Commentary

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

When asked, young people report that their reasons for starting smoking include rebellion, a new thing to try, and a peer social activity, among others. While you recognize these as developmentally expected drives, it is frustrating and scary that youth don’t realize how their brains are especially sensitive to permanent changes from nicotine.

Smoking even five packs of cigarettes is enough to cause addiction in youth; an influence as powerful as for cocaine or heroin. One pod of a vaping device delivers as much nicotine as one to five packs of cigarettes, depending on the strength and brand. There are no standards for this content and youth often are unaware of any nicotine and chemicals in vapes. Over 90% of adult smokers started before age 18, some as young as 6, mainly because quitting is so difficult. Cigarettes and vaping are not the only sources of nicotine used by youth; others are oral tobacco (chewing tobacco and dip), cigars, pipes, snus (between cheek and gum), hookahs, electronic devices, bidis (tobacco in a tendu leaf), kreteks (tobacco with cloves), and dissolvable tobacco products. Many youth use both cigarettes and noncigarette tobacco.

Given these predispositions, short-term COVID-19 and asthma exacerbation, and the long-lasting detriment of smoking on neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, and emotional health, actually the “leading preventable cause of death,” our job as pediatric providers is to do our best to prevent smoking/vaping or help our patients quit. But adolescent development is notoriously characterized by short-term thinking and feeling immune from long-term health consequences. So what approach has the best results? Focus on aspects of smoking important to the youth now, such as sports performance, bad breath, social stigma, insomnia, cost, lack of benefit for weight loss, and hazardous waste produced. Add to that loss of independence and being manipulated by Big Business by getting them (and targeted minorities) hooked may be salient in our discussion.

Even a brief 3-minute discussion using the AAC (Ask/Assess, Advise, Connect) format has shown effectiveness in getting teens and adults to quit smoking. Our assessment needs to include asking the extent of current use and symptoms of dependence to inform the treatment plan. We need to use their trust in us to advise that quitting is the best thing they can do for their health.

If the youth’s readiness stage is “thinking about stopping” nicotine, our motivational interview–style discussion of pros and cons could include asking “How important is it to you to stop?” and “What are some things that would help you?” If they are open to trying to stop, advise them to set a quit date within 2 weeks and suggest reducing gradually before then (and schedule follow-up). The plan needs to include dealing with the inevitable urges by finding ways to avoid current triggers to smoke (e.g., certain school bathrooms, people drinking or smoking, or stress over homework, conflict at home, etc.). Encourage exercise and meditation to distract and deal with the anxiety; asking family to quit; having a snack handy (such as sugarless gum or sunflower seeds) for when oral cravings develop; and setting rewards for early days of smoke-free success. We need to inform youth that using e-cigs actually reduces rates of success in quitting.

We need to warn youth of the withdrawal symptoms and their usual course when quitting: cravings each lasting 15-20 minutes (starting at 1/2-4 hours); restlessness, sadness, hopelessness (10 hours); irritability, trouble concentrating, insomnia, hunger and weight gain (5-10 pounds over 2 weeks, starting 24 hrs); headaches, dizziness, fatigue (starting 2 days); and anxiety (starting 3 days). There tends to be less brain fog, and less hunger after 2-4 weeks, but depression, anxiety, irritability, cough, constipation, and even suicidal thoughts may last weeks to months. Sounds nasty, right? No wonder quitting is so hard.

Support is crucial to quitting and staying off nicotine. You can provide this but, in addition to friends and family, we should connect youth to free ongoing phone counselors (1-800-QUIT-NOW or 877-44U-QUIT for Spanish), text services (text QUIT to 47848), apps (quit START), or community support.

While behavioral treatments are best for youth with minimal to mild dependence, risk of relapse is minimized with fewer withdrawal symptoms, thus the role for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for those with moderate to strong dependence and to help anyone ad lib with cravings. NRT is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to supplement counseling, although NRT is not Food and Drug Administration approved and requires a prescription for those under 18.

How can we determine the degree of dependence? Smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day (or vape equivalent) and inhaling even “seldom” counts as “moderate” dependence and more than 26 with difficulty refraining in several situations as “substantial” in the Fagerstrom Tolerance test. Early morning smoking is asked about, important to which NRT to use (gum or lozenge for faster onset). The Hooked on Nicotine Checklist assesses “loss of autonomy” over smoking by any “yes” item and is incorporated in the CRAFFT screen. The recommended dose of NRT and length of weaning is greater in substantial addiction versus moderate. Besides gum, lozenges, patch, inhaler, and nasal spray, you can prescribe bupropion (Wellbutrin or Zyban) or varenicline (Chantix), making note of the black box suicide warning. Combining NRTs is similarly effective compared with varenicline.

Relapse after quitting is more common than not. As for any chronic condition, in relapse we need to query adherence, and consider increasing NRT dose or wean duration, even years. Discussion should have a positive focus on “what was learned” from past attempts in making a new plan that incorporates Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition.

Many youth smokers start because their parents smoke. While addressing adults may seem out of scope, we often treat parents when managing scabies, pinworms, meningococcal disease, and even depression for the benefit of the child. The AAP recommends prescribing NRT for parents, when needed.

Nicotine dependence is a chronic relapsing condition with comorbidities of substance use and psychiatric disorders that requires similar monitoring and support as for other chronic conditions we manage and is more likely to shorten lifespan than many.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

Reference

Clinical practice policy to protect children from tobacco, nicotine, and tobacco smoke, Pediatrics 2015;136(5):1008-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-31088.

When asked, young people report that their reasons for starting smoking include rebellion, a new thing to try, and a peer social activity, among others. While you recognize these as developmentally expected drives, it is frustrating and scary that youth don’t realize how their brains are especially sensitive to permanent changes from nicotine.

Smoking even five packs of cigarettes is enough to cause addiction in youth; an influence as powerful as for cocaine or heroin. One pod of a vaping device delivers as much nicotine as one to five packs of cigarettes, depending on the strength and brand. There are no standards for this content and youth often are unaware of any nicotine and chemicals in vapes. Over 90% of adult smokers started before age 18, some as young as 6, mainly because quitting is so difficult. Cigarettes and vaping are not the only sources of nicotine used by youth; others are oral tobacco (chewing tobacco and dip), cigars, pipes, snus (between cheek and gum), hookahs, electronic devices, bidis (tobacco in a tendu leaf), kreteks (tobacco with cloves), and dissolvable tobacco products. Many youth use both cigarettes and noncigarette tobacco.

Given these predispositions, short-term COVID-19 and asthma exacerbation, and the long-lasting detriment of smoking on neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, and emotional health, actually the “leading preventable cause of death,” our job as pediatric providers is to do our best to prevent smoking/vaping or help our patients quit. But adolescent development is notoriously characterized by short-term thinking and feeling immune from long-term health consequences. So what approach has the best results? Focus on aspects of smoking important to the youth now, such as sports performance, bad breath, social stigma, insomnia, cost, lack of benefit for weight loss, and hazardous waste produced. Add to that loss of independence and being manipulated by Big Business by getting them (and targeted minorities) hooked may be salient in our discussion.

Even a brief 3-minute discussion using the AAC (Ask/Assess, Advise, Connect) format has shown effectiveness in getting teens and adults to quit smoking. Our assessment needs to include asking the extent of current use and symptoms of dependence to inform the treatment plan. We need to use their trust in us to advise that quitting is the best thing they can do for their health.

If the youth’s readiness stage is “thinking about stopping” nicotine, our motivational interview–style discussion of pros and cons could include asking “How important is it to you to stop?” and “What are some things that would help you?” If they are open to trying to stop, advise them to set a quit date within 2 weeks and suggest reducing gradually before then (and schedule follow-up). The plan needs to include dealing with the inevitable urges by finding ways to avoid current triggers to smoke (e.g., certain school bathrooms, people drinking or smoking, or stress over homework, conflict at home, etc.). Encourage exercise and meditation to distract and deal with the anxiety; asking family to quit; having a snack handy (such as sugarless gum or sunflower seeds) for when oral cravings develop; and setting rewards for early days of smoke-free success. We need to inform youth that using e-cigs actually reduces rates of success in quitting.

We need to warn youth of the withdrawal symptoms and their usual course when quitting: cravings each lasting 15-20 minutes (starting at 1/2-4 hours); restlessness, sadness, hopelessness (10 hours); irritability, trouble concentrating, insomnia, hunger and weight gain (5-10 pounds over 2 weeks, starting 24 hrs); headaches, dizziness, fatigue (starting 2 days); and anxiety (starting 3 days). There tends to be less brain fog, and less hunger after 2-4 weeks, but depression, anxiety, irritability, cough, constipation, and even suicidal thoughts may last weeks to months. Sounds nasty, right? No wonder quitting is so hard.

Support is crucial to quitting and staying off nicotine. You can provide this but, in addition to friends and family, we should connect youth to free ongoing phone counselors (1-800-QUIT-NOW or 877-44U-QUIT for Spanish), text services (text QUIT to 47848), apps (quit START), or community support.

While behavioral treatments are best for youth with minimal to mild dependence, risk of relapse is minimized with fewer withdrawal symptoms, thus the role for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for those with moderate to strong dependence and to help anyone ad lib with cravings. NRT is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to supplement counseling, although NRT is not Food and Drug Administration approved and requires a prescription for those under 18.

How can we determine the degree of dependence? Smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day (or vape equivalent) and inhaling even “seldom” counts as “moderate” dependence and more than 26 with difficulty refraining in several situations as “substantial” in the Fagerstrom Tolerance test. Early morning smoking is asked about, important to which NRT to use (gum or lozenge for faster onset). The Hooked on Nicotine Checklist assesses “loss of autonomy” over smoking by any “yes” item and is incorporated in the CRAFFT screen. The recommended dose of NRT and length of weaning is greater in substantial addiction versus moderate. Besides gum, lozenges, patch, inhaler, and nasal spray, you can prescribe bupropion (Wellbutrin or Zyban) or varenicline (Chantix), making note of the black box suicide warning. Combining NRTs is similarly effective compared with varenicline.

Relapse after quitting is more common than not. As for any chronic condition, in relapse we need to query adherence, and consider increasing NRT dose or wean duration, even years. Discussion should have a positive focus on “what was learned” from past attempts in making a new plan that incorporates Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition.

Many youth smokers start because their parents smoke. While addressing adults may seem out of scope, we often treat parents when managing scabies, pinworms, meningococcal disease, and even depression for the benefit of the child. The AAP recommends prescribing NRT for parents, when needed.

Nicotine dependence is a chronic relapsing condition with comorbidities of substance use and psychiatric disorders that requires similar monitoring and support as for other chronic conditions we manage and is more likely to shorten lifespan than many.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

Reference

Clinical practice policy to protect children from tobacco, nicotine, and tobacco smoke, Pediatrics 2015;136(5):1008-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-31088.

When asked, young people report that their reasons for starting smoking include rebellion, a new thing to try, and a peer social activity, among others. While you recognize these as developmentally expected drives, it is frustrating and scary that youth don’t realize how their brains are especially sensitive to permanent changes from nicotine.

Smoking even five packs of cigarettes is enough to cause addiction in youth; an influence as powerful as for cocaine or heroin. One pod of a vaping device delivers as much nicotine as one to five packs of cigarettes, depending on the strength and brand. There are no standards for this content and youth often are unaware of any nicotine and chemicals in vapes. Over 90% of adult smokers started before age 18, some as young as 6, mainly because quitting is so difficult. Cigarettes and vaping are not the only sources of nicotine used by youth; others are oral tobacco (chewing tobacco and dip), cigars, pipes, snus (between cheek and gum), hookahs, electronic devices, bidis (tobacco in a tendu leaf), kreteks (tobacco with cloves), and dissolvable tobacco products. Many youth use both cigarettes and noncigarette tobacco.

Given these predispositions, short-term COVID-19 and asthma exacerbation, and the long-lasting detriment of smoking on neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, and emotional health, actually the “leading preventable cause of death,” our job as pediatric providers is to do our best to prevent smoking/vaping or help our patients quit. But adolescent development is notoriously characterized by short-term thinking and feeling immune from long-term health consequences. So what approach has the best results? Focus on aspects of smoking important to the youth now, such as sports performance, bad breath, social stigma, insomnia, cost, lack of benefit for weight loss, and hazardous waste produced. Add to that loss of independence and being manipulated by Big Business by getting them (and targeted minorities) hooked may be salient in our discussion.

Even a brief 3-minute discussion using the AAC (Ask/Assess, Advise, Connect) format has shown effectiveness in getting teens and adults to quit smoking. Our assessment needs to include asking the extent of current use and symptoms of dependence to inform the treatment plan. We need to use their trust in us to advise that quitting is the best thing they can do for their health.

If the youth’s readiness stage is “thinking about stopping” nicotine, our motivational interview–style discussion of pros and cons could include asking “How important is it to you to stop?” and “What are some things that would help you?” If they are open to trying to stop, advise them to set a quit date within 2 weeks and suggest reducing gradually before then (and schedule follow-up). The plan needs to include dealing with the inevitable urges by finding ways to avoid current triggers to smoke (e.g., certain school bathrooms, people drinking or smoking, or stress over homework, conflict at home, etc.). Encourage exercise and meditation to distract and deal with the anxiety; asking family to quit; having a snack handy (such as sugarless gum or sunflower seeds) for when oral cravings develop; and setting rewards for early days of smoke-free success. We need to inform youth that using e-cigs actually reduces rates of success in quitting.

We need to warn youth of the withdrawal symptoms and their usual course when quitting: cravings each lasting 15-20 minutes (starting at 1/2-4 hours); restlessness, sadness, hopelessness (10 hours); irritability, trouble concentrating, insomnia, hunger and weight gain (5-10 pounds over 2 weeks, starting 24 hrs); headaches, dizziness, fatigue (starting 2 days); and anxiety (starting 3 days). There tends to be less brain fog, and less hunger after 2-4 weeks, but depression, anxiety, irritability, cough, constipation, and even suicidal thoughts may last weeks to months. Sounds nasty, right? No wonder quitting is so hard.

Support is crucial to quitting and staying off nicotine. You can provide this but, in addition to friends and family, we should connect youth to free ongoing phone counselors (1-800-QUIT-NOW or 877-44U-QUIT for Spanish), text services (text QUIT to 47848), apps (quit START), or community support.

While behavioral treatments are best for youth with minimal to mild dependence, risk of relapse is minimized with fewer withdrawal symptoms, thus the role for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for those with moderate to strong dependence and to help anyone ad lib with cravings. NRT is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to supplement counseling, although NRT is not Food and Drug Administration approved and requires a prescription for those under 18.

How can we determine the degree of dependence? Smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day (or vape equivalent) and inhaling even “seldom” counts as “moderate” dependence and more than 26 with difficulty refraining in several situations as “substantial” in the Fagerstrom Tolerance test. Early morning smoking is asked about, important to which NRT to use (gum or lozenge for faster onset). The Hooked on Nicotine Checklist assesses “loss of autonomy” over smoking by any “yes” item and is incorporated in the CRAFFT screen. The recommended dose of NRT and length of weaning is greater in substantial addiction versus moderate. Besides gum, lozenges, patch, inhaler, and nasal spray, you can prescribe bupropion (Wellbutrin or Zyban) or varenicline (Chantix), making note of the black box suicide warning. Combining NRTs is similarly effective compared with varenicline.

Relapse after quitting is more common than not. As for any chronic condition, in relapse we need to query adherence, and consider increasing NRT dose or wean duration, even years. Discussion should have a positive focus on “what was learned” from past attempts in making a new plan that incorporates Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition.

Many youth smokers start because their parents smoke. While addressing adults may seem out of scope, we often treat parents when managing scabies, pinworms, meningococcal disease, and even depression for the benefit of the child. The AAP recommends prescribing NRT for parents, when needed.

Nicotine dependence is a chronic relapsing condition with comorbidities of substance use and psychiatric disorders that requires similar monitoring and support as for other chronic conditions we manage and is more likely to shorten lifespan than many.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

Reference

Clinical practice policy to protect children from tobacco, nicotine, and tobacco smoke, Pediatrics 2015;136(5):1008-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-31088.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

It’s the season of love. In that spirit, we’re offering you a bouquet of absurd TikTok health trends that physicians love to hate — and explain the absurdity of. Lean in and get a whiff of the latest good, bad, and ugly videos making the rounds on the internet’s most perplexing platform. But don’t get too close; these videos are especially ripe.

The bad: NyQuil chicken

You know something bad has happened when your TikTok search ends with a warning from the app that says “Learn how to recognize harmful trends and hoaxes.” That’s what shows up now when you try to find out what the “NyQuil chicken” or “sleepy chicken” trend is (or was) all about.

TikTok videos, including this one from TikTok user @janelleandkate, show users trying out a trend meant to cook up a meal that will also cure your cold symptoms. The trend involves cooking chicken in a pan full of the cold and flu medicine NyQuil. The NyQuil chicken idea stems from a Twitter meme from 2017, so it is possible that some of the recent videos are fake (blue food coloring is easy to get, people).

However, in the instance that people believe the videos to be real and want to try the trend out, it is important to warn that this shouldn’t be attempted.

Aaron Hartman, MD, assistant clinical professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, told the website Mic about the trend’s dangers: “When you cook cough medicine like NyQuil, however, you boil off the water and alcohol in it, leaving the chicken saturated with a super concentrated amount of drugs in the meat. If you ate one of those cutlets completely cooked, it’d be as if you’re actually consuming a quarter to half a bottle of NyQuil.”

And that’s not good for anyone. What ever happened to an old fashioned herb marinade?

The good: Can you fart yourself blind? Doc explains

It’s something we’ve all wondered about, right?

TikTok and YouTube’s mainstay plastic surgeon Anthony Youn, MD, took it upon himself to reply to a comment saying “I once farted so hard I went blind for 3 minutes.” This phenomenon, according to Dr. Youn, is very rare, but not impossible, though we wouldn’t exactly want to try it for ourselves.

In the humorous (but very informative!) video, Dr. Youn explains that particularly pungent flatulence can contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that is known for smelling like rotten eggs. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hydrogen sulfide is produced in a number of industries, like oil and gas refining, mining, and paper processing. Exposure to higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous, with prolonged exposure at a 2-5 parts per million (ppm) concentration causing nausea, headaches, and airway problems in some asthma patients. At very high concentrations, it can be fatal.

Thankfully, a person’s gas is not at all that dangerous. When it comes to the commentor’s claim, Dr. Youn says that something else hydrogen sulfide can do is reduce blood pressure.

“If it reduces blood pressure to the central retinal artery,” Dr. Youn says, “your silent but deadly toot could theoretically make you go blind.”

Thank goodness we can lay that question to rest.
 

The ugly: Eye boogers from hell

Get a look at this!

This video from @mikaylaadiorr has amassed over 8 million likes and over 89,000 comments, and shows someone, who we can assume is Mikayla, pulling some sort of long string-like material out of the corner of her eye. It’s like a clown’s never-ending handkerchief, only goopy.

These mucus eye strings are caused by untreated eye conditions, like dry eye or pink eye (conjunctivitis), but pulling the mucus out is actually a symptom of what is called mucus fishing syndrome. As you know, our eyes are covered in layers of mucus and tears, which keeps our eyeballs lubricated and also protects us from bacteria and viruses. It’s possible to dry out the eyes by pulling some mucus off, but our eyes aren’t big fans of that, so they’ll create more mucus to keep from drying out.

A person who might get a bit addicted to pulling the strings out has likely developed mucus fishing syndrome, which is considered a body-focused repetitive behavior (BFRB); other BFRBs include skin-picking (dermatillomania) or picking hairs out (trichotillomania).

Popular TikToker and Oregon ophthalmologist Will Flanary, MD, aka Dr. Glaucomflecken, responded to the videos, which have been encouraging others to try it.

“This is called mucus fishing syndrome,” the ophthalmologist explained via text captions in his video. “The trauma from pulling mucus out of your eye causes more mucus to form. You get caught in a never-ending cycle that gets worse over time. So…stop it.”

Fingers off the mucus, people.

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

It’s the season of love. In that spirit, we’re offering you a bouquet of absurd TikTok health trends that physicians love to hate — and explain the absurdity of. Lean in and get a whiff of the latest good, bad, and ugly videos making the rounds on the internet’s most perplexing platform. But don’t get too close; these videos are especially ripe.

The bad: NyQuil chicken

You know something bad has happened when your TikTok search ends with a warning from the app that says “Learn how to recognize harmful trends and hoaxes.” That’s what shows up now when you try to find out what the “NyQuil chicken” or “sleepy chicken” trend is (or was) all about.

TikTok videos, including this one from TikTok user @janelleandkate, show users trying out a trend meant to cook up a meal that will also cure your cold symptoms. The trend involves cooking chicken in a pan full of the cold and flu medicine NyQuil. The NyQuil chicken idea stems from a Twitter meme from 2017, so it is possible that some of the recent videos are fake (blue food coloring is easy to get, people).

However, in the instance that people believe the videos to be real and want to try the trend out, it is important to warn that this shouldn’t be attempted.

Aaron Hartman, MD, assistant clinical professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, told the website Mic about the trend’s dangers: “When you cook cough medicine like NyQuil, however, you boil off the water and alcohol in it, leaving the chicken saturated with a super concentrated amount of drugs in the meat. If you ate one of those cutlets completely cooked, it’d be as if you’re actually consuming a quarter to half a bottle of NyQuil.”

And that’s not good for anyone. What ever happened to an old fashioned herb marinade?

The good: Can you fart yourself blind? Doc explains

It’s something we’ve all wondered about, right?

TikTok and YouTube’s mainstay plastic surgeon Anthony Youn, MD, took it upon himself to reply to a comment saying “I once farted so hard I went blind for 3 minutes.” This phenomenon, according to Dr. Youn, is very rare, but not impossible, though we wouldn’t exactly want to try it for ourselves.

In the humorous (but very informative!) video, Dr. Youn explains that particularly pungent flatulence can contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that is known for smelling like rotten eggs. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hydrogen sulfide is produced in a number of industries, like oil and gas refining, mining, and paper processing. Exposure to higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous, with prolonged exposure at a 2-5 parts per million (ppm) concentration causing nausea, headaches, and airway problems in some asthma patients. At very high concentrations, it can be fatal.

Thankfully, a person’s gas is not at all that dangerous. When it comes to the commentor’s claim, Dr. Youn says that something else hydrogen sulfide can do is reduce blood pressure.

“If it reduces blood pressure to the central retinal artery,” Dr. Youn says, “your silent but deadly toot could theoretically make you go blind.”

Thank goodness we can lay that question to rest.
 

The ugly: Eye boogers from hell

Get a look at this!

This video from @mikaylaadiorr has amassed over 8 million likes and over 89,000 comments, and shows someone, who we can assume is Mikayla, pulling some sort of long string-like material out of the corner of her eye. It’s like a clown’s never-ending handkerchief, only goopy.

These mucus eye strings are caused by untreated eye conditions, like dry eye or pink eye (conjunctivitis), but pulling the mucus out is actually a symptom of what is called mucus fishing syndrome. As you know, our eyes are covered in layers of mucus and tears, which keeps our eyeballs lubricated and also protects us from bacteria and viruses. It’s possible to dry out the eyes by pulling some mucus off, but our eyes aren’t big fans of that, so they’ll create more mucus to keep from drying out.

A person who might get a bit addicted to pulling the strings out has likely developed mucus fishing syndrome, which is considered a body-focused repetitive behavior (BFRB); other BFRBs include skin-picking (dermatillomania) or picking hairs out (trichotillomania).

Popular TikToker and Oregon ophthalmologist Will Flanary, MD, aka Dr. Glaucomflecken, responded to the videos, which have been encouraging others to try it.

“This is called mucus fishing syndrome,” the ophthalmologist explained via text captions in his video. “The trauma from pulling mucus out of your eye causes more mucus to form. You get caught in a never-ending cycle that gets worse over time. So…stop it.”

Fingers off the mucus, people.

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

It’s the season of love. In that spirit, we’re offering you a bouquet of absurd TikTok health trends that physicians love to hate — and explain the absurdity of. Lean in and get a whiff of the latest good, bad, and ugly videos making the rounds on the internet’s most perplexing platform. But don’t get too close; these videos are especially ripe.

The bad: NyQuil chicken

You know something bad has happened when your TikTok search ends with a warning from the app that says “Learn how to recognize harmful trends and hoaxes.” That’s what shows up now when you try to find out what the “NyQuil chicken” or “sleepy chicken” trend is (or was) all about.

TikTok videos, including this one from TikTok user @janelleandkate, show users trying out a trend meant to cook up a meal that will also cure your cold symptoms. The trend involves cooking chicken in a pan full of the cold and flu medicine NyQuil. The NyQuil chicken idea stems from a Twitter meme from 2017, so it is possible that some of the recent videos are fake (blue food coloring is easy to get, people).

However, in the instance that people believe the videos to be real and want to try the trend out, it is important to warn that this shouldn’t be attempted.

Aaron Hartman, MD, assistant clinical professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, told the website Mic about the trend’s dangers: “When you cook cough medicine like NyQuil, however, you boil off the water and alcohol in it, leaving the chicken saturated with a super concentrated amount of drugs in the meat. If you ate one of those cutlets completely cooked, it’d be as if you’re actually consuming a quarter to half a bottle of NyQuil.”

And that’s not good for anyone. What ever happened to an old fashioned herb marinade?

The good: Can you fart yourself blind? Doc explains

It’s something we’ve all wondered about, right?

TikTok and YouTube’s mainstay plastic surgeon Anthony Youn, MD, took it upon himself to reply to a comment saying “I once farted so hard I went blind for 3 minutes.” This phenomenon, according to Dr. Youn, is very rare, but not impossible, though we wouldn’t exactly want to try it for ourselves.

In the humorous (but very informative!) video, Dr. Youn explains that particularly pungent flatulence can contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that is known for smelling like rotten eggs. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hydrogen sulfide is produced in a number of industries, like oil and gas refining, mining, and paper processing. Exposure to higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous, with prolonged exposure at a 2-5 parts per million (ppm) concentration causing nausea, headaches, and airway problems in some asthma patients. At very high concentrations, it can be fatal.

Thankfully, a person’s gas is not at all that dangerous. When it comes to the commentor’s claim, Dr. Youn says that something else hydrogen sulfide can do is reduce blood pressure.

“If it reduces blood pressure to the central retinal artery,” Dr. Youn says, “your silent but deadly toot could theoretically make you go blind.”

Thank goodness we can lay that question to rest.
 

The ugly: Eye boogers from hell

Get a look at this!

This video from @mikaylaadiorr has amassed over 8 million likes and over 89,000 comments, and shows someone, who we can assume is Mikayla, pulling some sort of long string-like material out of the corner of her eye. It’s like a clown’s never-ending handkerchief, only goopy.

These mucus eye strings are caused by untreated eye conditions, like dry eye or pink eye (conjunctivitis), but pulling the mucus out is actually a symptom of what is called mucus fishing syndrome. As you know, our eyes are covered in layers of mucus and tears, which keeps our eyeballs lubricated and also protects us from bacteria and viruses. It’s possible to dry out the eyes by pulling some mucus off, but our eyes aren’t big fans of that, so they’ll create more mucus to keep from drying out.

A person who might get a bit addicted to pulling the strings out has likely developed mucus fishing syndrome, which is considered a body-focused repetitive behavior (BFRB); other BFRBs include skin-picking (dermatillomania) or picking hairs out (trichotillomania).

Popular TikToker and Oregon ophthalmologist Will Flanary, MD, aka Dr. Glaucomflecken, responded to the videos, which have been encouraging others to try it.

“This is called mucus fishing syndrome,” the ophthalmologist explained via text captions in his video. “The trauma from pulling mucus out of your eye causes more mucus to form. You get caught in a never-ending cycle that gets worse over time. So…stop it.”

Fingers off the mucus, people.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most common surgeries worldwide, with > 1 million performed last year. Many patients have seen tremendous benefit from TKR; however, studies have shown that up to 20% of patients are not satisfied with the results of this procedure.^1,2 This equates to about 200,000 patients worldwide every year who are dissatisfied. This is a huge concern to patients, surgeons, implant manufacturers, hospitals, and health care payers.

Many attempts to improve satisfaction in TKR have been tried, including computer navigation, minimally invasive surgery, rotating platform prostheses, gender-specific implants, different materials, changes in pain management, and revised postoperative rehabilitation.^3-7 However, these efforts show no significant improvement in satisfaction.

The most common method of TKR today involves using a long rod placed through a drill hole in the femur. Standardized cuts on the femur and tibia are made through metal cutting blocks. Only metal mechanical instruments are used to perform the surgery, and all patients are aligned the same. However, anatomic studies have shown that patient anatomy in 3 dimensions (3D) varies widely from patient to patient.⁸ Our current technique seems far removed from modern engineering, where we now see extensive use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve outcomes.

Machine learning (ML) is considered a subset of AI that involves the use of various computer algorithms. ML allows the computer to learn and continually improve analysis of data. Large sets of inputs and outputs are used to train the machine to make autonomous recommendations or decisions.^9,10

Seven years ago, our team at the Phoenix Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Arizona published a randomized controlled trial evaluating a new, individualized alignment technique for TKR.¹¹ This method used 3D-printed guides made from an MRI of an individual patient’s knee. Instead of aligning all knee replacements the same, each patient was aligned according to their unique anatomy. Compared with the conventional alignment technique, the newer technique showed significant improvement in all outcome scores and range of motion at 2 years postsurgery. There has been a great deal of interest in individualizing TKR, and many articles and techniques have followed.¹²

Our surgical technique has evolved since publishing our trial. Currently, knee X-rays are digitally templated for each patient. Understanding the patient’s preoperative alignment can then assist in planning a TKR in 3D. A plastic 3D-printed guide is manufactured in Belgium, shipped to the US, sterilized, and used in surgery. These guides fit accurately on the patient’s anatomy and allow precise angles and depth of resection for each surgical bone cut. Our research has shown that these guides are accurate to within 0.5° and 0.5 mm for the bone cuts performed in surgery. After surgery, we track patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can then be used in ML or logistic regression analysis to determine alignment factors that contribute to the best outcome.¹³

Soon, use of a robot will take the place of the templating and preplanning, allowing the 3D plan to be immediately produced in surgery by the software installed in the robot.^14-16 Each patient’s preoperative alignment can then be immediately compared with the postoperative result, and smartphone technology can allow a patient to input their PRO after the surgery is healed.¹⁷

Collecting all this information in a large database can allow ML analyses of the outcomes and individual alignment.^14-17 As the factors contributing to the best clinical results are determined, the computer can be programmed to learn how to make the best recommendations for alignment of each patient, which can be incorporated into the robotic platform for each surgery. Also pre- and postoperative factors can be added to the ML platform so we can identify the best preoperative patient parameters, anticoagulation program postoperative rehabilitation program, etc, to help drive higher PROs and satisfaction.

Multiple surgical robots for TKR are now on the market. Orthopedic literature includes ML algorithms to improve outcomes after total hip arthroplasty.¹⁸ The EHR can be used to develop models to predict poor outcomes after TKR. Integrating these models into clinical decision support could improve patient selection, education, and satisfaction.¹⁹ AI for adult spinal surgery using predictive analytics can help surgeons better inform patients about outcomes after corrective surgery.^20,21

With worldwide TKRs expected to exceed 3 million over the next decade, ML using large databases, robotic surgery, and PROs could be key to improving our TKR outcomes.²² This form of AI may reduce the large number of patients currently not satisfied with their knee replacement.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most common surgeries worldwide, with > 1 million performed last year. Many patients have seen tremendous benefit from TKR; however, studies have shown that up to 20% of patients are not satisfied with the results of this procedure.^1,2 This equates to about 200,000 patients worldwide every year who are dissatisfied. This is a huge concern to patients, surgeons, implant manufacturers, hospitals, and health care payers.

Many attempts to improve satisfaction in TKR have been tried, including computer navigation, minimally invasive surgery, rotating platform prostheses, gender-specific implants, different materials, changes in pain management, and revised postoperative rehabilitation.^3-7 However, these efforts show no significant improvement in satisfaction.

The most common method of TKR today involves using a long rod placed through a drill hole in the femur. Standardized cuts on the femur and tibia are made through metal cutting blocks. Only metal mechanical instruments are used to perform the surgery, and all patients are aligned the same. However, anatomic studies have shown that patient anatomy in 3 dimensions (3D) varies widely from patient to patient.⁸ Our current technique seems far removed from modern engineering, where we now see extensive use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve outcomes.

Machine learning (ML) is considered a subset of AI that involves the use of various computer algorithms. ML allows the computer to learn and continually improve analysis of data. Large sets of inputs and outputs are used to train the machine to make autonomous recommendations or decisions.^9,10

Seven years ago, our team at the Phoenix Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Arizona published a randomized controlled trial evaluating a new, individualized alignment technique for TKR.¹¹ This method used 3D-printed guides made from an MRI of an individual patient’s knee. Instead of aligning all knee replacements the same, each patient was aligned according to their unique anatomy. Compared with the conventional alignment technique, the newer technique showed significant improvement in all outcome scores and range of motion at 2 years postsurgery. There has been a great deal of interest in individualizing TKR, and many articles and techniques have followed.¹²

Our surgical technique has evolved since publishing our trial. Currently, knee X-rays are digitally templated for each patient. Understanding the patient’s preoperative alignment can then assist in planning a TKR in 3D. A plastic 3D-printed guide is manufactured in Belgium, shipped to the US, sterilized, and used in surgery. These guides fit accurately on the patient’s anatomy and allow precise angles and depth of resection for each surgical bone cut. Our research has shown that these guides are accurate to within 0.5° and 0.5 mm for the bone cuts performed in surgery. After surgery, we track patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can then be used in ML or logistic regression analysis to determine alignment factors that contribute to the best outcome.¹³

Soon, use of a robot will take the place of the templating and preplanning, allowing the 3D plan to be immediately produced in surgery by the software installed in the robot.^14-16 Each patient’s preoperative alignment can then be immediately compared with the postoperative result, and smartphone technology can allow a patient to input their PRO after the surgery is healed.¹⁷

Collecting all this information in a large database can allow ML analyses of the outcomes and individual alignment.^14-17 As the factors contributing to the best clinical results are determined, the computer can be programmed to learn how to make the best recommendations for alignment of each patient, which can be incorporated into the robotic platform for each surgery. Also pre- and postoperative factors can be added to the ML platform so we can identify the best preoperative patient parameters, anticoagulation program postoperative rehabilitation program, etc, to help drive higher PROs and satisfaction.

Multiple surgical robots for TKR are now on the market. Orthopedic literature includes ML algorithms to improve outcomes after total hip arthroplasty.¹⁸ The EHR can be used to develop models to predict poor outcomes after TKR. Integrating these models into clinical decision support could improve patient selection, education, and satisfaction.¹⁹ AI for adult spinal surgery using predictive analytics can help surgeons better inform patients about outcomes after corrective surgery.^20,21

With worldwide TKRs expected to exceed 3 million over the next decade, ML using large databases, robotic surgery, and PROs could be key to improving our TKR outcomes.²² This form of AI may reduce the large number of patients currently not satisfied with their knee replacement.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most common surgeries worldwide, with > 1 million performed last year. Many patients have seen tremendous benefit from TKR; however, studies have shown that up to 20% of patients are not satisfied with the results of this procedure.^1,2 This equates to about 200,000 patients worldwide every year who are dissatisfied. This is a huge concern to patients, surgeons, implant manufacturers, hospitals, and health care payers.

Many attempts to improve satisfaction in TKR have been tried, including computer navigation, minimally invasive surgery, rotating platform prostheses, gender-specific implants, different materials, changes in pain management, and revised postoperative rehabilitation.^3-7 However, these efforts show no significant improvement in satisfaction.

The most common method of TKR today involves using a long rod placed through a drill hole in the femur. Standardized cuts on the femur and tibia are made through metal cutting blocks. Only metal mechanical instruments are used to perform the surgery, and all patients are aligned the same. However, anatomic studies have shown that patient anatomy in 3 dimensions (3D) varies widely from patient to patient.⁸ Our current technique seems far removed from modern engineering, where we now see extensive use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve outcomes.

Machine learning (ML) is considered a subset of AI that involves the use of various computer algorithms. ML allows the computer to learn and continually improve analysis of data. Large sets of inputs and outputs are used to train the machine to make autonomous recommendations or decisions.^9,10

Seven years ago, our team at the Phoenix Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Arizona published a randomized controlled trial evaluating a new, individualized alignment technique for TKR.¹¹ This method used 3D-printed guides made from an MRI of an individual patient’s knee. Instead of aligning all knee replacements the same, each patient was aligned according to their unique anatomy. Compared with the conventional alignment technique, the newer technique showed significant improvement in all outcome scores and range of motion at 2 years postsurgery. There has been a great deal of interest in individualizing TKR, and many articles and techniques have followed.¹²

Our surgical technique has evolved since publishing our trial. Currently, knee X-rays are digitally templated for each patient. Understanding the patient’s preoperative alignment can then assist in planning a TKR in 3D. A plastic 3D-printed guide is manufactured in Belgium, shipped to the US, sterilized, and used in surgery. These guides fit accurately on the patient’s anatomy and allow precise angles and depth of resection for each surgical bone cut. Our research has shown that these guides are accurate to within 0.5° and 0.5 mm for the bone cuts performed in surgery. After surgery, we track patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can then be used in ML or logistic regression analysis to determine alignment factors that contribute to the best outcome.¹³

Soon, use of a robot will take the place of the templating and preplanning, allowing the 3D plan to be immediately produced in surgery by the software installed in the robot.^14-16 Each patient’s preoperative alignment can then be immediately compared with the postoperative result, and smartphone technology can allow a patient to input their PRO after the surgery is healed.¹⁷

Collecting all this information in a large database can allow ML analyses of the outcomes and individual alignment.^14-17 As the factors contributing to the best clinical results are determined, the computer can be programmed to learn how to make the best recommendations for alignment of each patient, which can be incorporated into the robotic platform for each surgery. Also pre- and postoperative factors can be added to the ML platform so we can identify the best preoperative patient parameters, anticoagulation program postoperative rehabilitation program, etc, to help drive higher PROs and satisfaction.

Multiple surgical robots for TKR are now on the market. Orthopedic literature includes ML algorithms to improve outcomes after total hip arthroplasty.¹⁸ The EHR can be used to develop models to predict poor outcomes after TKR. Integrating these models into clinical decision support could improve patient selection, education, and satisfaction.¹⁹ AI for adult spinal surgery using predictive analytics can help surgeons better inform patients about outcomes after corrective surgery.^20,21

With worldwide TKRs expected to exceed 3 million over the next decade, ML using large databases, robotic surgery, and PROs could be key to improving our TKR outcomes.²² This form of AI may reduce the large number of patients currently not satisfied with their knee replacement.

Cutis Reviewers, JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2021

Jennifer L. Adams, MD

Brandon Adler, MD

Iris Ahronowitz, MD

Abdullah Aleisa, MD

Justin Bandino, MD

Robert Baran, MD

Naiara S. Barbosa, MD

Kristina R. Burke, MD

Craig Burkhart, MD

Jeffrey P. Callen, MD

Charles Camisa, MD

Ashley B. Crew, MD

Zoe Diana Draelos, MD

Joseph S. Eastern, MD

Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc

Joseph C. English III, MD

Tammie C. Ferringer, MD

Bahar F. Firoz, MD, MPH

John R. Griffin, MD

Kristi Hawley, DO

Thomas N. Helm, MD

Stephen Ellsworth Helms, MD

Brian P. Hibler, MD

Ranella J. Hirsch, MD

Jenny Hu, MD, MPH

Erick Jacobson-Dunlop, MD

William D. James, MD

Camilla K. Janniger, MD

Ronald Belle Johnston Jr, MD

Theodora Karagounis, MD

Michael Kasperkiewicz, MD

Brett H. Keeling, MD

Chesahna Kindred, MD, MBA

Christina Nicole Kraus, MD

Eun Ji Kwon, MD

Eden Lake, MD

Nicholas Logemann, DO

Michele S. Maroon, MD

Cathy Massoud, MD

Elizabeth I. McBurney, MD

Lynn J. McKinley-Grant, MD

Amy J. McMichael, MD

Darius R. Mehregan, MD

Jon Hamilton Meyerle, MD

Robert Micheletti, MD

Binh Ngo, MD

Anh Nguyen, MD

Josephine Nguyen, MD, MHCDS

Joe Niamtu III, DMD

Rajiv I. Nijhawan, MD

Michael A. Nowak, MD

Maria T. Ochoa, MD

Chika Ohata, MD

Lawrence C. Parish, MD

Marion Apter Quinn, MD

Phoebe Rich, MD

Maureen Riegert, MD

Bethany Rohr, MD

Lorraine L. Rosamilia, MD

Ted Rosen, MD

Robert I. Rudolph, MD

Elizabeth K. Satter, MD, MPH

Robert A. Schwartz, MD, MPH

Michael J. Scott III, DO, MD, MPH

Jane Scribner, MD

Bridget E. Shields, MD

Daniel Mark Siegel, MD, MS

Nanette B. Silverberg, MD

Steven Brett Sloan, MD

Leonard Sperling, MD

Stephen P. Stone, MD

Brian L. Swick, MD

Susan C. Taylor, MD

Manuel Valdebran, MD

Richard F. Wagner Jr, MD

Emily Wong, MD

Julie Woodward, MD

Scott Worswick, MD

Julia Wu, MD

If you are interested in serving as a reviewer, please email the Editorial Office at cutis@mdedge.com.

Cutis Reviewers, JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2021

Jennifer L. Adams, MD

Brandon Adler, MD

Iris Ahronowitz, MD

Abdullah Aleisa, MD

Justin Bandino, MD

Robert Baran, MD

Naiara S. Barbosa, MD

Kristina R. Burke, MD

Craig Burkhart, MD

Jeffrey P. Callen, MD

Charles Camisa, MD

Ashley B. Crew, MD

Zoe Diana Draelos, MD

Joseph S. Eastern, MD

Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc

Joseph C. English III, MD

Tammie C. Ferringer, MD

Bahar F. Firoz, MD, MPH

John R. Griffin, MD

Kristi Hawley, DO

Thomas N. Helm, MD

Stephen Ellsworth Helms, MD

Brian P. Hibler, MD

Ranella J. Hirsch, MD

Jenny Hu, MD, MPH

Erick Jacobson-Dunlop, MD

William D. James, MD

Camilla K. Janniger, MD

Ronald Belle Johnston Jr, MD

Theodora Karagounis, MD

Michael Kasperkiewicz, MD

Brett H. Keeling, MD

Chesahna Kindred, MD, MBA

Christina Nicole Kraus, MD

Eun Ji Kwon, MD

Eden Lake, MD

Nicholas Logemann, DO

Michele S. Maroon, MD

Cathy Massoud, MD

Elizabeth I. McBurney, MD

Lynn J. McKinley-Grant, MD

Amy J. McMichael, MD

Darius R. Mehregan, MD

Jon Hamilton Meyerle, MD

Robert Micheletti, MD

Binh Ngo, MD

Anh Nguyen, MD

Josephine Nguyen, MD, MHCDS

Joe Niamtu III, DMD

Rajiv I. Nijhawan, MD

Michael A. Nowak, MD

Maria T. Ochoa, MD

Chika Ohata, MD

Lawrence C. Parish, MD

Marion Apter Quinn, MD

Phoebe Rich, MD

Maureen Riegert, MD

Bethany Rohr, MD

Lorraine L. Rosamilia, MD

Ted Rosen, MD

Robert I. Rudolph, MD

Elizabeth K. Satter, MD, MPH

Robert A. Schwartz, MD, MPH

Michael J. Scott III, DO, MD, MPH

Jane Scribner, MD

Bridget E. Shields, MD

Daniel Mark Siegel, MD, MS

Nanette B. Silverberg, MD

Steven Brett Sloan, MD

Leonard Sperling, MD

Stephen P. Stone, MD

Brian L. Swick, MD

Susan C. Taylor, MD

Manuel Valdebran, MD

Richard F. Wagner Jr, MD

Emily Wong, MD

Julie Woodward, MD

Scott Worswick, MD

Julia Wu, MD

If you are interested in serving as a reviewer, please email the Editorial Office at cutis@mdedge.com.

Cutis Reviewers, JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2021

Jennifer L. Adams, MD

Brandon Adler, MD

Iris Ahronowitz, MD

Abdullah Aleisa, MD

Justin Bandino, MD

Robert Baran, MD

Naiara S. Barbosa, MD

Kristina R. Burke, MD

Craig Burkhart, MD

Jeffrey P. Callen, MD

Charles Camisa, MD

Ashley B. Crew, MD

Zoe Diana Draelos, MD

Joseph S. Eastern, MD

Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc

Joseph C. English III, MD

Tammie C. Ferringer, MD

Bahar F. Firoz, MD, MPH

John R. Griffin, MD

Kristi Hawley, DO

Thomas N. Helm, MD

Stephen Ellsworth Helms, MD

Brian P. Hibler, MD

Ranella J. Hirsch, MD

Jenny Hu, MD, MPH

Erick Jacobson-Dunlop, MD

William D. James, MD

Camilla K. Janniger, MD

Ronald Belle Johnston Jr, MD

Theodora Karagounis, MD

Michael Kasperkiewicz, MD

Brett H. Keeling, MD

Chesahna Kindred, MD, MBA

Christina Nicole Kraus, MD

Eun Ji Kwon, MD

Eden Lake, MD

Nicholas Logemann, DO

Michele S. Maroon, MD

Cathy Massoud, MD

Elizabeth I. McBurney, MD

Lynn J. McKinley-Grant, MD

Amy J. McMichael, MD

Darius R. Mehregan, MD

Jon Hamilton Meyerle, MD

Robert Micheletti, MD

Binh Ngo, MD

Anh Nguyen, MD

Josephine Nguyen, MD, MHCDS

Joe Niamtu III, DMD

Rajiv I. Nijhawan, MD

Michael A. Nowak, MD

Maria T. Ochoa, MD

Chika Ohata, MD

Lawrence C. Parish, MD

Marion Apter Quinn, MD

Phoebe Rich, MD

Maureen Riegert, MD

Bethany Rohr, MD

Lorraine L. Rosamilia, MD

Ted Rosen, MD

Robert I. Rudolph, MD

Elizabeth K. Satter, MD, MPH

Robert A. Schwartz, MD, MPH

Michael J. Scott III, DO, MD, MPH

Jane Scribner, MD

Bridget E. Shields, MD

Daniel Mark Siegel, MD, MS

Nanette B. Silverberg, MD

Steven Brett Sloan, MD

Leonard Sperling, MD

Stephen P. Stone, MD

Brian L. Swick, MD

Susan C. Taylor, MD

Manuel Valdebran, MD

Richard F. Wagner Jr, MD

Emily Wong, MD

Julie Woodward, MD

Scott Worswick, MD

Julia Wu, MD

If you are interested in serving as a reviewer, please email the Editorial Office at cutis@mdedge.com.

Medical case reports are as old as the healing profession itself.¹ These ancient medical stories have a modern definition: “A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients.”² Case report experts describe the 3-fold purposes of this type of research: as a mainstay of education; a harbinger of emerging illnesses; and an appraiser of new interventions. Case-based education has long been a pillar of health professions education: Nurses, doctors, and allied health professionals are taught and learn through reading and discussing with their teachers and each other about cases of their own patients and of those in the literature.³ Case reports also have helped identify and raise awareness of new diseases and rare conditions, such as HIV.⁴ Finally, case reports have alerted regulatory agencies and the medical community about medication adverse effects, such as birth defects from thalidomide.⁵

Case reports also have been criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds. Critics argue that many case reports often lack the rigor and consistency of other types of research.⁶ Three recent trends in medical publication have strengthened the validity of these criticisms: the increase in the popularity of case reports; the corresponding increase in submissions to journals, including Federal Practitioner; and the rise of predatory publishers.^7,8

The ethical scrutiny of case reports discussed in this column focuses on the tension between providing readers with adequate, accurate information to fulfil the goals of case reports while also protecting patient confidentiality. The latter issue during most of the history of medicine was not considered by health care professionals when the prevailing paternalism supported a professional-oriented approach to health care. The rise of bioethics in the 1960s and 1970s began the shift toward patient autonomy in medical decision making and patient rights to control their protected health information that rendered case reports ethically problematic.

To address both changes in ethical standards and scientific limitations, a committee of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors formed the Case Report (CARE) group.^2,8 The group undertook an effort to improve the quality of case reports. From 2011 to 2012, they developed the CARE guidelines for clinical case reporting. The guidance took the form of a Statement and Checklist presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Since their presentation, multiple prestigious medical journals in many countries have implemented these recommendations.

As part of an overall effort to raise the ethical caliber of our own journal, Federal Practitioner will begin to implement the CARE guidelines for case reports for all future submissions. Use of the CARE recommendations will help prospective authors enhance the scientific value and ethical caliber of case reports submitted to the journal as well as assist the Federal Practitioner editorial team, editorial board, and peer reviewers to evaluate submissions more judiciously.

An essential part of the CARE guidelines is that the patient who is the subject of the case report provide informed consent for the publication of their personal narrative. The CARE group considers this an “ethical duty” of authors and editors alike. In “exceptional circumstances” such as if the patient is a minor or permanently incapacitated, a guardian or relative may grant consent. In the rare event that even with exhaustive attempts, if informed consent cannot be obtained from a patient or their representative, then the authors of the case report must submit a statement to this effect.⁴ Some journals may require that the authors obtain the approval of an institutional review board or the permission of an ethics or other institutional committee or a privacy officer.²

Requesting the patient’s consent is an extension of the shared decision making that is now a best practice in clinical care into the arena of research, making the patient or their representative a partner in the work. Ethicists have recommended inviting patients or relatives to read a draft of the case report and agree to its publication or request specific modifications to the manuscript. The CARE group rightly points out that with the rise of open notes in medical documentation, patients increasingly have access to their charts in near or real time.² Gone are the days of Sir William Osler when only doctors read medical journals and all of these technical developments as well as standards of research and social changes in the practitioner-patient relationship make it imperative that writers and editors join together to make case reports more transparent, accurate, and consistent.⁷

An additional step to protect patient privacy is the requirement that authors either de-identify potentially identifiable health information, such as age, birth, death, admission, and discharge dates, or in some instances obtain separate consent for the release of that protected data.⁸ These restrictions constitute a challenge to case report authors who in some instances may consider these same facts critical to the integrity of the case presentation that have made some scholars doubt their continued viability. After all, the contribution of the case to the medical literature often lies in its very particularity. Conversely, no matter how frustrated we might become during writing a case report, we would not want to see our own protected health information or that of our family on a website or in print without our knowledge or approval. Indeed, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that “If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.”⁹

However, the exponential growth of the internet, the spread of social media, and the ubiquity of a plethora of electronic devices, which prior generations of writers and readers could not even imagine, make these limitations necessary to protect patient privacy and the public’s trust in health care professionals. The CARE guidelines can help authors of case reports hone the art of anonymizing the protected health information of subjects of case reports, such as ethnicity and occupation, while accurately conveying the clinical specifics of the case that make it valuable to students and colleagues.

We at Federal Practitioner recognize there is a real tension between truth-telling in case report publication and respect for patient confidentiality that will never be perfectly achieved, but is one that is important for medical knowledge, making it worthy of the continuous efforts of authors and editors to negotiate.

Medical case reports are as old as the healing profession itself.¹ These ancient medical stories have a modern definition: “A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients.”² Case report experts describe the 3-fold purposes of this type of research: as a mainstay of education; a harbinger of emerging illnesses; and an appraiser of new interventions. Case-based education has long been a pillar of health professions education: Nurses, doctors, and allied health professionals are taught and learn through reading and discussing with their teachers and each other about cases of their own patients and of those in the literature.³ Case reports also have helped identify and raise awareness of new diseases and rare conditions, such as HIV.⁴ Finally, case reports have alerted regulatory agencies and the medical community about medication adverse effects, such as birth defects from thalidomide.⁵

Case reports also have been criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds. Critics argue that many case reports often lack the rigor and consistency of other types of research.⁶ Three recent trends in medical publication have strengthened the validity of these criticisms: the increase in the popularity of case reports; the corresponding increase in submissions to journals, including Federal Practitioner; and the rise of predatory publishers.^7,8

The ethical scrutiny of case reports discussed in this column focuses on the tension between providing readers with adequate, accurate information to fulfil the goals of case reports while also protecting patient confidentiality. The latter issue during most of the history of medicine was not considered by health care professionals when the prevailing paternalism supported a professional-oriented approach to health care. The rise of bioethics in the 1960s and 1970s began the shift toward patient autonomy in medical decision making and patient rights to control their protected health information that rendered case reports ethically problematic.

To address both changes in ethical standards and scientific limitations, a committee of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors formed the Case Report (CARE) group.^2,8 The group undertook an effort to improve the quality of case reports. From 2011 to 2012, they developed the CARE guidelines for clinical case reporting. The guidance took the form of a Statement and Checklist presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Since their presentation, multiple prestigious medical journals in many countries have implemented these recommendations.

As part of an overall effort to raise the ethical caliber of our own journal, Federal Practitioner will begin to implement the CARE guidelines for case reports for all future submissions. Use of the CARE recommendations will help prospective authors enhance the scientific value and ethical caliber of case reports submitted to the journal as well as assist the Federal Practitioner editorial team, editorial board, and peer reviewers to evaluate submissions more judiciously.

An essential part of the CARE guidelines is that the patient who is the subject of the case report provide informed consent for the publication of their personal narrative. The CARE group considers this an “ethical duty” of authors and editors alike. In “exceptional circumstances” such as if the patient is a minor or permanently incapacitated, a guardian or relative may grant consent. In the rare event that even with exhaustive attempts, if informed consent cannot be obtained from a patient or their representative, then the authors of the case report must submit a statement to this effect.⁴ Some journals may require that the authors obtain the approval of an institutional review board or the permission of an ethics or other institutional committee or a privacy officer.²

Requesting the patient’s consent is an extension of the shared decision making that is now a best practice in clinical care into the arena of research, making the patient or their representative a partner in the work. Ethicists have recommended inviting patients or relatives to read a draft of the case report and agree to its publication or request specific modifications to the manuscript. The CARE group rightly points out that with the rise of open notes in medical documentation, patients increasingly have access to their charts in near or real time.² Gone are the days of Sir William Osler when only doctors read medical journals and all of these technical developments as well as standards of research and social changes in the practitioner-patient relationship make it imperative that writers and editors join together to make case reports more transparent, accurate, and consistent.⁷

An additional step to protect patient privacy is the requirement that authors either de-identify potentially identifiable health information, such as age, birth, death, admission, and discharge dates, or in some instances obtain separate consent for the release of that protected data.⁸ These restrictions constitute a challenge to case report authors who in some instances may consider these same facts critical to the integrity of the case presentation that have made some scholars doubt their continued viability. After all, the contribution of the case to the medical literature often lies in its very particularity. Conversely, no matter how frustrated we might become during writing a case report, we would not want to see our own protected health information or that of our family on a website or in print without our knowledge or approval. Indeed, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that “If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.”⁹

However, the exponential growth of the internet, the spread of social media, and the ubiquity of a plethora of electronic devices, which prior generations of writers and readers could not even imagine, make these limitations necessary to protect patient privacy and the public’s trust in health care professionals. The CARE guidelines can help authors of case reports hone the art of anonymizing the protected health information of subjects of case reports, such as ethnicity and occupation, while accurately conveying the clinical specifics of the case that make it valuable to students and colleagues.

We at Federal Practitioner recognize there is a real tension between truth-telling in case report publication and respect for patient confidentiality that will never be perfectly achieved, but is one that is important for medical knowledge, making it worthy of the continuous efforts of authors and editors to negotiate.

Medical case reports are as old as the healing profession itself.¹ These ancient medical stories have a modern definition: “A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients.”² Case report experts describe the 3-fold purposes of this type of research: as a mainstay of education; a harbinger of emerging illnesses; and an appraiser of new interventions. Case-based education has long been a pillar of health professions education: Nurses, doctors, and allied health professionals are taught and learn through reading and discussing with their teachers and each other about cases of their own patients and of those in the literature.³ Case reports also have helped identify and raise awareness of new diseases and rare conditions, such as HIV.⁴ Finally, case reports have alerted regulatory agencies and the medical community about medication adverse effects, such as birth defects from thalidomide.⁵

Case reports also have been criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds. Critics argue that many case reports often lack the rigor and consistency of other types of research.⁶ Three recent trends in medical publication have strengthened the validity of these criticisms: the increase in the popularity of case reports; the corresponding increase in submissions to journals, including Federal Practitioner; and the rise of predatory publishers.^7,8

The ethical scrutiny of case reports discussed in this column focuses on the tension between providing readers with adequate, accurate information to fulfil the goals of case reports while also protecting patient confidentiality. The latter issue during most of the history of medicine was not considered by health care professionals when the prevailing paternalism supported a professional-oriented approach to health care. The rise of bioethics in the 1960s and 1970s began the shift toward patient autonomy in medical decision making and patient rights to control their protected health information that rendered case reports ethically problematic.

To address both changes in ethical standards and scientific limitations, a committee of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors formed the Case Report (CARE) group.^2,8 The group undertook an effort to improve the quality of case reports. From 2011 to 2012, they developed the CARE guidelines for clinical case reporting. The guidance took the form of a Statement and Checklist presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Since their presentation, multiple prestigious medical journals in many countries have implemented these recommendations.

As part of an overall effort to raise the ethical caliber of our own journal, Federal Practitioner will begin to implement the CARE guidelines for case reports for all future submissions. Use of the CARE recommendations will help prospective authors enhance the scientific value and ethical caliber of case reports submitted to the journal as well as assist the Federal Practitioner editorial team, editorial board, and peer reviewers to evaluate submissions more judiciously.

An essential part of the CARE guidelines is that the patient who is the subject of the case report provide informed consent for the publication of their personal narrative. The CARE group considers this an “ethical duty” of authors and editors alike. In “exceptional circumstances” such as if the patient is a minor or permanently incapacitated, a guardian or relative may grant consent. In the rare event that even with exhaustive attempts, if informed consent cannot be obtained from a patient or their representative, then the authors of the case report must submit a statement to this effect.⁴ Some journals may require that the authors obtain the approval of an institutional review board or the permission of an ethics or other institutional committee or a privacy officer.²

Requesting the patient’s consent is an extension of the shared decision making that is now a best practice in clinical care into the arena of research, making the patient or their representative a partner in the work. Ethicists have recommended inviting patients or relatives to read a draft of the case report and agree to its publication or request specific modifications to the manuscript. The CARE group rightly points out that with the rise of open notes in medical documentation, patients increasingly have access to their charts in near or real time.² Gone are the days of Sir William Osler when only doctors read medical journals and all of these technical developments as well as standards of research and social changes in the practitioner-patient relationship make it imperative that writers and editors join together to make case reports more transparent, accurate, and consistent.⁷

An additional step to protect patient privacy is the requirement that authors either de-identify potentially identifiable health information, such as age, birth, death, admission, and discharge dates, or in some instances obtain separate consent for the release of that protected data.⁸ These restrictions constitute a challenge to case report authors who in some instances may consider these same facts critical to the integrity of the case presentation that have made some scholars doubt their continued viability. After all, the contribution of the case to the medical literature often lies in its very particularity. Conversely, no matter how frustrated we might become during writing a case report, we would not want to see our own protected health information or that of our family on a website or in print without our knowledge or approval. Indeed, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors states that “If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.”⁹

However, the exponential growth of the internet, the spread of social media, and the ubiquity of a plethora of electronic devices, which prior generations of writers and readers could not even imagine, make these limitations necessary to protect patient privacy and the public’s trust in health care professionals. The CARE guidelines can help authors of case reports hone the art of anonymizing the protected health information of subjects of case reports, such as ethnicity and occupation, while accurately conveying the clinical specifics of the case that make it valuable to students and colleagues.

We at Federal Practitioner recognize there is a real tension between truth-telling in case report publication and respect for patient confidentiality that will never be perfectly achieved, but is one that is important for medical knowledge, making it worthy of the continuous efforts of authors and editors to negotiate.

When I finished my dermatology training in 1986, the only moving parts in the skin that I recall were keratinocytes moving upward from the basal layer of the epidermis until they were desquamated 4 or 5 weeks later and hairs growing within their follicles until they were shed. Now we are learning about countless cytokines, chemokines, interleukins, antibodies, receptors, enzymes, and cell types, as well as their associated pathways, at an endless pace. Every day I am looking in my inbox to sign up for the “Cytokine of the Month” club! Despite the challenges of sorting through what is relevant clinically, it is a very exciting time. Coupled with this myriad of fundamental science is the emergence of newer therapies that are more directly targeting specific disease states and dramatically changing the lives of patients. We see prominent examples of these therapeutic results every day in patients we treat, especially with psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Importantly, there also is hope for patients with notoriously refractory skin disorders, such as hidradenitis suppurativa, alopecia areata, and vitiligo, as newer therapies are being thoroughly studied in clinical trials.

Despite the best advances in therapy that we currently have available and those anticipated in the foreseeable future, patients with chronic dermatoses such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis still require prolonged constant or frequently used intermittent therapies to adequately control their disease. Fortunately, as dermatologists we understand the importance of proper skin care and topical medications as well as how to incorporate them in the management plan. To date, specifically with psoriasis, we have a variety of brand and generic topical corticosteroids, calcipotriene (vitamin D analogue), and tazarotene (retinoid), as well as combination formulations, in our toolbox to help manage localized areas of involvement.¹ This includes both patients with more limited psoriasis and those responding favorably to systemic therapy but who still develop some new or persistent areas of localized psoriatic lesions. New data with the brand formulation of calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate (Cal-BDP) foam applied once daily shows that after adequate control is achieved, continued application to the affected sites twice weekly is superior to vehicle in preventing relapse of psoriasis.² A highly cosmetically acceptable Cal-BDP cream incorporating a unique vehicle technology has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for once-daily use for plaque psoriasis, overcoming the compatibility difficulties encountered in combining both active ingredients in an aqueous-based formulation and also optimizing the delivery of the active ingredients into the skin. This Cal-BDP cream demonstrated efficacy superior to a brand Cal-BDP suspension, rapid reduction in pruritus, and favorable tolerability and safety.³ Another combination formulation that is FDA approved for plaque psoriasis with once-daily application that has been shown to be effective and safe is halobetasol propionate–tazarotene lotion. This formulation contains lower concentrations of both active ingredients than those normally used in a barrier-friendly polymeric emulsion vehicle, allowing for augmented delivery of both active ingredients into the skin than with the individual agents applied separately and sequentially.^4,5 In the best of circumstances, most patients with psoriasis still require use of topical therapy and appreciate its availability. Just like on any menu, it is good to have multiple good options.

What else does this psoriasis management story need? A pipeline! I am happy to tell you that with topical therapy, 2 nonsteroidal agents are under development with completion of phase 2 and phase 3 trials submitted to the FDA to evaluate for approval for psoriasis. They are tapinarof cream, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, and roflumilast cream, a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor. Both of these modes of action involve intracellular pathways that are highly conserved in humans and are ubiquitously present in structural and hematopoietic cells.

Topical application of tapinarof cream once daily has been shown to be effective and safe for plaque psoriasis, is well tolerated with some reports of folliculitis observed that did not typically interfere with use, exhibits a remittive effect in patients achieving clearance on therapy, and is devoid of any systemic safety signals with both short-term and long-term use.^6-8 It also is currently under evaluation for atopic dermatitis. Topical roflumilast cream once daily has been shown to be effective and safe for plaque psoriasis as well as intertriginous psoriasis; is well tolerated including negligible rates of skin tolerability reactions such as stinging and burning; and is devoid of systemic safety signals, including those often observed with oral PDE4 inhibitor therapy (apremilast).^9,10 In addition, roflumilast has been shown to be more inherently potent in PDE4 inhibition activity than crisaborole and apremilast.¹¹ Roflumilast cream also is being studied for atopic dermatitis and a foam formulation is being evaluated for seborrheic dermatitis. Importantly, both tapinarof and roflumilast are not corticosteroids and are not associated with adverse effects observed with topical corticosteroid therapy, such as atrophy, striae, telangiectasia, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression. This provides a sense of comfort for clinicians and patients, as potential side effects associated with more prolonged topical corticosteroid therapy are common and lingering concerns.

To summarize, topical therapy for psoriasis is here to stay, just like all the rock and roll we have more access to than ever through expanded modern-day radio access and several music streaming sources, most of which are on demand. Also available to us are some viable current options, including a few newer brand formulations. New nonsteroidal agents with favorable data thus far are on the horizon, providing their own inherent efficacy and safety, which appear to be advantageous thus far. As the late Ric Ocasek of the Cars sang, “Let the good times roll.”

When I finished my dermatology training in 1986, the only moving parts in the skin that I recall were keratinocytes moving upward from the basal layer of the epidermis until they were desquamated 4 or 5 weeks later and hairs growing within their follicles until they were shed. Now we are learning about countless cytokines, chemokines, interleukins, antibodies, receptors, enzymes, and cell types, as well as their associated pathways, at an endless pace. Every day I am looking in my inbox to sign up for the “Cytokine of the Month” club! Despite the challenges of sorting through what is relevant clinically, it is a very exciting time. Coupled with this myriad of fundamental science is the emergence of newer therapies that are more directly targeting specific disease states and dramatically changing the lives of patients. We see prominent examples of these therapeutic results every day in patients we treat, especially with psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Importantly, there also is hope for patients with notoriously refractory skin disorders, such as hidradenitis suppurativa, alopecia areata, and vitiligo, as newer therapies are being thoroughly studied in clinical trials.

Despite the best advances in therapy that we currently have available and those anticipated in the foreseeable future, patients with chronic dermatoses such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis still require prolonged constant or frequently used intermittent therapies to adequately control their disease. Fortunately, as dermatologists we understand the importance of proper skin care and topical medications as well as how to incorporate them in the management plan. To date, specifically with psoriasis, we have a variety of brand and generic topical corticosteroids, calcipotriene (vitamin D analogue), and tazarotene (retinoid), as well as combination formulations, in our toolbox to help manage localized areas of involvement.¹ This includes both patients with more limited psoriasis and those responding favorably to systemic therapy but who still develop some new or persistent areas of localized psoriatic lesions. New data with the brand formulation of calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate (Cal-BDP) foam applied once daily shows that after adequate control is achieved, continued application to the affected sites twice weekly is superior to vehicle in preventing relapse of psoriasis.² A highly cosmetically acceptable Cal-BDP cream incorporating a unique vehicle technology has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for once-daily use for plaque psoriasis, overcoming the compatibility difficulties encountered in combining both active ingredients in an aqueous-based formulation and also optimizing the delivery of the active ingredients into the skin. This Cal-BDP cream demonstrated efficacy superior to a brand Cal-BDP suspension, rapid reduction in pruritus, and favorable tolerability and safety.³ Another combination formulation that is FDA approved for plaque psoriasis with once-daily application that has been shown to be effective and safe is halobetasol propionate–tazarotene lotion. This formulation contains lower concentrations of both active ingredients than those normally used in a barrier-friendly polymeric emulsion vehicle, allowing for augmented delivery of both active ingredients into the skin than with the individual agents applied separately and sequentially.^4,5 In the best of circumstances, most patients with psoriasis still require use of topical therapy and appreciate its availability. Just like on any menu, it is good to have multiple good options.

What else does this psoriasis management story need? A pipeline! I am happy to tell you that with topical therapy, 2 nonsteroidal agents are under development with completion of phase 2 and phase 3 trials submitted to the FDA to evaluate for approval for psoriasis. They are tapinarof cream, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, and roflumilast cream, a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor. Both of these modes of action involve intracellular pathways that are highly conserved in humans and are ubiquitously present in structural and hematopoietic cells.

Topical application of tapinarof cream once daily has been shown to be effective and safe for plaque psoriasis, is well tolerated with some reports of folliculitis observed that did not typically interfere with use, exhibits a remittive effect in patients achieving clearance on therapy, and is devoid of any systemic safety signals with both short-term and long-term use.^6-8 It also is currently under evaluation for atopic dermatitis. Topical roflumilast cream once daily has been shown to be effective and safe for plaque psoriasis as well as intertriginous psoriasis; is well tolerated including negligible rates of skin tolerability reactions such as stinging and burning; and is devoid of systemic safety signals, including those often observed with oral PDE4 inhibitor therapy (apremilast).^9,10 In addition, roflumilast has been shown to be more inherently potent in PDE4 inhibition activity than crisaborole and apremilast.¹¹ Roflumilast cream also is being studied for atopic dermatitis and a foam formulation is being evaluated for seborrheic dermatitis. Importantly, both tapinarof and roflumilast are not corticosteroids and are not associated with adverse effects observed with topical corticosteroid therapy, such as atrophy, striae, telangiectasia, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression. This provides a sense of comfort for clinicians and patients, as potential side effects associated with more prolonged topical corticosteroid therapy are common and lingering concerns.

To summarize, topical therapy for psoriasis is here to stay, just like all the rock and roll we have more access to than ever through expanded modern-day radio access and several music streaming sources, most of which are on demand. Also available to us are some viable current options, including a few newer brand formulations. New nonsteroidal agents with favorable data thus far are on the horizon, providing their own inherent efficacy and safety, which appear to be advantageous thus far. As the late Ric Ocasek of the Cars sang, “Let the good times roll.”

When I finished my dermatology training in 1986, the only moving parts in the skin that I recall were keratinocytes moving upward from the basal layer of the epidermis until they were desquamated 4 or 5 weeks later and hairs growing within their follicles until they were shed. Now we are learning about countless cytokines, chemokines, interleukins, antibodies, receptors, enzymes, and cell types, as well as their associated pathways, at an endless pace. Every day I am looking in my inbox to sign up for the “Cytokine of the Month” club! Despite the challenges of sorting through what is relevant clinically, it is a very exciting time. Coupled with this myriad of fundamental science is the emergence of newer therapies that are more directly targeting specific disease states and dramatically changing the lives of patients. We see prominent examples of these therapeutic results every day in patients we treat, especially with psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Importantly, there also is hope for patients with notoriously refractory skin disorders, such as hidradenitis suppurativa, alopecia areata, and vitiligo, as newer therapies are being thoroughly studied in clinical trials.

Despite the best advances in therapy that we currently have available and those anticipated in the foreseeable future, patients with chronic dermatoses such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis still require prolonged constant or frequently used intermittent therapies to adequately control their disease. Fortunately, as dermatologists we understand the importance of proper skin care and topical medications as well as how to incorporate them in the management plan. To date, specifically with psoriasis, we have a variety of brand and generic topical corticosteroids, calcipotriene (vitamin D analogue), and tazarotene (retinoid), as well as combination formulations, in our toolbox to help manage localized areas of involvement.¹ This includes both patients with more limited psoriasis and those responding favorably to systemic therapy but who still develop some new or persistent areas of localized psoriatic lesions. New data with the brand formulation of calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate (Cal-BDP) foam applied once daily shows that after adequate control is achieved, continued application to the affected sites twice weekly is superior to vehicle in preventing relapse of psoriasis.² A highly cosmetically acceptable Cal-BDP cream incorporating a unique vehicle technology has been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for once-daily use for plaque psoriasis, overcoming the compatibility difficulties encountered in combining both active ingredients in an aqueous-based formulation and also optimizing the delivery of the active ingredients into the skin. This Cal-BDP cream demonstrated efficacy superior to a brand Cal-BDP suspension, rapid reduction in pruritus, and favorable tolerability and safety.³ Another combination formulation that is FDA approved for plaque psoriasis with once-daily application that has been shown to be effective and safe is halobetasol propionate–tazarotene lotion. This formulation contains lower concentrations of both active ingredients than those normally used in a barrier-friendly polymeric emulsion vehicle, allowing for augmented delivery of both active ingredients into the skin than with the individual agents applied separately and sequentially.^4,5 In the best of circumstances, most patients with psoriasis still require use of topical therapy and appreciate its availability. Just like on any menu, it is good to have multiple good options.

What else does this psoriasis management story need? A pipeline! I am happy to tell you that with topical therapy, 2 nonsteroidal agents are under development with completion of phase 2 and phase 3 trials submitted to the FDA to evaluate for approval for psoriasis. They are tapinarof cream, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, and roflumilast cream, a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor. Both of these modes of action involve intracellular pathways that are highly conserved in humans and are ubiquitously present in structural and hematopoietic cells.

Topical application of tapinarof cream once daily has been shown to be effective and safe for plaque psoriasis, is well tolerated with some reports of folliculitis observed that did not typically interfere with use, exhibits a remittive effect in patients achieving clearance on therapy, and is devoid of any systemic safety signals with both short-term and long-term use.^6-8 It also is currently under evaluation for atopic dermatitis. Topical roflumilast cream once daily has been shown to be effective and safe for plaque psoriasis as well as intertriginous psoriasis; is well tolerated including negligible rates of skin tolerability reactions such as stinging and burning; and is devoid of systemic safety signals, including those often observed with oral PDE4 inhibitor therapy (apremilast).^9,10 In addition, roflumilast has been shown to be more inherently potent in PDE4 inhibition activity than crisaborole and apremilast.¹¹ Roflumilast cream also is being studied for atopic dermatitis and a foam formulation is being evaluated for seborrheic dermatitis. Importantly, both tapinarof and roflumilast are not corticosteroids and are not associated with adverse effects observed with topical corticosteroid therapy, such as atrophy, striae, telangiectasia, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression. This provides a sense of comfort for clinicians and patients, as potential side effects associated with more prolonged topical corticosteroid therapy are common and lingering concerns.

To summarize, topical therapy for psoriasis is here to stay, just like all the rock and roll we have more access to than ever through expanded modern-day radio access and several music streaming sources, most of which are on demand. Also available to us are some viable current options, including a few newer brand formulations. New nonsteroidal agents with favorable data thus far are on the horizon, providing their own inherent efficacy and safety, which appear to be advantageous thus far. As the late Ric Ocasek of the Cars sang, “Let the good times roll.”

You have a 16-year-old patient who has been doing poorly in school. He has withdrawn from his social group and quit the sports in which he excelled. He admits to using marijuana “maybe once or twice a week.” But you and his parents suspect that it is much more often and contributing to the change in his behavior and school performance.

They would prefer he not use marijuana at all but could maybe be comfortable with some arrangement in which their son could demonstrate that his usage was indeed limited to once or twice on the weekends. They ask for your help with crafting a contract that might include “some urine or blood test” that would allow them to be sure their son was adhering to the contract.

You explain to them that there are hazards associated with setting up contracts such as the one they are proposing. One revolving around the issue of trust. Another being that he may be addicted to the point that a compromise that includes scaling back his usage is unlikely to succeed. And, finally, you tell them that because of marijuana’s pharmacokinetics, their son’s urine tests will always be positive and not reflective of the how much he is using or whether he is intoxicated.

Scenarios similar to this are increasingly common for those of us living in states that have legalized recreational cannabis use. The absence of a laboratory test that can determine when a person is impaired by marijuana has made life difficult for law enforcement officers accustomed to relying on breath and blood tests for alcohol to confirm their suspicion that a driver is under the influence.

In addition, because marijuana is still detectable days after it is used, many well-paying jobs go unfilled when potential applicants are hesitant to submit to a required drug test. The quirky pharmacokinetics of cannabis are well-known to the recreational users and they see no reason to risk failing a urine test regardless of how good the job may be.

This lack of a reliable indicator of cannabis intoxication has not gone unnoticed, and in a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston report some hopeful results using fNIRS brain scanning. The investigators observed an increase in the level of oxygenated hemoglobin concentration (HbO), which is a type of neural activity signature, in the prefrontal cortex region of the volunteers who reported being impaired.

While a brain scan may sound like an unwieldy tool to use on roadside sobriety stops, the researchers report that portable scanners – some using skull cap sensors – could be easily adapted for use by law enforcement in the field. This technology also could be used by employers on the job site to test truck drivers and heavy machine operators at the beginning of each shift, thereby allaying the fears of responsible cannabis users.

This technology might be helpful to you in advising the parents of the 16-year-old you suspect of heavy usage. It would certainly help in confirming the suspicion that he is using more often than he claims. However, the contract the parents propose still may not work. If this young man demonstrates on multiple attempts that his word can’t be trusted, technology isn’t going to be the answer.

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.

You have a 16-year-old patient who has been doing poorly in school. He has withdrawn from his social group and quit the sports in which he excelled. He admits to using marijuana “maybe once or twice a week.” But you and his parents suspect that it is much more often and contributing to the change in his behavior and school performance.

They would prefer he not use marijuana at all but could maybe be comfortable with some arrangement in which their son could demonstrate that his usage was indeed limited to once or twice on the weekends. They ask for your help with crafting a contract that might include “some urine or blood test” that would allow them to be sure their son was adhering to the contract.

You explain to them that there are hazards associated with setting up contracts such as the one they are proposing. One revolving around the issue of trust. Another being that he may be addicted to the point that a compromise that includes scaling back his usage is unlikely to succeed. And, finally, you tell them that because of marijuana’s pharmacokinetics, their son’s urine tests will always be positive and not reflective of the how much he is using or whether he is intoxicated.

Scenarios similar to this are increasingly common for those of us living in states that have legalized recreational cannabis use. The absence of a laboratory test that can determine when a person is impaired by marijuana has made life difficult for law enforcement officers accustomed to relying on breath and blood tests for alcohol to confirm their suspicion that a driver is under the influence.

In addition, because marijuana is still detectable days after it is used, many well-paying jobs go unfilled when potential applicants are hesitant to submit to a required drug test. The quirky pharmacokinetics of cannabis are well-known to the recreational users and they see no reason to risk failing a urine test regardless of how good the job may be.

This lack of a reliable indicator of cannabis intoxication has not gone unnoticed, and in a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston report some hopeful results using fNIRS brain scanning. The investigators observed an increase in the level of oxygenated hemoglobin concentration (HbO), which is a type of neural activity signature, in the prefrontal cortex region of the volunteers who reported being impaired.

While a brain scan may sound like an unwieldy tool to use on roadside sobriety stops, the researchers report that portable scanners – some using skull cap sensors – could be easily adapted for use by law enforcement in the field. This technology also could be used by employers on the job site to test truck drivers and heavy machine operators at the beginning of each shift, thereby allaying the fears of responsible cannabis users.

This technology might be helpful to you in advising the parents of the 16-year-old you suspect of heavy usage. It would certainly help in confirming the suspicion that he is using more often than he claims. However, the contract the parents propose still may not work. If this young man demonstrates on multiple attempts that his word can’t be trusted, technology isn’t going to be the answer.

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.

You have a 16-year-old patient who has been doing poorly in school. He has withdrawn from his social group and quit the sports in which he excelled. He admits to using marijuana “maybe once or twice a week.” But you and his parents suspect that it is much more often and contributing to the change in his behavior and school performance.

They would prefer he not use marijuana at all but could maybe be comfortable with some arrangement in which their son could demonstrate that his usage was indeed limited to once or twice on the weekends. They ask for your help with crafting a contract that might include “some urine or blood test” that would allow them to be sure their son was adhering to the contract.

You explain to them that there are hazards associated with setting up contracts such as the one they are proposing. One revolving around the issue of trust. Another being that he may be addicted to the point that a compromise that includes scaling back his usage is unlikely to succeed. And, finally, you tell them that because of marijuana’s pharmacokinetics, their son’s urine tests will always be positive and not reflective of the how much he is using or whether he is intoxicated.

Scenarios similar to this are increasingly common for those of us living in states that have legalized recreational cannabis use. The absence of a laboratory test that can determine when a person is impaired by marijuana has made life difficult for law enforcement officers accustomed to relying on breath and blood tests for alcohol to confirm their suspicion that a driver is under the influence.

In addition, because marijuana is still detectable days after it is used, many well-paying jobs go unfilled when potential applicants are hesitant to submit to a required drug test. The quirky pharmacokinetics of cannabis are well-known to the recreational users and they see no reason to risk failing a urine test regardless of how good the job may be.

This lack of a reliable indicator of cannabis intoxication has not gone unnoticed, and in a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston report some hopeful results using fNIRS brain scanning. The investigators observed an increase in the level of oxygenated hemoglobin concentration (HbO), which is a type of neural activity signature, in the prefrontal cortex region of the volunteers who reported being impaired.

While a brain scan may sound like an unwieldy tool to use on roadside sobriety stops, the researchers report that portable scanners – some using skull cap sensors – could be easily adapted for use by law enforcement in the field. This technology also could be used by employers on the job site to test truck drivers and heavy machine operators at the beginning of each shift, thereby allaying the fears of responsible cannabis users.

This technology might be helpful to you in advising the parents of the 16-year-old you suspect of heavy usage. It would certainly help in confirming the suspicion that he is using more often than he claims. However, the contract the parents propose still may not work. If this young man demonstrates on multiple attempts that his word can’t be trusted, technology isn’t going to be the answer.

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.