Commentary

It has become increasingly apparent that our health care system is suffering from a severe case of “transparency gap.” There is a lack of transparency at every level of care in the system. Whether it is the hidden rebate/fee kickbacks from drug manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), or the variability in pricing of imaging and procedures based on site of care, the need for transparency has become acute. The health insurance sector seems to specialize in opaqueness. The vertical integration of the three largest insurance companies with the three largest PBMs seems to have trapped the flow of money and services in one big black box. It can be difficult to decide if this transparency gap is a case of missing information, misinformation, or a deliberate hiding of information … or maybe a combination of all three.

Recently, I testified before a Wisconsin State Senate committee about the consequences and potential harm to patients and physician offices caused by mandated “white bagging,” which refers to the process whereby provider-administered drugs are shipped to the provider by a specialty pharmacy, as opposed to the provider buying the drug and billing the insurance company. I was very surprised to hear the large employers testifying against our position.

As I listened to the employer groups, it was clear that their protestations were predominantly focused on hospital billing, where markups on the administered medications can be 500% and upward. It made sense that if a business has a “self-funded” health plan, where the employer pays for the cost of care of the employees, those very high markups on the hospital administered medications would eventually become unsustainable. In addition to paying for the care of employees, employers also pay the health insurance company/PBMs to administer the plan. It is obvious that self-funded businesses are being overwhelmed by all these rising costs. What is not so clear is how much information employers get from their plan administrators on their policies and pricing.

An Employee Benefit Research Institute (ERBI) study examined the difference in prices of health care procedures, labs, and imaging based on site of care. It clearly shows that physicians’ offices are the least expensive overall for infusion therapy, even when compared with home infusion in most cases.

Here is where the missing information and the white-bagging issue intersect. When insurance administrators tell employers that letting the provider “buy and bill” costs an outrageous amount, they fail to tell the employers that physicians’ office prices are comparable, or, in some cases, less than what the employer would pay with white bagging. In addition, the possible harm to patients and to the physicians’ practices are never mentioned to the employer. Here is a list of some of the problems associated with white bagging:

• Delays in patient care when dosages or treatment plans are modified during the patient visit.
• Significant waste of drugs when patients’ treatments change or appointments are rescheduled.
• Unnecessary administrative burden for both the patient and physician, including inventory nightmares.

We see the transparency gap again when formularies are created with higher-priced, branded drugs in place of lower-priced generics and alternatives. How can a PBM explain that a formulary that prefers a $10,000 prostate cancer drug but excludes the $400 generic of that drug actually saves money? If the employer doesn’t know about the generic, no explanation is needed.

When physician offices attempt to override some of these harmful policies, the PBM or insurance company often points the finger at the employer as the culprit responsible for the policy. Often, the employers have no idea of the ramifications of the contracts that they have signed. As health care costs continue to rise, it is important that employers are educated on how they can save money and improve patient care by directly contracting with independent physician practices.

In addition, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2020-21 (CAA) “seeks to enforce good value from providers and vendors, and forbids hidden contracting terms that disfavor employers and their employees.” This year and next, the employers will become responsible for transparency reporting and demonstrating cost effectiveness of therapies for their employees. In theory, this should uncover many of the hidden policies that favor only the health plans and not the patients or their employers. Many employers are unaware of the CAA, and vendors are in no hurry to inform them of it.

Not only will the CAA help to eliminate much of the transparency gap in the system, but it may encourage employers to work directly with independent physicians’ offices to provide more cost effective and transparent services for their patients. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is working on a framework to enable practicing rheumatologists to do exactly this.

In the meantime, we must continue educating employers on white bagging and other policies that harm both their patients and their “bottom line.” This education is just one of the steps needed to rid the health care system of the transparency gap that leads to higher prices and poorer care for all patients.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is president of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

It has become increasingly apparent that our health care system is suffering from a severe case of “transparency gap.” There is a lack of transparency at every level of care in the system. Whether it is the hidden rebate/fee kickbacks from drug manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), or the variability in pricing of imaging and procedures based on site of care, the need for transparency has become acute. The health insurance sector seems to specialize in opaqueness. The vertical integration of the three largest insurance companies with the three largest PBMs seems to have trapped the flow of money and services in one big black box. It can be difficult to decide if this transparency gap is a case of missing information, misinformation, or a deliberate hiding of information … or maybe a combination of all three.

Recently, I testified before a Wisconsin State Senate committee about the consequences and potential harm to patients and physician offices caused by mandated “white bagging,” which refers to the process whereby provider-administered drugs are shipped to the provider by a specialty pharmacy, as opposed to the provider buying the drug and billing the insurance company. I was very surprised to hear the large employers testifying against our position.

As I listened to the employer groups, it was clear that their protestations were predominantly focused on hospital billing, where markups on the administered medications can be 500% and upward. It made sense that if a business has a “self-funded” health plan, where the employer pays for the cost of care of the employees, those very high markups on the hospital administered medications would eventually become unsustainable. In addition to paying for the care of employees, employers also pay the health insurance company/PBMs to administer the plan. It is obvious that self-funded businesses are being overwhelmed by all these rising costs. What is not so clear is how much information employers get from their plan administrators on their policies and pricing.

An Employee Benefit Research Institute (ERBI) study examined the difference in prices of health care procedures, labs, and imaging based on site of care. It clearly shows that physicians’ offices are the least expensive overall for infusion therapy, even when compared with home infusion in most cases.

Here is where the missing information and the white-bagging issue intersect. When insurance administrators tell employers that letting the provider “buy and bill” costs an outrageous amount, they fail to tell the employers that physicians’ office prices are comparable, or, in some cases, less than what the employer would pay with white bagging. In addition, the possible harm to patients and to the physicians’ practices are never mentioned to the employer. Here is a list of some of the problems associated with white bagging:

• Delays in patient care when dosages or treatment plans are modified during the patient visit.
• Significant waste of drugs when patients’ treatments change or appointments are rescheduled.
• Unnecessary administrative burden for both the patient and physician, including inventory nightmares.

We see the transparency gap again when formularies are created with higher-priced, branded drugs in place of lower-priced generics and alternatives. How can a PBM explain that a formulary that prefers a $10,000 prostate cancer drug but excludes the $400 generic of that drug actually saves money? If the employer doesn’t know about the generic, no explanation is needed.

When physician offices attempt to override some of these harmful policies, the PBM or insurance company often points the finger at the employer as the culprit responsible for the policy. Often, the employers have no idea of the ramifications of the contracts that they have signed. As health care costs continue to rise, it is important that employers are educated on how they can save money and improve patient care by directly contracting with independent physician practices.

In addition, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2020-21 (CAA) “seeks to enforce good value from providers and vendors, and forbids hidden contracting terms that disfavor employers and their employees.” This year and next, the employers will become responsible for transparency reporting and demonstrating cost effectiveness of therapies for their employees. In theory, this should uncover many of the hidden policies that favor only the health plans and not the patients or their employers. Many employers are unaware of the CAA, and vendors are in no hurry to inform them of it.

Not only will the CAA help to eliminate much of the transparency gap in the system, but it may encourage employers to work directly with independent physicians’ offices to provide more cost effective and transparent services for their patients. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is working on a framework to enable practicing rheumatologists to do exactly this.

In the meantime, we must continue educating employers on white bagging and other policies that harm both their patients and their “bottom line.” This education is just one of the steps needed to rid the health care system of the transparency gap that leads to higher prices and poorer care for all patients.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is president of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

It has become increasingly apparent that our health care system is suffering from a severe case of “transparency gap.” There is a lack of transparency at every level of care in the system. Whether it is the hidden rebate/fee kickbacks from drug manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), or the variability in pricing of imaging and procedures based on site of care, the need for transparency has become acute. The health insurance sector seems to specialize in opaqueness. The vertical integration of the three largest insurance companies with the three largest PBMs seems to have trapped the flow of money and services in one big black box. It can be difficult to decide if this transparency gap is a case of missing information, misinformation, or a deliberate hiding of information … or maybe a combination of all three.

Recently, I testified before a Wisconsin State Senate committee about the consequences and potential harm to patients and physician offices caused by mandated “white bagging,” which refers to the process whereby provider-administered drugs are shipped to the provider by a specialty pharmacy, as opposed to the provider buying the drug and billing the insurance company. I was very surprised to hear the large employers testifying against our position.

As I listened to the employer groups, it was clear that their protestations were predominantly focused on hospital billing, where markups on the administered medications can be 500% and upward. It made sense that if a business has a “self-funded” health plan, where the employer pays for the cost of care of the employees, those very high markups on the hospital administered medications would eventually become unsustainable. In addition to paying for the care of employees, employers also pay the health insurance company/PBMs to administer the plan. It is obvious that self-funded businesses are being overwhelmed by all these rising costs. What is not so clear is how much information employers get from their plan administrators on their policies and pricing.

An Employee Benefit Research Institute (ERBI) study examined the difference in prices of health care procedures, labs, and imaging based on site of care. It clearly shows that physicians’ offices are the least expensive overall for infusion therapy, even when compared with home infusion in most cases.

Here is where the missing information and the white-bagging issue intersect. When insurance administrators tell employers that letting the provider “buy and bill” costs an outrageous amount, they fail to tell the employers that physicians’ office prices are comparable, or, in some cases, less than what the employer would pay with white bagging. In addition, the possible harm to patients and to the physicians’ practices are never mentioned to the employer. Here is a list of some of the problems associated with white bagging:

• Delays in patient care when dosages or treatment plans are modified during the patient visit.
• Significant waste of drugs when patients’ treatments change or appointments are rescheduled.
• Unnecessary administrative burden for both the patient and physician, including inventory nightmares.

We see the transparency gap again when formularies are created with higher-priced, branded drugs in place of lower-priced generics and alternatives. How can a PBM explain that a formulary that prefers a $10,000 prostate cancer drug but excludes the $400 generic of that drug actually saves money? If the employer doesn’t know about the generic, no explanation is needed.

When physician offices attempt to override some of these harmful policies, the PBM or insurance company often points the finger at the employer as the culprit responsible for the policy. Often, the employers have no idea of the ramifications of the contracts that they have signed. As health care costs continue to rise, it is important that employers are educated on how they can save money and improve patient care by directly contracting with independent physician practices.

In addition, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2020-21 (CAA) “seeks to enforce good value from providers and vendors, and forbids hidden contracting terms that disfavor employers and their employees.” This year and next, the employers will become responsible for transparency reporting and demonstrating cost effectiveness of therapies for their employees. In theory, this should uncover many of the hidden policies that favor only the health plans and not the patients or their employers. Many employers are unaware of the CAA, and vendors are in no hurry to inform them of it.

Not only will the CAA help to eliminate much of the transparency gap in the system, but it may encourage employers to work directly with independent physicians’ offices to provide more cost effective and transparent services for their patients. The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is working on a framework to enable practicing rheumatologists to do exactly this.

In the meantime, we must continue educating employers on white bagging and other policies that harm both their patients and their “bottom line.” This education is just one of the steps needed to rid the health care system of the transparency gap that leads to higher prices and poorer care for all patients.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is president of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

We have been interested in the quiz series focused on breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts presented in OBG Management by DenseBreast-Info.org. However, we have concerns with the answer as presented in the December 2021 issue, “Average-risk women with dense breasts—What breast screening is appropriate?” (OBG Manag. 2021;33(12):18-19. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0155.) The main question asks about appropriate imaging beyond mammography/tomosynthesis for women with extremely dense breasts and no other risk factors for breast cancer. The authors recommend magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography, or contrast-enhanced mammography (if MRI is not an option). This advice, however, does not follow current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other professional organizations. We can certainly understand that an advocacy group would want ObGyns to be proactive about adjunctive imaging in average-risk women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. However, at this point in time, there are no clear data to support a recommendation for adding universal MRI in this population, for many reasons that we will discuss herein.

The concerns with breast cancer in particular

Breast cancer is not cervical cancer. It isn’t one disease. It is a multitude of diseases that happen to show up in the breast. Some are relatively slow-growing—the kinds of cancers that lend themselves to screening and to early intervention. But other cancers are rapidly-growing; they show up no matter how often or what modality we use for screening. Our goal should be to find an approach to screening that can diagnose breast cancer at a stage where we can intervene and positively impact breast cancer specific and overall mortality.

Screening guidelines vary

The variety of screening guidelines published by different professional organizations reflect differing assumptions and sets of values related to the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. (For a comprehensive table of current screening guidelines, see https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/pdf/breast-cancer-screening-guidelines-508.pdf.)

ACOG’s approach—to offer screening at age 40 but to begin by at least age 50 and, through shared decision making with the patient, screen every 1 or 2 years—is focused on capturing as many cases as we can identify, while minimizing the harms of false-positives.¹ The perspective of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations (to screen every 2 years beginning at age 50) is at the population level, a cost-effective approach that will have the greatest benefit while minimizing harms in the population at large.² The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends screening to begin by age 40.³ Like the breast surgeons, radiologists dedicated to breast imaging are focused on an individual rather than a population level. They strive to identify each and every instance of possible cancer, and therefore recommend annual screening beginning at age 40.⁴ However, with more aggressive screening in average-risk women many cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are identified—a lesion that, if not detected, may not impact the woman’s health during her lifetime—representing what some might call “overdiagnosis.” Yet there may be some instances in which the DCIS might affect an individual woman’s health. Unfortunately, we can’t prospectively distinguish between the first and the second types of cases.

Continue to: Research on breast cancer screening varies by design...

Research on breast cancer screening varies by design

There has not been a randomized clinical trial conducted on screening mammography since the days of the analog mammogram. The research that has been conducted is difficult to compare due to variations in screening ages and intervals, technology sensitivity, and patient adherence with recommended screening. Treatments for breast cancer also have changed dramatically over time, so the findings of older studies may no longer be relevant to current breast cancer screening. The kind of analysis that needs to be done is an interrupted time series, where you can look at the trajectory of breast cancer survival and whether screening mammography shifts that survival in any way.

One specific study from Australia measured the impact of newer available breast cancer treatments, including tamoxifen for women with receptor-positive tumors and newer chemotherapy strategies.⁵ The authors analyzed screening mammography trends in one large province where women aged 50 to 69 were offered biennial screening. Trends from the 1990s showed that more women were being screened over time. Simultaneously, however, advances in therapy were entering clinical practice. The researchers pointed to a substantial decline in mortality from breast cancer from the early 1980s until 2013. But their conclusion was that none of the decline in mortality for breast cancer could be attributed to screening mammography when they looked at time trends; from their perspective all of the important decline in breast cancer mortality resulted from better treatment. They concluded that government programs should not support screening mammography.⁵

That is a recommendation that we do not support. However, we do recognize the conundrum that mammography is less sensitive among those who have dense breasts. In order to have congruent professional guidelines, we support research funding to determine which types, starting ages, and intervals of screening would be best in various patient populations. The USPSTF cites data from studies performed in the 1980s based on outdated technology; more recent (and relevant) randomized clinical trials have not been performed, and yet this information is critical to provide sufficient evidence to develop appropriate guidelines.

Our recommendations for gathering new data

The kind of data we would find most valuable would assess how different screening strategies impact overall mortality and breast cancer-specific mortality. It would require decades of follow-up—which of course means that screening technology will change over that time. A surrogate for evaluating overall survival is to look at interval cancers, which are all breast cancers diagnosed following negative mammograms and prior to the next screening. These cancers may or may not be biologically active, again focusing us on the need to look at overall survival of the patient. In addition, reducing breast cancer mortality may not reduce overall mortality, because the treatment for breast cancer may cause heart disease, or osteoporosis, or something else that impacts overall survival. These are important considerations for women and physicians who are making choices on treatment. What matters to a patient are 2 overlapping questions:

• Do I have a life-threatening condition or do I not?
• Has screening identified a condition that might lead to treatment that’s unnecessary?

The problem is that with breast cancer we can’t tell the difference. We do not understand the biological potential of a lesion when we evaluate an image on MRI, or computed tomography (CT), or mammography.

A re-look at presented data

A trial conducted by Bakker and colleagues⁶ was discussed by the authors of the DenseBreast-info.org quiz in which they recommended breast MRI for all women with extremely dense breasts (but no other risk factors for breast cancer) detected on screening mammograms.⁷ The Bakker study was large and conducted in the Netherlands. The primary outcome of the trial was to compare the incidence of interval breast cancers of women aged 50 to 75 randomly assigned to MRI versus those assigned to continued screening mammography every 2 years. Importantly, among the more than 8,000 women who were assigned to MRI, 59%, or fewer than two-thirds, chose to actually undergo MRI.

Among women randomized to MRI, 20 interval cancers were found—4 were diagnosed in those who actually had MRIs, and 16 were diagnosed among women who were randomized to MRI but didn’t undergo the study. Among women assigned to screening mammography only, 161 interval cancers were diagnosed among more than 32,000 women screened. The primary outcome findings were 2.5 interval cancers per 1,000 screenings among women randomly assigned to MRI, and 5 interval cancers per 1,000 screenings among those randomly assigned to mammography only.⁶

Because the trial included women aged 50 and older, we can’t apply these results to younger women, who often undergo screening mammography in the United States. In addition, the majority of the population in the Netherlands are of Western European ethnicity, a less-diverse population of women than in the United States. Furthermore, among the tumors that were detected in the MRI group, a larger proportion were DCIS, early-stage tumors, well differentiated, and hormone receptor-positive. This observation supports that many of the MRI-detected tumors were cases of overdiagnosis, or the detection of tumors destined not to cause clinical problems for the patient during her lifetime, or for which earlier diagnosis would impact survival.

We also know that treatment of these small ER-positive tumors carries risks for patients, as we may treat them by depriving a patient of estrogen for the rest of her life, with potential consequences of sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, and perhaps cardiovascular disease depending on her age at the time of that diagnosis. Weighing the risks and benefits of not only treatment but also use of more sensitive screening techniques such as MRI is extremely important. Although Bakker and colleagues’ study results are interesting, we do not feel they support routinely recommending MRI for women found to have extremely dense breasts with mammography.

Overdiagnosis: A difficult concept

One reason overdiagnosis is so challenging to understand is that it can’t be directly measured, which makes comprehending it that much more problematic for clinicians and our patients.

One way to help grasp the overall issue is to compare screening mammography with cervical and colon cancer screening.

We are well aware that cervical cancer screening has reduced the incidence of mortality from invasive cervical cancer.⁸ We can argue very validly that the biggest success in any cancer screening program in history and globally has been cervical cancer screening. Our specialty, in particular, should feel proud about this. Screening colonoscopy also has repeatedly been found to reduce colon cancer mortality.⁹ For breast cancer, decades of media messaging have emphasized the benefits of screening mammograms; however, in contrast with cervical cancer screening and colonoscopy, screening mammography has not reduced the incidence of breast cancer presenting with metastatic or advanced disease. Danish authors pointed out in 2017 that screening mammography has not achieved the hoped for or the promised reduction in breast cancer mortality.¹⁰

A report published in the March 2022, issue of Annals of Internal Medicine used modeling techniques to estimate the incidence of overdiagnosis and concluded that, among women aged 50-74 years receiving biennial screening mammograms (consistent with USPSTF recommendations), more than 15% of screen-detected breast cancers would represent cases of overdiagnosis. Of note, the study authors found that, among screen-detected cancers, the proportion representing overdiagnosis among women in their 60s (16.7%) and early 70s (23.6%) was higher than among women in their 50s-60s (11.5%-11.6%).¹¹

The former Chief Medical and Scientific Officer for the American Cancer Society Otis Brawley, MD, has stated that, at the same time that breast cancer screening should not be abandoned, “We must acknowledge that overdiagnosis is common. The benefits of screening have been overstated, and some patients considered as ‘cured’ from breast cancer have, in fact, been harmed by unneeded treatment.”¹²

“Everybody loves early detection,” said Donald Berry, PhD, from MD Anderson Cancer Center, “but it comes with harms.” He points out that mortality rates have improved for breast cancer, but he attributes it to improved treatment. “The harms [of screening] we know, but the benefits of screening are very uncertain.”¹³

Continue to: Limitations of breast MRI...

Limitations of breast MRI

Overall, MRI is a diagnostic and monitoring test. It is costlier than mammography, and because it is not recommended in guidelines as a screening modality for most women, it is not typically covered by insurance. Abbreviated (rapid) MRI is a non-standardized imaging strategy being used at a few health centers. It has a shorter protocol overall than MRI, so it takes less time than current MRI and is less expensive, but there are few data on sensitivity and specificity. It is yet to be determined which populations could benefit from this newer technology.

As mentioned, 41% of women in the Bakker et al trial who were randomly assigned to breast MRI chose not to proceed with that exam even though it would have been at no cost to them.⁶ Anecdotally, some patients who have undergone MRI say they would forgo it a second time as a screening modality because it was a very unpleasant, stressful experience. It’s not a perfect test, although it is more sensitive than mammography.

Other options for following up dense-breast screening. Besides MRI and abbreviated MRI, the following modalities can be used to evaluate women found to have dense breasts with screening mammograms: CT mammography with contrast, molecular breast imaging, and ultrasonography.

Screening and treatment advances

3D mammography. In the US, the great majority of screening mammography now is performed with tomosynthesis, or what our patients sometimes call 3D mammography. In fact, it is approaching standard of care. Women whose screening mammography includes tomosynthesis are less likely to experience a so-called callback for additional imaging with diagnostic mammography or breast ultrasonography.¹⁴

Liquid biopsy. A potential major advancement for making decisions about when to treat cancers in general involves determining the biological behavior of a tumor, based on analysis of either circulating tumor DNA or proteins in the blood. As more experience with this new technology accumulates, the role of liquid biopsies for breast cancer will expand.¹⁵ Liquid biopsies for screening remain investigational for now, but they hold tremendous potential.

Noninvasive proteomics. With the development of noninvasive proteomic biomarkers obtained from blood, saliva, or nipple aspiration fluid, there exists the possibility of not just evaluating an image of a tumor seen on a mammogram, but actually studying the biological characteristics of that lesion.¹⁶ The cost of this technology is far less in terms of resources than MRI or molecular-based imaging, and actually reveals the flaws with using image-based screening. With proteomics, we can tell whether or not a lump is generating proteins that are going to make that disease biologically meaningful, and treatment decisions can be based on that information. This idea has the potential to disrupt our current breast cancer screening paradigm.

Advocacy’s role in mandating legislation

Many advocacy groups lobby on Capitol Hill for legislation related to health care, but we don’t feel that is the best way to make scientific decisions, and it’s not the way to do medicine. Passionate people, who truly believe that their outcome would have been different had something else been done, have every right to advocate, and should. However, without longer-term data focusing on breast cancer and overall mortality, rather than surrogate outcomes like interval cancers, it is not clear that routinely recommending supplemental MRI will improve survival for women with extremely dense breasts. Unfortunately, overall, earlier diagnosis of highly aggressive breast cancer tumors does not result in better outcomes for patients. ●

We have been interested in the quiz series focused on breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts presented in OBG Management by DenseBreast-Info.org. However, we have concerns with the answer as presented in the December 2021 issue, “Average-risk women with dense breasts—What breast screening is appropriate?” (OBG Manag. 2021;33(12):18-19. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0155.) The main question asks about appropriate imaging beyond mammography/tomosynthesis for women with extremely dense breasts and no other risk factors for breast cancer. The authors recommend magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography, or contrast-enhanced mammography (if MRI is not an option). This advice, however, does not follow current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other professional organizations. We can certainly understand that an advocacy group would want ObGyns to be proactive about adjunctive imaging in average-risk women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. However, at this point in time, there are no clear data to support a recommendation for adding universal MRI in this population, for many reasons that we will discuss herein.

The concerns with breast cancer in particular

Breast cancer is not cervical cancer. It isn’t one disease. It is a multitude of diseases that happen to show up in the breast. Some are relatively slow-growing—the kinds of cancers that lend themselves to screening and to early intervention. But other cancers are rapidly-growing; they show up no matter how often or what modality we use for screening. Our goal should be to find an approach to screening that can diagnose breast cancer at a stage where we can intervene and positively impact breast cancer specific and overall mortality.

Screening guidelines vary

The variety of screening guidelines published by different professional organizations reflect differing assumptions and sets of values related to the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. (For a comprehensive table of current screening guidelines, see https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/pdf/breast-cancer-screening-guidelines-508.pdf.)

ACOG’s approach—to offer screening at age 40 but to begin by at least age 50 and, through shared decision making with the patient, screen every 1 or 2 years—is focused on capturing as many cases as we can identify, while minimizing the harms of false-positives.¹ The perspective of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations (to screen every 2 years beginning at age 50) is at the population level, a cost-effective approach that will have the greatest benefit while minimizing harms in the population at large.² The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends screening to begin by age 40.³ Like the breast surgeons, radiologists dedicated to breast imaging are focused on an individual rather than a population level. They strive to identify each and every instance of possible cancer, and therefore recommend annual screening beginning at age 40.⁴ However, with more aggressive screening in average-risk women many cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are identified—a lesion that, if not detected, may not impact the woman’s health during her lifetime—representing what some might call “overdiagnosis.” Yet there may be some instances in which the DCIS might affect an individual woman’s health. Unfortunately, we can’t prospectively distinguish between the first and the second types of cases.

Continue to: Research on breast cancer screening varies by design...

Research on breast cancer screening varies by design

There has not been a randomized clinical trial conducted on screening mammography since the days of the analog mammogram. The research that has been conducted is difficult to compare due to variations in screening ages and intervals, technology sensitivity, and patient adherence with recommended screening. Treatments for breast cancer also have changed dramatically over time, so the findings of older studies may no longer be relevant to current breast cancer screening. The kind of analysis that needs to be done is an interrupted time series, where you can look at the trajectory of breast cancer survival and whether screening mammography shifts that survival in any way.

One specific study from Australia measured the impact of newer available breast cancer treatments, including tamoxifen for women with receptor-positive tumors and newer chemotherapy strategies.⁵ The authors analyzed screening mammography trends in one large province where women aged 50 to 69 were offered biennial screening. Trends from the 1990s showed that more women were being screened over time. Simultaneously, however, advances in therapy were entering clinical practice. The researchers pointed to a substantial decline in mortality from breast cancer from the early 1980s until 2013. But their conclusion was that none of the decline in mortality for breast cancer could be attributed to screening mammography when they looked at time trends; from their perspective all of the important decline in breast cancer mortality resulted from better treatment. They concluded that government programs should not support screening mammography.⁵

That is a recommendation that we do not support. However, we do recognize the conundrum that mammography is less sensitive among those who have dense breasts. In order to have congruent professional guidelines, we support research funding to determine which types, starting ages, and intervals of screening would be best in various patient populations. The USPSTF cites data from studies performed in the 1980s based on outdated technology; more recent (and relevant) randomized clinical trials have not been performed, and yet this information is critical to provide sufficient evidence to develop appropriate guidelines.

Our recommendations for gathering new data

The kind of data we would find most valuable would assess how different screening strategies impact overall mortality and breast cancer-specific mortality. It would require decades of follow-up—which of course means that screening technology will change over that time. A surrogate for evaluating overall survival is to look at interval cancers, which are all breast cancers diagnosed following negative mammograms and prior to the next screening. These cancers may or may not be biologically active, again focusing us on the need to look at overall survival of the patient. In addition, reducing breast cancer mortality may not reduce overall mortality, because the treatment for breast cancer may cause heart disease, or osteoporosis, or something else that impacts overall survival. These are important considerations for women and physicians who are making choices on treatment. What matters to a patient are 2 overlapping questions:

• Do I have a life-threatening condition or do I not?
• Has screening identified a condition that might lead to treatment that’s unnecessary?

The problem is that with breast cancer we can’t tell the difference. We do not understand the biological potential of a lesion when we evaluate an image on MRI, or computed tomography (CT), or mammography.

A re-look at presented data

A trial conducted by Bakker and colleagues⁶ was discussed by the authors of the DenseBreast-info.org quiz in which they recommended breast MRI for all women with extremely dense breasts (but no other risk factors for breast cancer) detected on screening mammograms.⁷ The Bakker study was large and conducted in the Netherlands. The primary outcome of the trial was to compare the incidence of interval breast cancers of women aged 50 to 75 randomly assigned to MRI versus those assigned to continued screening mammography every 2 years. Importantly, among the more than 8,000 women who were assigned to MRI, 59%, or fewer than two-thirds, chose to actually undergo MRI.

Among women randomized to MRI, 20 interval cancers were found—4 were diagnosed in those who actually had MRIs, and 16 were diagnosed among women who were randomized to MRI but didn’t undergo the study. Among women assigned to screening mammography only, 161 interval cancers were diagnosed among more than 32,000 women screened. The primary outcome findings were 2.5 interval cancers per 1,000 screenings among women randomly assigned to MRI, and 5 interval cancers per 1,000 screenings among those randomly assigned to mammography only.⁶

Because the trial included women aged 50 and older, we can’t apply these results to younger women, who often undergo screening mammography in the United States. In addition, the majority of the population in the Netherlands are of Western European ethnicity, a less-diverse population of women than in the United States. Furthermore, among the tumors that were detected in the MRI group, a larger proportion were DCIS, early-stage tumors, well differentiated, and hormone receptor-positive. This observation supports that many of the MRI-detected tumors were cases of overdiagnosis, or the detection of tumors destined not to cause clinical problems for the patient during her lifetime, or for which earlier diagnosis would impact survival.

We also know that treatment of these small ER-positive tumors carries risks for patients, as we may treat them by depriving a patient of estrogen for the rest of her life, with potential consequences of sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, and perhaps cardiovascular disease depending on her age at the time of that diagnosis. Weighing the risks and benefits of not only treatment but also use of more sensitive screening techniques such as MRI is extremely important. Although Bakker and colleagues’ study results are interesting, we do not feel they support routinely recommending MRI for women found to have extremely dense breasts with mammography.

Overdiagnosis: A difficult concept

One reason overdiagnosis is so challenging to understand is that it can’t be directly measured, which makes comprehending it that much more problematic for clinicians and our patients.

One way to help grasp the overall issue is to compare screening mammography with cervical and colon cancer screening.

We are well aware that cervical cancer screening has reduced the incidence of mortality from invasive cervical cancer.⁸ We can argue very validly that the biggest success in any cancer screening program in history and globally has been cervical cancer screening. Our specialty, in particular, should feel proud about this. Screening colonoscopy also has repeatedly been found to reduce colon cancer mortality.⁹ For breast cancer, decades of media messaging have emphasized the benefits of screening mammograms; however, in contrast with cervical cancer screening and colonoscopy, screening mammography has not reduced the incidence of breast cancer presenting with metastatic or advanced disease. Danish authors pointed out in 2017 that screening mammography has not achieved the hoped for or the promised reduction in breast cancer mortality.¹⁰

A report published in the March 2022, issue of Annals of Internal Medicine used modeling techniques to estimate the incidence of overdiagnosis and concluded that, among women aged 50-74 years receiving biennial screening mammograms (consistent with USPSTF recommendations), more than 15% of screen-detected breast cancers would represent cases of overdiagnosis. Of note, the study authors found that, among screen-detected cancers, the proportion representing overdiagnosis among women in their 60s (16.7%) and early 70s (23.6%) was higher than among women in their 50s-60s (11.5%-11.6%).¹¹

The former Chief Medical and Scientific Officer for the American Cancer Society Otis Brawley, MD, has stated that, at the same time that breast cancer screening should not be abandoned, “We must acknowledge that overdiagnosis is common. The benefits of screening have been overstated, and some patients considered as ‘cured’ from breast cancer have, in fact, been harmed by unneeded treatment.”¹²

“Everybody loves early detection,” said Donald Berry, PhD, from MD Anderson Cancer Center, “but it comes with harms.” He points out that mortality rates have improved for breast cancer, but he attributes it to improved treatment. “The harms [of screening] we know, but the benefits of screening are very uncertain.”¹³

Continue to: Limitations of breast MRI...

Limitations of breast MRI

Overall, MRI is a diagnostic and monitoring test. It is costlier than mammography, and because it is not recommended in guidelines as a screening modality for most women, it is not typically covered by insurance. Abbreviated (rapid) MRI is a non-standardized imaging strategy being used at a few health centers. It has a shorter protocol overall than MRI, so it takes less time than current MRI and is less expensive, but there are few data on sensitivity and specificity. It is yet to be determined which populations could benefit from this newer technology.

As mentioned, 41% of women in the Bakker et al trial who were randomly assigned to breast MRI chose not to proceed with that exam even though it would have been at no cost to them.⁶ Anecdotally, some patients who have undergone MRI say they would forgo it a second time as a screening modality because it was a very unpleasant, stressful experience. It’s not a perfect test, although it is more sensitive than mammography.

Other options for following up dense-breast screening. Besides MRI and abbreviated MRI, the following modalities can be used to evaluate women found to have dense breasts with screening mammograms: CT mammography with contrast, molecular breast imaging, and ultrasonography.

Screening and treatment advances

3D mammography. In the US, the great majority of screening mammography now is performed with tomosynthesis, or what our patients sometimes call 3D mammography. In fact, it is approaching standard of care. Women whose screening mammography includes tomosynthesis are less likely to experience a so-called callback for additional imaging with diagnostic mammography or breast ultrasonography.¹⁴

Liquid biopsy. A potential major advancement for making decisions about when to treat cancers in general involves determining the biological behavior of a tumor, based on analysis of either circulating tumor DNA or proteins in the blood. As more experience with this new technology accumulates, the role of liquid biopsies for breast cancer will expand.¹⁵ Liquid biopsies for screening remain investigational for now, but they hold tremendous potential.

Noninvasive proteomics. With the development of noninvasive proteomic biomarkers obtained from blood, saliva, or nipple aspiration fluid, there exists the possibility of not just evaluating an image of a tumor seen on a mammogram, but actually studying the biological characteristics of that lesion.¹⁶ The cost of this technology is far less in terms of resources than MRI or molecular-based imaging, and actually reveals the flaws with using image-based screening. With proteomics, we can tell whether or not a lump is generating proteins that are going to make that disease biologically meaningful, and treatment decisions can be based on that information. This idea has the potential to disrupt our current breast cancer screening paradigm.

Advocacy’s role in mandating legislation

Many advocacy groups lobby on Capitol Hill for legislation related to health care, but we don’t feel that is the best way to make scientific decisions, and it’s not the way to do medicine. Passionate people, who truly believe that their outcome would have been different had something else been done, have every right to advocate, and should. However, without longer-term data focusing on breast cancer and overall mortality, rather than surrogate outcomes like interval cancers, it is not clear that routinely recommending supplemental MRI will improve survival for women with extremely dense breasts. Unfortunately, overall, earlier diagnosis of highly aggressive breast cancer tumors does not result in better outcomes for patients. ●

We have been interested in the quiz series focused on breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts presented in OBG Management by DenseBreast-Info.org. However, we have concerns with the answer as presented in the December 2021 issue, “Average-risk women with dense breasts—What breast screening is appropriate?” (OBG Manag. 2021;33(12):18-19. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0155.) The main question asks about appropriate imaging beyond mammography/tomosynthesis for women with extremely dense breasts and no other risk factors for breast cancer. The authors recommend magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography, or contrast-enhanced mammography (if MRI is not an option). This advice, however, does not follow current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other professional organizations. We can certainly understand that an advocacy group would want ObGyns to be proactive about adjunctive imaging in average-risk women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. However, at this point in time, there are no clear data to support a recommendation for adding universal MRI in this population, for many reasons that we will discuss herein.

The concerns with breast cancer in particular

Breast cancer is not cervical cancer. It isn’t one disease. It is a multitude of diseases that happen to show up in the breast. Some are relatively slow-growing—the kinds of cancers that lend themselves to screening and to early intervention. But other cancers are rapidly-growing; they show up no matter how often or what modality we use for screening. Our goal should be to find an approach to screening that can diagnose breast cancer at a stage where we can intervene and positively impact breast cancer specific and overall mortality.

Screening guidelines vary

The variety of screening guidelines published by different professional organizations reflect differing assumptions and sets of values related to the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. (For a comprehensive table of current screening guidelines, see https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/pdf/breast-cancer-screening-guidelines-508.pdf.)

ACOG’s approach—to offer screening at age 40 but to begin by at least age 50 and, through shared decision making with the patient, screen every 1 or 2 years—is focused on capturing as many cases as we can identify, while minimizing the harms of false-positives.¹ The perspective of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations (to screen every 2 years beginning at age 50) is at the population level, a cost-effective approach that will have the greatest benefit while minimizing harms in the population at large.² The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends screening to begin by age 40.³ Like the breast surgeons, radiologists dedicated to breast imaging are focused on an individual rather than a population level. They strive to identify each and every instance of possible cancer, and therefore recommend annual screening beginning at age 40.⁴ However, with more aggressive screening in average-risk women many cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are identified—a lesion that, if not detected, may not impact the woman’s health during her lifetime—representing what some might call “overdiagnosis.” Yet there may be some instances in which the DCIS might affect an individual woman’s health. Unfortunately, we can’t prospectively distinguish between the first and the second types of cases.

Continue to: Research on breast cancer screening varies by design...

Research on breast cancer screening varies by design

There has not been a randomized clinical trial conducted on screening mammography since the days of the analog mammogram. The research that has been conducted is difficult to compare due to variations in screening ages and intervals, technology sensitivity, and patient adherence with recommended screening. Treatments for breast cancer also have changed dramatically over time, so the findings of older studies may no longer be relevant to current breast cancer screening. The kind of analysis that needs to be done is an interrupted time series, where you can look at the trajectory of breast cancer survival and whether screening mammography shifts that survival in any way.

One specific study from Australia measured the impact of newer available breast cancer treatments, including tamoxifen for women with receptor-positive tumors and newer chemotherapy strategies.⁵ The authors analyzed screening mammography trends in one large province where women aged 50 to 69 were offered biennial screening. Trends from the 1990s showed that more women were being screened over time. Simultaneously, however, advances in therapy were entering clinical practice. The researchers pointed to a substantial decline in mortality from breast cancer from the early 1980s until 2013. But their conclusion was that none of the decline in mortality for breast cancer could be attributed to screening mammography when they looked at time trends; from their perspective all of the important decline in breast cancer mortality resulted from better treatment. They concluded that government programs should not support screening mammography.⁵

That is a recommendation that we do not support. However, we do recognize the conundrum that mammography is less sensitive among those who have dense breasts. In order to have congruent professional guidelines, we support research funding to determine which types, starting ages, and intervals of screening would be best in various patient populations. The USPSTF cites data from studies performed in the 1980s based on outdated technology; more recent (and relevant) randomized clinical trials have not been performed, and yet this information is critical to provide sufficient evidence to develop appropriate guidelines.

Our recommendations for gathering new data

The kind of data we would find most valuable would assess how different screening strategies impact overall mortality and breast cancer-specific mortality. It would require decades of follow-up—which of course means that screening technology will change over that time. A surrogate for evaluating overall survival is to look at interval cancers, which are all breast cancers diagnosed following negative mammograms and prior to the next screening. These cancers may or may not be biologically active, again focusing us on the need to look at overall survival of the patient. In addition, reducing breast cancer mortality may not reduce overall mortality, because the treatment for breast cancer may cause heart disease, or osteoporosis, or something else that impacts overall survival. These are important considerations for women and physicians who are making choices on treatment. What matters to a patient are 2 overlapping questions:

• Do I have a life-threatening condition or do I not?
• Has screening identified a condition that might lead to treatment that’s unnecessary?

The problem is that with breast cancer we can’t tell the difference. We do not understand the biological potential of a lesion when we evaluate an image on MRI, or computed tomography (CT), or mammography.

A re-look at presented data

A trial conducted by Bakker and colleagues⁶ was discussed by the authors of the DenseBreast-info.org quiz in which they recommended breast MRI for all women with extremely dense breasts (but no other risk factors for breast cancer) detected on screening mammograms.⁷ The Bakker study was large and conducted in the Netherlands. The primary outcome of the trial was to compare the incidence of interval breast cancers of women aged 50 to 75 randomly assigned to MRI versus those assigned to continued screening mammography every 2 years. Importantly, among the more than 8,000 women who were assigned to MRI, 59%, or fewer than two-thirds, chose to actually undergo MRI.

Among women randomized to MRI, 20 interval cancers were found—4 were diagnosed in those who actually had MRIs, and 16 were diagnosed among women who were randomized to MRI but didn’t undergo the study. Among women assigned to screening mammography only, 161 interval cancers were diagnosed among more than 32,000 women screened. The primary outcome findings were 2.5 interval cancers per 1,000 screenings among women randomly assigned to MRI, and 5 interval cancers per 1,000 screenings among those randomly assigned to mammography only.⁶

Because the trial included women aged 50 and older, we can’t apply these results to younger women, who often undergo screening mammography in the United States. In addition, the majority of the population in the Netherlands are of Western European ethnicity, a less-diverse population of women than in the United States. Furthermore, among the tumors that were detected in the MRI group, a larger proportion were DCIS, early-stage tumors, well differentiated, and hormone receptor-positive. This observation supports that many of the MRI-detected tumors were cases of overdiagnosis, or the detection of tumors destined not to cause clinical problems for the patient during her lifetime, or for which earlier diagnosis would impact survival.

We also know that treatment of these small ER-positive tumors carries risks for patients, as we may treat them by depriving a patient of estrogen for the rest of her life, with potential consequences of sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, and perhaps cardiovascular disease depending on her age at the time of that diagnosis. Weighing the risks and benefits of not only treatment but also use of more sensitive screening techniques such as MRI is extremely important. Although Bakker and colleagues’ study results are interesting, we do not feel they support routinely recommending MRI for women found to have extremely dense breasts with mammography.

Overdiagnosis: A difficult concept

One reason overdiagnosis is so challenging to understand is that it can’t be directly measured, which makes comprehending it that much more problematic for clinicians and our patients.

One way to help grasp the overall issue is to compare screening mammography with cervical and colon cancer screening.

We are well aware that cervical cancer screening has reduced the incidence of mortality from invasive cervical cancer.⁸ We can argue very validly that the biggest success in any cancer screening program in history and globally has been cervical cancer screening. Our specialty, in particular, should feel proud about this. Screening colonoscopy also has repeatedly been found to reduce colon cancer mortality.⁹ For breast cancer, decades of media messaging have emphasized the benefits of screening mammograms; however, in contrast with cervical cancer screening and colonoscopy, screening mammography has not reduced the incidence of breast cancer presenting with metastatic or advanced disease. Danish authors pointed out in 2017 that screening mammography has not achieved the hoped for or the promised reduction in breast cancer mortality.¹⁰

A report published in the March 2022, issue of Annals of Internal Medicine used modeling techniques to estimate the incidence of overdiagnosis and concluded that, among women aged 50-74 years receiving biennial screening mammograms (consistent with USPSTF recommendations), more than 15% of screen-detected breast cancers would represent cases of overdiagnosis. Of note, the study authors found that, among screen-detected cancers, the proportion representing overdiagnosis among women in their 60s (16.7%) and early 70s (23.6%) was higher than among women in their 50s-60s (11.5%-11.6%).¹¹

The former Chief Medical and Scientific Officer for the American Cancer Society Otis Brawley, MD, has stated that, at the same time that breast cancer screening should not be abandoned, “We must acknowledge that overdiagnosis is common. The benefits of screening have been overstated, and some patients considered as ‘cured’ from breast cancer have, in fact, been harmed by unneeded treatment.”¹²

“Everybody loves early detection,” said Donald Berry, PhD, from MD Anderson Cancer Center, “but it comes with harms.” He points out that mortality rates have improved for breast cancer, but he attributes it to improved treatment. “The harms [of screening] we know, but the benefits of screening are very uncertain.”¹³

Continue to: Limitations of breast MRI...

Limitations of breast MRI

Overall, MRI is a diagnostic and monitoring test. It is costlier than mammography, and because it is not recommended in guidelines as a screening modality for most women, it is not typically covered by insurance. Abbreviated (rapid) MRI is a non-standardized imaging strategy being used at a few health centers. It has a shorter protocol overall than MRI, so it takes less time than current MRI and is less expensive, but there are few data on sensitivity and specificity. It is yet to be determined which populations could benefit from this newer technology.

As mentioned, 41% of women in the Bakker et al trial who were randomly assigned to breast MRI chose not to proceed with that exam even though it would have been at no cost to them.⁶ Anecdotally, some patients who have undergone MRI say they would forgo it a second time as a screening modality because it was a very unpleasant, stressful experience. It’s not a perfect test, although it is more sensitive than mammography.

Other options for following up dense-breast screening. Besides MRI and abbreviated MRI, the following modalities can be used to evaluate women found to have dense breasts with screening mammograms: CT mammography with contrast, molecular breast imaging, and ultrasonography.

Screening and treatment advances

3D mammography. In the US, the great majority of screening mammography now is performed with tomosynthesis, or what our patients sometimes call 3D mammography. In fact, it is approaching standard of care. Women whose screening mammography includes tomosynthesis are less likely to experience a so-called callback for additional imaging with diagnostic mammography or breast ultrasonography.¹⁴

Liquid biopsy. A potential major advancement for making decisions about when to treat cancers in general involves determining the biological behavior of a tumor, based on analysis of either circulating tumor DNA or proteins in the blood. As more experience with this new technology accumulates, the role of liquid biopsies for breast cancer will expand.¹⁵ Liquid biopsies for screening remain investigational for now, but they hold tremendous potential.

Noninvasive proteomics. With the development of noninvasive proteomic biomarkers obtained from blood, saliva, or nipple aspiration fluid, there exists the possibility of not just evaluating an image of a tumor seen on a mammogram, but actually studying the biological characteristics of that lesion.¹⁶ The cost of this technology is far less in terms of resources than MRI or molecular-based imaging, and actually reveals the flaws with using image-based screening. With proteomics, we can tell whether or not a lump is generating proteins that are going to make that disease biologically meaningful, and treatment decisions can be based on that information. This idea has the potential to disrupt our current breast cancer screening paradigm.

Advocacy’s role in mandating legislation

Many advocacy groups lobby on Capitol Hill for legislation related to health care, but we don’t feel that is the best way to make scientific decisions, and it’s not the way to do medicine. Passionate people, who truly believe that their outcome would have been different had something else been done, have every right to advocate, and should. However, without longer-term data focusing on breast cancer and overall mortality, rather than surrogate outcomes like interval cancers, it is not clear that routinely recommending supplemental MRI will improve survival for women with extremely dense breasts. Unfortunately, overall, earlier diagnosis of highly aggressive breast cancer tumors does not result in better outcomes for patients. ●

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

On March 13, most of the United States and Canada will advance the clock an hour to be on Daylight Saving Time. Most other countries in the Northern Hemisphere will do the same within a few weeks; and many countries across the Southern Hemisphere turn the clock back an hour around the same time. A friend of mine, who spent time on Capitol Hill, once told me that whether it’s adjusting to Daylight Saving Time (and losing an hour of sleep) or switching back to Standard Time (and picking up an hour), large numbers of Americans call their member of Congress every season to complain.

Why are so many of us annoyed by the semi-annual resetting of clocks? It turns out that there are biological reasons for our discomfort with time changes. Those reasons also come into play when we change time zones as we travel, when we work on the night shift, or when we live at higher latitudes, where depressive symptoms from seasonal affective disorder (SAD) can plague us as the period of daylight progressively shortens in winter.
 

Our internal clock(s)

Each of us has a biological master clock keeping track of where we are in our 24-hour day, making ongoing time-of-day-appropriate physical and neurologic adjustments. We refer to those automatic adjustments as “circadian” rhythms – from the Latin, for “around a day” rhythms.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

One of the most important regulated functions that is influenced by this time keeping is our sleep-wake cycle. Our brain’s hypothalamus has a kind of “master clock” that receives inputs directly from our eyes, which is how our brain sets our daily cycle period at about 24 hours.

This master clock turns on a tiny structure in our brains, called the pineal gland, to release more of a sleep-inducing chemical, called melatonin, about the same time every evening. The level of melatonin slowly increases to reach maximum deep sleep in the night, then slowly declines as you advance toward morning awakening. The shift from darkness to daylight in the morning, causing your initial morning awakening, releases the excitatory neuromodulator norepinephrine, which, with other chemicals, “turns on the lights” in your brain.

That works well most of the time – but no one told your brain that you were going to arbitrarily go to bed an hour earlier (or in the fall, later) on Circadian Rhythm Time!

We also obviously shift the time on the mechanical clock – requiring a reset of the brain’s master clock – when we travel across time zones or work the night shift. That type of desynchronization of our master clock from the mechanical clock puts our waking and sleeping behaviors out of sync with the production of brain chemicals that affect our alertness and mood. The result may be that you find yourself tired, but not sleepy, and often grumpy or even depressed. As an example, on average, people who work the night shift are just a little bit more anxious and depressed than people who get up to rise and shine with the sun every morning.
 

Seasonal affective disorder

An extreme example of this desynchronization of the master clock can manifest as SAD. SAD is a type of depression that’s related to seasonal transitions. The most commonly cited cases of SAD are for the fall-to-winter transition. In North America, its prevalence is significantly influenced by the distance of one’s place of residence from the equator – with about 12 times the impact in Alaska versus Florida. Of note, a weaker effect of latitude has been recorded in Europe, where more settled populations have had thousands of years to biologically and culturally adapt to their seasonal patterns.

What can we do about our clocks being messed with?

The most common treatment for SAD is light therapy, in which patients sit or work under artificial lights in an early-morning period, to try to advance the chemical signaling that controls sleeping and waking. Alas, light therapy doesn’t work for everyone.

Another approach, with or without the lights, is to engage in activities early in the day that produce brain chemicals to contribute to bright and cheerful waking. Those “raring-to-go” brain chemicals include norepinephrine (produced when you encounter novelty and are just having fun), acetylcholine (produced when you are carefully paying attention and are in a learning and remembering mode), serotonin (produced when you are feeling positive and just a little bit euphoric), and dopamine (produced when you feel happy and all is right with the world).

In fact, you would benefit from creating the habit of starting every day with activity that wakes up your brain. I begin my day with computerized brain exercises that are attentionally demanding, filled with novelty, and richly neurologically rewarding. I then take a brisk morning walk in which I vary my path for the sake of novelty (pumping norepinephrine), pay close attention to my surroundings (pumping acetylcholine and serotonin), and delight in all of the wonderful things out there in my world (pumping dopamine). My dog Doug enjoys this process of waking up brain and body almost as much as I do! Of course, there are a thousand other stimulating things that could help you get your day off to a lively start.

If you anticipate feeling altered by a time change, you could also think about preparing for it in advance. If it’s the semi-annual 1-hour change that throws you off kilter, you might adjust your bedtime by 10 minutes a day for the week before. If you are traveling 12 time zones (and flipping night and day), you may need to make larger adjustments over the preceding couple of weeks. Generally, without that preparation, it takes about 1 day per time zone crossed to naturally adjust your circadian rhythms.

If you’re a little lazier, like me, you might also adjust to jet lag by not forgetting to take along your little bottle of melatonin tablets, to give your pineal gland a little help. Still, that pineal gland will work hard to tell you to take a nap every day – just when you’ll probably want to be wide awake.

And if, after reading this column, you find yourself still annoyed by the upcoming 1-hour time change, you might just look around at what’s happening out there in the world and decide that your troubles are very small by comparison, and that you should delight in the “extra” hour of sunshine each evening!

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, at the University of California, San Francisco. He reported serving in various positions and speaking for Posit Science and Stronger Brain, and has also received funding from the National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 13, most of the United States and Canada will advance the clock an hour to be on Daylight Saving Time. Most other countries in the Northern Hemisphere will do the same within a few weeks; and many countries across the Southern Hemisphere turn the clock back an hour around the same time. A friend of mine, who spent time on Capitol Hill, once told me that whether it’s adjusting to Daylight Saving Time (and losing an hour of sleep) or switching back to Standard Time (and picking up an hour), large numbers of Americans call their member of Congress every season to complain.

Why are so many of us annoyed by the semi-annual resetting of clocks? It turns out that there are biological reasons for our discomfort with time changes. Those reasons also come into play when we change time zones as we travel, when we work on the night shift, or when we live at higher latitudes, where depressive symptoms from seasonal affective disorder (SAD) can plague us as the period of daylight progressively shortens in winter.
 

Our internal clock(s)

Each of us has a biological master clock keeping track of where we are in our 24-hour day, making ongoing time-of-day-appropriate physical and neurologic adjustments. We refer to those automatic adjustments as “circadian” rhythms – from the Latin, for “around a day” rhythms.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

One of the most important regulated functions that is influenced by this time keeping is our sleep-wake cycle. Our brain’s hypothalamus has a kind of “master clock” that receives inputs directly from our eyes, which is how our brain sets our daily cycle period at about 24 hours.

This master clock turns on a tiny structure in our brains, called the pineal gland, to release more of a sleep-inducing chemical, called melatonin, about the same time every evening. The level of melatonin slowly increases to reach maximum deep sleep in the night, then slowly declines as you advance toward morning awakening. The shift from darkness to daylight in the morning, causing your initial morning awakening, releases the excitatory neuromodulator norepinephrine, which, with other chemicals, “turns on the lights” in your brain.

That works well most of the time – but no one told your brain that you were going to arbitrarily go to bed an hour earlier (or in the fall, later) on Circadian Rhythm Time!

We also obviously shift the time on the mechanical clock – requiring a reset of the brain’s master clock – when we travel across time zones or work the night shift. That type of desynchronization of our master clock from the mechanical clock puts our waking and sleeping behaviors out of sync with the production of brain chemicals that affect our alertness and mood. The result may be that you find yourself tired, but not sleepy, and often grumpy or even depressed. As an example, on average, people who work the night shift are just a little bit more anxious and depressed than people who get up to rise and shine with the sun every morning.
 

Seasonal affective disorder

An extreme example of this desynchronization of the master clock can manifest as SAD. SAD is a type of depression that’s related to seasonal transitions. The most commonly cited cases of SAD are for the fall-to-winter transition. In North America, its prevalence is significantly influenced by the distance of one’s place of residence from the equator – with about 12 times the impact in Alaska versus Florida. Of note, a weaker effect of latitude has been recorded in Europe, where more settled populations have had thousands of years to biologically and culturally adapt to their seasonal patterns.

What can we do about our clocks being messed with?

The most common treatment for SAD is light therapy, in which patients sit or work under artificial lights in an early-morning period, to try to advance the chemical signaling that controls sleeping and waking. Alas, light therapy doesn’t work for everyone.

Another approach, with or without the lights, is to engage in activities early in the day that produce brain chemicals to contribute to bright and cheerful waking. Those “raring-to-go” brain chemicals include norepinephrine (produced when you encounter novelty and are just having fun), acetylcholine (produced when you are carefully paying attention and are in a learning and remembering mode), serotonin (produced when you are feeling positive and just a little bit euphoric), and dopamine (produced when you feel happy and all is right with the world).

In fact, you would benefit from creating the habit of starting every day with activity that wakes up your brain. I begin my day with computerized brain exercises that are attentionally demanding, filled with novelty, and richly neurologically rewarding. I then take a brisk morning walk in which I vary my path for the sake of novelty (pumping norepinephrine), pay close attention to my surroundings (pumping acetylcholine and serotonin), and delight in all of the wonderful things out there in my world (pumping dopamine). My dog Doug enjoys this process of waking up brain and body almost as much as I do! Of course, there are a thousand other stimulating things that could help you get your day off to a lively start.

If you anticipate feeling altered by a time change, you could also think about preparing for it in advance. If it’s the semi-annual 1-hour change that throws you off kilter, you might adjust your bedtime by 10 minutes a day for the week before. If you are traveling 12 time zones (and flipping night and day), you may need to make larger adjustments over the preceding couple of weeks. Generally, without that preparation, it takes about 1 day per time zone crossed to naturally adjust your circadian rhythms.

If you’re a little lazier, like me, you might also adjust to jet lag by not forgetting to take along your little bottle of melatonin tablets, to give your pineal gland a little help. Still, that pineal gland will work hard to tell you to take a nap every day – just when you’ll probably want to be wide awake.

And if, after reading this column, you find yourself still annoyed by the upcoming 1-hour time change, you might just look around at what’s happening out there in the world and decide that your troubles are very small by comparison, and that you should delight in the “extra” hour of sunshine each evening!

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, at the University of California, San Francisco. He reported serving in various positions and speaking for Posit Science and Stronger Brain, and has also received funding from the National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 13, most of the United States and Canada will advance the clock an hour to be on Daylight Saving Time. Most other countries in the Northern Hemisphere will do the same within a few weeks; and many countries across the Southern Hemisphere turn the clock back an hour around the same time. A friend of mine, who spent time on Capitol Hill, once told me that whether it’s adjusting to Daylight Saving Time (and losing an hour of sleep) or switching back to Standard Time (and picking up an hour), large numbers of Americans call their member of Congress every season to complain.

Why are so many of us annoyed by the semi-annual resetting of clocks? It turns out that there are biological reasons for our discomfort with time changes. Those reasons also come into play when we change time zones as we travel, when we work on the night shift, or when we live at higher latitudes, where depressive symptoms from seasonal affective disorder (SAD) can plague us as the period of daylight progressively shortens in winter.
 

Our internal clock(s)

Each of us has a biological master clock keeping track of where we are in our 24-hour day, making ongoing time-of-day-appropriate physical and neurologic adjustments. We refer to those automatic adjustments as “circadian” rhythms – from the Latin, for “around a day” rhythms.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

One of the most important regulated functions that is influenced by this time keeping is our sleep-wake cycle. Our brain’s hypothalamus has a kind of “master clock” that receives inputs directly from our eyes, which is how our brain sets our daily cycle period at about 24 hours.

This master clock turns on a tiny structure in our brains, called the pineal gland, to release more of a sleep-inducing chemical, called melatonin, about the same time every evening. The level of melatonin slowly increases to reach maximum deep sleep in the night, then slowly declines as you advance toward morning awakening. The shift from darkness to daylight in the morning, causing your initial morning awakening, releases the excitatory neuromodulator norepinephrine, which, with other chemicals, “turns on the lights” in your brain.

That works well most of the time – but no one told your brain that you were going to arbitrarily go to bed an hour earlier (or in the fall, later) on Circadian Rhythm Time!

We also obviously shift the time on the mechanical clock – requiring a reset of the brain’s master clock – when we travel across time zones or work the night shift. That type of desynchronization of our master clock from the mechanical clock puts our waking and sleeping behaviors out of sync with the production of brain chemicals that affect our alertness and mood. The result may be that you find yourself tired, but not sleepy, and often grumpy or even depressed. As an example, on average, people who work the night shift are just a little bit more anxious and depressed than people who get up to rise and shine with the sun every morning.
 

Seasonal affective disorder

An extreme example of this desynchronization of the master clock can manifest as SAD. SAD is a type of depression that’s related to seasonal transitions. The most commonly cited cases of SAD are for the fall-to-winter transition. In North America, its prevalence is significantly influenced by the distance of one’s place of residence from the equator – with about 12 times the impact in Alaska versus Florida. Of note, a weaker effect of latitude has been recorded in Europe, where more settled populations have had thousands of years to biologically and culturally adapt to their seasonal patterns.

What can we do about our clocks being messed with?

The most common treatment for SAD is light therapy, in which patients sit or work under artificial lights in an early-morning period, to try to advance the chemical signaling that controls sleeping and waking. Alas, light therapy doesn’t work for everyone.

Another approach, with or without the lights, is to engage in activities early in the day that produce brain chemicals to contribute to bright and cheerful waking. Those “raring-to-go” brain chemicals include norepinephrine (produced when you encounter novelty and are just having fun), acetylcholine (produced when you are carefully paying attention and are in a learning and remembering mode), serotonin (produced when you are feeling positive and just a little bit euphoric), and dopamine (produced when you feel happy and all is right with the world).

In fact, you would benefit from creating the habit of starting every day with activity that wakes up your brain. I begin my day with computerized brain exercises that are attentionally demanding, filled with novelty, and richly neurologically rewarding. I then take a brisk morning walk in which I vary my path for the sake of novelty (pumping norepinephrine), pay close attention to my surroundings (pumping acetylcholine and serotonin), and delight in all of the wonderful things out there in my world (pumping dopamine). My dog Doug enjoys this process of waking up brain and body almost as much as I do! Of course, there are a thousand other stimulating things that could help you get your day off to a lively start.

If you anticipate feeling altered by a time change, you could also think about preparing for it in advance. If it’s the semi-annual 1-hour change that throws you off kilter, you might adjust your bedtime by 10 minutes a day for the week before. If you are traveling 12 time zones (and flipping night and day), you may need to make larger adjustments over the preceding couple of weeks. Generally, without that preparation, it takes about 1 day per time zone crossed to naturally adjust your circadian rhythms.

If you’re a little lazier, like me, you might also adjust to jet lag by not forgetting to take along your little bottle of melatonin tablets, to give your pineal gland a little help. Still, that pineal gland will work hard to tell you to take a nap every day – just when you’ll probably want to be wide awake.

And if, after reading this column, you find yourself still annoyed by the upcoming 1-hour time change, you might just look around at what’s happening out there in the world and decide that your troubles are very small by comparison, and that you should delight in the “extra” hour of sunshine each evening!

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, at the University of California, San Francisco. He reported serving in various positions and speaking for Posit Science and Stronger Brain, and has also received funding from the National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging has long been the standard for diagnosing and surveilling multiple sclerosis (MS), and new guidelines provide updates on the use of MRI for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of MS.

MS affects approximately one million people in the United States. As family physicians, these guidelines are important to know, because we are often the ones who make the initial diagnosis of MS. Similarly, if we order the wrong imaging study, we can miss making an accurate diagnosis.

The new guidelines (MAGNIMS), which were sponsored by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres, were published in August. The documents offers detailed guidance on the use of standardized MRI protocols as well as the use of IV gadolinium contrast agents, including in children and pregnant patients.

It is advised to use 3-D techniques (as opposed to two-dimensional) and it is noted that this is becoming more clinically available. Sagittal 3-D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is the core sequence considered for MS diagnosis and monitoring because of its high sensitivity. High-quality 2-D pulse sequences can be used alternatively when 3-D FLAIR is not available.

When 3 T scanners are not available, 1.5 T scanners are sufficient. However, 3 T scanners do have a higher detection rate for MS lesions. In evaluating the imaging, T2 lesion counts, gadolinium lesion counts, and interval changes should be reported.

The use of GBCAs (gadolinium-based contrast agents) is needed to diagnose MS and rule out other diseases. The time between injection of contrast should ideally be 10 minutes but no less than 5. Optic nerve MRI is recommended only in patients with atypical symptoms, such as new visual symptoms. Spinal cord MRI is also not routinely advised unless it is needed for prognosis.

When the initial MRI does not meet the full criteria of MS, brain MRI should be repeated every 6-12 months in suspected cases. The same modality should be used each time. After treatment is started, it is recommended to perform MRI without GBCAs for 3 months and annual follow ups. The use of GBCAs-free MRIs for routine follow up is a new recommendation compared to previous ones. However, if the use of GBCAs would change the management, then they should be utilized for monitoring.

The same imaging standards are recommended in pediatric patients. Spinal cord MRI should be utilized in kids with spinal cord symptoms or inconclusive brain MRI. Similar scan frequency is recommended as in adults. MRI is not contraindicated during pregnancy but should be decided on an individual basis. Standard protocols should be used as well as a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. GBCAs should not be used during pregnancy. There are no limitations in the postpartum period.

The complete set of guidelines is quite extensive and adds to the previous guidelines published in 2017. They were first published in The Lancet Neurology.

While most of these patients will be referred to neurologists, as the primary care physician it is our responsibility to know all aspects of our patients’ diseases and treatments. While we may not be actively treating MS in these patients, we need to know their medications, how they interact with others, and how their disease is progressing

Additionally, we may be the ones asked to order MRIs for monitoring. It is imperative that we know the guidelines for how to do this.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RA Segal, MD, MPH
Gainesville, FL

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

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

RA Segal, MD, MPH
Gainesville, FL

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

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

RA Segal, MD, MPH
Gainesville, FL