresourced in our communities. To honor the collective contribution of women to federal practice in the Indian Health Service, Public Health Service Core, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the US Department of Defense, this column examines one pioneer in women’s federal practice—Margaret D. Craighill, MD—who epitomizes the spirit of the selfless dedication that generations of women have given to public service. Craighill is an ideal choice to represent this noble cadre of women as her career spanned active military duty, public health, and the Veterans Health Administration.

Craighill was a graduate of several of the finest institutions of medical training in the United States. Born in Southport, North Carolina, in 1898, she earned her undergraduate degree Phi Beta Kappa and master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin.² She set her sights on becoming a physician at a period in American history when many prominent medical schools accepted few women. A marked exception—due to the fund raising and lobbying of influential women—was the prestigious Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.³ She graduated in 1924 and held a postgraduate position at Yale Medical School. She then worked as a physiologist at a military arsenal, a pathologist, a general surgeon, and completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology. This broad training gave her the diverse expertise she would need for her future work.⁴

Craighill came from a military family: Her father was a colonel in the engineering corps, and her grandfather rose to become chief engineer of the Army.⁵ Along with many of America’s best and brightest, Craighill left her successful medical career as dean of the Women’s Medical College of Pennsylvania to join the war effort. Author Alan G. Knight points out, more than in civilian medicine, gender stereotypes kept women from entering the military: Women were expected and accepted as nurses, not doctors.⁵ But in 1943 Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the Sparkman-Johnson Bill, enabling women to enter the then all-male Army and Navy Medical Corps. Craighill took advantage of this opportunity and accepted an appointment to the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) as a major in 1943 at age 45 years, becoming the first woman physician to be commissioned an officer in the Army.

Major Craighill’s initial assignment was to the Office of the Surgeon General in the Preventive Medicine Division as the consultant for health and welfare of women. Here, she served as liaison to another innovation in women’s history in military medicine—the WAC. Journeying 56,000 miles to war zones in multiple countries, she assessed the health of 160,000 Army nurses and other staff whose focus was public health and infectious disease and hygiene. The history of women in medicine in and out of federal service is marked by overcoming innumerable biases and barriers. Craighill faced the prevailing presumption that women were unfit for military duty. In an early example of evidence-based medicine, she disproved this theory, showing that women were faring well doing hard jobs in tough environments.⁴

Their fortitude is more remarkable considering induction examinations for women during World War II were cursory and not tailored to address women’s health care needs. Based on her visits to WACs in theater and at home, Craighill observed recruits suffering from previously undiagnosed gynecologic and psychiatric conditions that adversely affected their health and function. She advocated for comprehensive standardized examinations that would detect many of these disorders.⁵

Craighill promoted other prejudices of her era. WAC command wanted to win public approval of women in the service and was concerned that lesbian relationships and “heterosexual promiscuity” would damage their public relations aims. They pressured Craighill to develop induction examinations that would screen lesbians and women with behavioral problems. She urged tolerance of homosexual behavior until it was proven.

Though clearly discriminatory and personally offensive to gay persons in federal service, we must recognize that only last year did the Pentagon move to overturn the prior administration’s prohibition against transgender persons serving in uniform.⁶ In this light Craighill, as the first female physician-leader in a 1940s military, adopted a relatively progressive stance.

Craighill rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and received the Legion of Merit award for her exemplary wartime service. In 1945, she earned another first when she was appointed to be a consultant on the medical care of women veterans. For women veterans, gaining access to newly earned benefits and receiving appropriate care were serious problems that Craighill worked to solve. For many women veterans, those challenges remain, and Craighill’s legacy summons us to take up the charge to empower women in federal health professions to enhance the quality of care women veterans receive in all sectors of US medicine.

Critics and advocates agree that the VA still has a long way to go to achieve equity and excellence in our care for women veterans.^7,8 Craighill’s position stands as a landmark in this effort. During her VA tenure, Craighill entered a residency in the first class of the Menninger School of Psychiatry in Topeka, Kansas, and completed psychoanalytic training. Her wartime experiences had convinced her of the need to provide high-quality mental health care to women veterans. She put her new psychosomatic knowledge and skills to use, serving as the chief of a women’s health clinic at the VA Hospital in Topeka and published several important scholarly papers.^5,9Craighill went on to have a distinguished career in academic medicine, underscoring the long and valuable relationship of US medicine and the scholarly medical community. Once her psychiatric training was finished, she returned to private practice, ending her career as chief psychiatrist at Connecticut College for Women.

Craighill made a significant contribution to the role of women in federal practice. She was a visionary in her conviction that women, whether physicians, nurses, or other health care professionals, had the gifts and the grit to serve with distinction and valor and that their military service entitled them in war and peace to gender-sensitive health care. As the epigraph for this editorial shows, Craighill knew the path for women in federal practice or service while not easy is well worth treading. Her pioneering career can inspire all those women who today and in the future choose to follow in her footsteps.

In the field of lung cancer, and more broadly in oncology, many of our biggest advances in 2021 have come as clinically meaningful improvements in surrogate endpoints – disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and sometimes even pathologic complete response rate.

I have historically been most compelled to consider new findings to be practice-changing when they improve overall survival or quality of life – the endpoints that translate to direct benefits for patients. However, I also feel it is appropriate to call surrogate endpoints practice-changing when they can predict improvements in overall survival or quality of life.

Take the PACIFIC trial, which assessed maintenance durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Back in 2017, I was initially unconvinced by the interim phase 3 data that were presented in a press release that highlighted the disease-free survival benefit. However, after examining additional data more closely, I saw the dramatic improvement in time to distant relapse or death was overwhelmingly likely to predict an improvement in overall survival – a benefit that the data subsequently bore out.

More recently, the disease-free survival results for adjuvant osimertinib in resected endothelial growth factor receptor mutation–positive NSCLC and adjuvant atezolizumab in resected programmed death-ligand 1–positive stage II-IIIA NSCLC have led to excitement about Food and Drug Administration approvals for these therapies. Although there is reason to be cautious about the likelihood of an overall survival benefit with either therapy – particularly for patients with low programmed death-ligand 1 who receive atezolizumab – I think that the results are promising enough to discuss these treatment options with appropriate patients.

Some argue, however, that overall survival is not necessarily a critical goal and that certain surrogate endpoints are inherently beneficial. Patients and oncologists may, for instance, view delaying disease progression as a win, even if overall survival remains the same.

I appreciate the view that favorable scan results are an achievement, even without a survival benefit. Patients appreciate the good news, and it is gratifying for us to deliver it. However, what remains unspoken is whether the benefit can be provided at a reasonable value given the financial costs associated with the new treatment.

In the United States, we consider the physician-patient relationship to be autonomous and even revered, but we conveniently ignore the fact that both are deciding on treatments that are funded by people who are not represented in the room. And in a health care system that fails to cover basic cancer care needs as well as other critical, high-value interventions for both the uninsured and underinsured, we should acknowledge that our decisions redirect limited resources from others.

Is it the best use of $10,000 per month for a new drug that improves disease-free survival but not overall survival? Given the cost of so many of these newer treatments, we should expect more than indirect, inferred benefits for patients.

At the same time, we also have to remain vigilant and reflect on whether we are echoing the marketing messages of the companies selling these treatments. Having recently watched the excellent Hulu series Dopesick, which realistically portrays the medical community’s egregious overuse of Oxycontin at the behest of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, it is striking to see how effectively the pharmaceutical industry can co-opt stakeholders. Very few physicians or patients have expertise in health care policy with broad societal perspective, yet subspecialists offer edicts as if society should dedicate unlimited resources first and foremost to our career focus or personal cause.

I certainly appreciate the appeal of surrogate endpoints in a world in which we hope to offer novel therapies to patients in a timely fashion. In the next few years, some of our most promising data in oncology will demand that we consider whether surrogate endpoints are practice-changing. We are facing a fundamental question: Are we using these surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival or quality of life or do these endpoints stand on their own as practice-changing metrics?

We need to acknowledge that our primary clinical focus is not the only one that deserves our attention, particularly when our treatment decisions are, in fact, spending other people’s money. We should be asking not whether we prefer to deliver good news after a scan, but whether that alone is enough to justify the high cost of a new treatment without an overall survival benefit.

Dr. West disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; serving as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Genentech/Roche; and receiving income from Eli Lilly. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the field of lung cancer, and more broadly in oncology, many of our biggest advances in 2021 have come as clinically meaningful improvements in surrogate endpoints – disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and sometimes even pathologic complete response rate.

I have historically been most compelled to consider new findings to be practice-changing when they improve overall survival or quality of life – the endpoints that translate to direct benefits for patients. However, I also feel it is appropriate to call surrogate endpoints practice-changing when they can predict improvements in overall survival or quality of life.

Take the PACIFIC trial, which assessed maintenance durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Back in 2017, I was initially unconvinced by the interim phase 3 data that were presented in a press release that highlighted the disease-free survival benefit. However, after examining additional data more closely, I saw the dramatic improvement in time to distant relapse or death was overwhelmingly likely to predict an improvement in overall survival – a benefit that the data subsequently bore out.

More recently, the disease-free survival results for adjuvant osimertinib in resected endothelial growth factor receptor mutation–positive NSCLC and adjuvant atezolizumab in resected programmed death-ligand 1–positive stage II-IIIA NSCLC have led to excitement about Food and Drug Administration approvals for these therapies. Although there is reason to be cautious about the likelihood of an overall survival benefit with either therapy – particularly for patients with low programmed death-ligand 1 who receive atezolizumab – I think that the results are promising enough to discuss these treatment options with appropriate patients.

Some argue, however, that overall survival is not necessarily a critical goal and that certain surrogate endpoints are inherently beneficial. Patients and oncologists may, for instance, view delaying disease progression as a win, even if overall survival remains the same.

I appreciate the view that favorable scan results are an achievement, even without a survival benefit. Patients appreciate the good news, and it is gratifying for us to deliver it. However, what remains unspoken is whether the benefit can be provided at a reasonable value given the financial costs associated with the new treatment.

In the United States, we consider the physician-patient relationship to be autonomous and even revered, but we conveniently ignore the fact that both are deciding on treatments that are funded by people who are not represented in the room. And in a health care system that fails to cover basic cancer care needs as well as other critical, high-value interventions for both the uninsured and underinsured, we should acknowledge that our decisions redirect limited resources from others.

Is it the best use of $10,000 per month for a new drug that improves disease-free survival but not overall survival? Given the cost of so many of these newer treatments, we should expect more than indirect, inferred benefits for patients.

At the same time, we also have to remain vigilant and reflect on whether we are echoing the marketing messages of the companies selling these treatments. Having recently watched the excellent Hulu series Dopesick, which realistically portrays the medical community’s egregious overuse of Oxycontin at the behest of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, it is striking to see how effectively the pharmaceutical industry can co-opt stakeholders. Very few physicians or patients have expertise in health care policy with broad societal perspective, yet subspecialists offer edicts as if society should dedicate unlimited resources first and foremost to our career focus or personal cause.

I certainly appreciate the appeal of surrogate endpoints in a world in which we hope to offer novel therapies to patients in a timely fashion. In the next few years, some of our most promising data in oncology will demand that we consider whether surrogate endpoints are practice-changing. We are facing a fundamental question: Are we using these surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival or quality of life or do these endpoints stand on their own as practice-changing metrics?

We need to acknowledge that our primary clinical focus is not the only one that deserves our attention, particularly when our treatment decisions are, in fact, spending other people’s money. We should be asking not whether we prefer to deliver good news after a scan, but whether that alone is enough to justify the high cost of a new treatment without an overall survival benefit.

Dr. West disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; serving as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Genentech/Roche; and receiving income from Eli Lilly. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the field of lung cancer, and more broadly in oncology, many of our biggest advances in 2021 have come as clinically meaningful improvements in surrogate endpoints – disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and sometimes even pathologic complete response rate.

I have historically been most compelled to consider new findings to be practice-changing when they improve overall survival or quality of life – the endpoints that translate to direct benefits for patients. However, I also feel it is appropriate to call surrogate endpoints practice-changing when they can predict improvements in overall survival or quality of life.

Take the PACIFIC trial, which assessed maintenance durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Back in 2017, I was initially unconvinced by the interim phase 3 data that were presented in a press release that highlighted the disease-free survival benefit. However, after examining additional data more closely, I saw the dramatic improvement in time to distant relapse or death was overwhelmingly likely to predict an improvement in overall survival – a benefit that the data subsequently bore out.

More recently, the disease-free survival results for adjuvant osimertinib in resected endothelial growth factor receptor mutation–positive NSCLC and adjuvant atezolizumab in resected programmed death-ligand 1–positive stage II-IIIA NSCLC have led to excitement about Food and Drug Administration approvals for these therapies. Although there is reason to be cautious about the likelihood of an overall survival benefit with either therapy – particularly for patients with low programmed death-ligand 1 who receive atezolizumab – I think that the results are promising enough to discuss these treatment options with appropriate patients.

Some argue, however, that overall survival is not necessarily a critical goal and that certain surrogate endpoints are inherently beneficial. Patients and oncologists may, for instance, view delaying disease progression as a win, even if overall survival remains the same.

I appreciate the view that favorable scan results are an achievement, even without a survival benefit. Patients appreciate the good news, and it is gratifying for us to deliver it. However, what remains unspoken is whether the benefit can be provided at a reasonable value given the financial costs associated with the new treatment.

In the United States, we consider the physician-patient relationship to be autonomous and even revered, but we conveniently ignore the fact that both are deciding on treatments that are funded by people who are not represented in the room. And in a health care system that fails to cover basic cancer care needs as well as other critical, high-value interventions for both the uninsured and underinsured, we should acknowledge that our decisions redirect limited resources from others.

Is it the best use of $10,000 per month for a new drug that improves disease-free survival but not overall survival? Given the cost of so many of these newer treatments, we should expect more than indirect, inferred benefits for patients.

At the same time, we also have to remain vigilant and reflect on whether we are echoing the marketing messages of the companies selling these treatments. Having recently watched the excellent Hulu series Dopesick, which realistically portrays the medical community’s egregious overuse of Oxycontin at the behest of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, it is striking to see how effectively the pharmaceutical industry can co-opt stakeholders. Very few physicians or patients have expertise in health care policy with broad societal perspective, yet subspecialists offer edicts as if society should dedicate unlimited resources first and foremost to our career focus or personal cause.

I certainly appreciate the appeal of surrogate endpoints in a world in which we hope to offer novel therapies to patients in a timely fashion. In the next few years, some of our most promising data in oncology will demand that we consider whether surrogate endpoints are practice-changing. We are facing a fundamental question: Are we using these surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival or quality of life or do these endpoints stand on their own as practice-changing metrics?

We need to acknowledge that our primary clinical focus is not the only one that deserves our attention, particularly when our treatment decisions are, in fact, spending other people’s money. We should be asking not whether we prefer to deliver good news after a scan, but whether that alone is enough to justify the high cost of a new treatment without an overall survival benefit.

Dr. West disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; serving as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Genentech/Roche; and receiving income from Eli Lilly. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 64-year-old woman is evaluated for fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with Clostridioides difficile 2 months ago and completed a 10-day course of vancomycin. Her stool toxin test is positive for Clostridioides difficile (C. diff). Based on the most recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, what would be the preferred therapy?

A) Metronidazole

B) Fidaxomicin + bezlotoxumab

C) Vancomycin

D) Fecal microbiota transplant

The recommendations from the 2021 guidelines would be to treat with fidaxomicin and add bezlotoxumab.¹ The guidelines highlight the following changes:

• In patients with an initial Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) fidaxomicin is preferred over vancomycin.
• In patients with a recurrent CDI episode, fidaxomicin is favored over vancomycin. For patients with multiple recurrences, vancomycin in a tapered and pulsed regimen, vancomycin followed by rifaximin, and fecal microbiota transplantation are options in addition to fidaxomicin.
• Addition of bezlotoxumab to standard of care antibiotics is recommended for recurrence of CDI within the first 6 months over standard of care antibiotics alone

The feasibility of these recommendations is up for debate. The cost of a course of fidaxomicin is $2,800, and the cost of bezlotoxumab is about $4,500. Cost effectiveness studies that helped drive the recommendations show a savings by reducing future hospitalizations for C. diff.² Unfortunately, this enthusiasm is not shared by many insurance companies for outpatient treatment.

Knee osteoarthritis

I will save you the excitement of the new acromegaly guidelines and focus on something we see all the time: knee osteoarthritis. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released guidelines for this condition.³ The useful points I found were as follows:

• Topical application of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., diclofenac) should be used to improve function and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
• Exercise routines (i.e, supervised, unsupervised, and/or aquatic) are recommended versus no exercise for improving pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
• Not recommended is the use of oral narcotics (including tramadol), as they are not effective at improving pain or function, and their use results in a significant increased risk of adverse events.
• Not recommended for routine use in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis is intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid.

I was happy to see topical NSAIDS recommended, as they are a much safer option in older patients than oral NSAIDS (which were also recommended). The recommendation against narcotics, including tramadol, is a shift from the recommendation of tramadol in the 2013 guidelines.⁴ Acetaminophen was enthusiastically recommended, and is still worth a try.

Sexually transmitted infections

• The dosing for the treatment of gonorrhea has increased to 500 mg of ceftriaxone (was 250 mg in 2015 guidelines), with a dose of 1 gram for patients who weigh more than 150 kg.
• Chlamydia infections should be treated with a 7-day course of doxycycline as the preferred antibiotic, except in pregnant women (where azithromycin is recommended).
• Herpes simplex virus 2 recurrences can be treated with twice-daily dosing of 800 mg of acyclovir for 5 days, or acyclovir 800 mg three times a day for 2 days. The shortest course for recurrence is famciclovir 1 gram twice a day for 1 day.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has removed the recommendation for avoidance of alcohol when taking metronidazole.

I hope these highlights of guidelines for common issues we see are helpful!

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Johnson S et al. Clinical practice guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): 2021 Focused update guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile Infection in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 7;73(5):e1029-e1044.

2. Pabhu VS et al. Cost-effectiveness of bezlotoxumab compared with placebo for the prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1;66(3):355-62.

3. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Management of osteoarthritis of the knee (non-arthroplasty) – Evidence-based clinical practice guideline (2021 Aug 31. https://www.aaos.org/oak3cpg).

4. Jevsevar DS. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: Evidence-based guideline, 2nd edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013: Sep;21(9):571-6.

5. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021 recommendations and reports. MMWR 2021 Jul 23;70(4):1-187.

A 64-year-old woman is evaluated for fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with Clostridioides difficile 2 months ago and completed a 10-day course of vancomycin. Her stool toxin test is positive for Clostridioides difficile (C. diff). Based on the most recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, what would be the preferred therapy?

A) Metronidazole

B) Fidaxomicin + bezlotoxumab

C) Vancomycin

D) Fecal microbiota transplant

The recommendations from the 2021 guidelines would be to treat with fidaxomicin and add bezlotoxumab.¹ The guidelines highlight the following changes:

• In patients with an initial Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) fidaxomicin is preferred over vancomycin.
• In patients with a recurrent CDI episode, fidaxomicin is favored over vancomycin. For patients with multiple recurrences, vancomycin in a tapered and pulsed regimen, vancomycin followed by rifaximin, and fecal microbiota transplantation are options in addition to fidaxomicin.
• Addition of bezlotoxumab to standard of care antibiotics is recommended for recurrence of CDI within the first 6 months over standard of care antibiotics alone

The feasibility of these recommendations is up for debate. The cost of a course of fidaxomicin is $2,800, and the cost of bezlotoxumab is about $4,500. Cost effectiveness studies that helped drive the recommendations show a savings by reducing future hospitalizations for C. diff.² Unfortunately, this enthusiasm is not shared by many insurance companies for outpatient treatment.

Knee osteoarthritis

I will save you the excitement of the new acromegaly guidelines and focus on something we see all the time: knee osteoarthritis. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released guidelines for this condition.³ The useful points I found were as follows:

• Topical application of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., diclofenac) should be used to improve function and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
• Exercise routines (i.e, supervised, unsupervised, and/or aquatic) are recommended versus no exercise for improving pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
• Not recommended is the use of oral narcotics (including tramadol), as they are not effective at improving pain or function, and their use results in a significant increased risk of adverse events.
• Not recommended for routine use in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis is intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid.

I was happy to see topical NSAIDS recommended, as they are a much safer option in older patients than oral NSAIDS (which were also recommended). The recommendation against narcotics, including tramadol, is a shift from the recommendation of tramadol in the 2013 guidelines.⁴ Acetaminophen was enthusiastically recommended, and is still worth a try.

Sexually transmitted infections

• The dosing for the treatment of gonorrhea has increased to 500 mg of ceftriaxone (was 250 mg in 2015 guidelines), with a dose of 1 gram for patients who weigh more than 150 kg.
• Chlamydia infections should be treated with a 7-day course of doxycycline as the preferred antibiotic, except in pregnant women (where azithromycin is recommended).
• Herpes simplex virus 2 recurrences can be treated with twice-daily dosing of 800 mg of acyclovir for 5 days, or acyclovir 800 mg three times a day for 2 days. The shortest course for recurrence is famciclovir 1 gram twice a day for 1 day.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has removed the recommendation for avoidance of alcohol when taking metronidazole.

I hope these highlights of guidelines for common issues we see are helpful!

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Johnson S et al. Clinical practice guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): 2021 Focused update guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile Infection in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 7;73(5):e1029-e1044.

2. Pabhu VS et al. Cost-effectiveness of bezlotoxumab compared with placebo for the prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1;66(3):355-62.

3. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Management of osteoarthritis of the knee (non-arthroplasty) – Evidence-based clinical practice guideline (2021 Aug 31. https://www.aaos.org/oak3cpg).

4. Jevsevar DS. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: Evidence-based guideline, 2nd edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013: Sep;21(9):571-6.

5. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021 recommendations and reports. MMWR 2021 Jul 23;70(4):1-187.

A 64-year-old woman is evaluated for fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with Clostridioides difficile 2 months ago and completed a 10-day course of vancomycin. Her stool toxin test is positive for Clostridioides difficile (C. diff). Based on the most recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, what would be the preferred therapy?

A) Metronidazole

B) Fidaxomicin + bezlotoxumab

C) Vancomycin

D) Fecal microbiota transplant

The recommendations from the 2021 guidelines would be to treat with fidaxomicin and add bezlotoxumab.¹ The guidelines highlight the following changes:

• In patients with an initial Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) fidaxomicin is preferred over vancomycin.
• In patients with a recurrent CDI episode, fidaxomicin is favored over vancomycin. For patients with multiple recurrences, vancomycin in a tapered and pulsed regimen, vancomycin followed by rifaximin, and fecal microbiota transplantation are options in addition to fidaxomicin.
• Addition of bezlotoxumab to standard of care antibiotics is recommended for recurrence of CDI within the first 6 months over standard of care antibiotics alone

The feasibility of these recommendations is up for debate. The cost of a course of fidaxomicin is $2,800, and the cost of bezlotoxumab is about $4,500. Cost effectiveness studies that helped drive the recommendations show a savings by reducing future hospitalizations for C. diff.² Unfortunately, this enthusiasm is not shared by many insurance companies for outpatient treatment.

Knee osteoarthritis

I will save you the excitement of the new acromegaly guidelines and focus on something we see all the time: knee osteoarthritis. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released guidelines for this condition.³ The useful points I found were as follows:

• Topical application of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., diclofenac) should be used to improve function and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
• Exercise routines (i.e, supervised, unsupervised, and/or aquatic) are recommended versus no exercise for improving pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
• Not recommended is the use of oral narcotics (including tramadol), as they are not effective at improving pain or function, and their use results in a significant increased risk of adverse events.
• Not recommended for routine use in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis is intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid.

I was happy to see topical NSAIDS recommended, as they are a much safer option in older patients than oral NSAIDS (which were also recommended). The recommendation against narcotics, including tramadol, is a shift from the recommendation of tramadol in the 2013 guidelines.⁴ Acetaminophen was enthusiastically recommended, and is still worth a try.

Sexually transmitted infections

• The dosing for the treatment of gonorrhea has increased to 500 mg of ceftriaxone (was 250 mg in 2015 guidelines), with a dose of 1 gram for patients who weigh more than 150 kg.
• Chlamydia infections should be treated with a 7-day course of doxycycline as the preferred antibiotic, except in pregnant women (where azithromycin is recommended).
• Herpes simplex virus 2 recurrences can be treated with twice-daily dosing of 800 mg of acyclovir for 5 days, or acyclovir 800 mg three times a day for 2 days. The shortest course for recurrence is famciclovir 1 gram twice a day for 1 day.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has removed the recommendation for avoidance of alcohol when taking metronidazole.

I hope these highlights of guidelines for common issues we see are helpful!

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Johnson S et al. Clinical practice guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): 2021 Focused update guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile Infection in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 7;73(5):e1029-e1044.

2. Pabhu VS et al. Cost-effectiveness of bezlotoxumab compared with placebo for the prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1;66(3):355-62.

3. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Management of osteoarthritis of the knee (non-arthroplasty) – Evidence-based clinical practice guideline (2021 Aug 31. https://www.aaos.org/oak3cpg).

4. Jevsevar DS. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: Evidence-based guideline, 2nd edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013: Sep;21(9):571-6.

5. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021 recommendations and reports. MMWR 2021 Jul 23;70(4):1-187.