Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cutis Reviewers, JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2021

Jennifer L. Adams, MD

Brandon Adler, MD

Iris Ahronowitz, MD

Abdullah Aleisa, MD

Justin Bandino, MD

Robert Baran, MD

Naiara S. Barbosa, MD

Kristina R. Burke, MD

Craig Burkhart, MD

Jeffrey P. Callen, MD

Charles Camisa, MD

Ashley B. Crew, MD

Zoe Diana Draelos, MD

Joseph S. Eastern, MD

Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc

Joseph C. English III, MD

Tammie C. Ferringer, MD

Bahar F. Firoz, MD, MPH

John R. Griffin, MD

Kristi Hawley, DO

Thomas N. Helm, MD

Stephen Ellsworth Helms, MD

Brian P. Hibler, MD

Ranella J. Hirsch, MD

Jenny Hu, MD, MPH

Erick Jacobson-Dunlop, MD

William D. James, MD

Camilla K. Janniger, MD

Ronald Belle Johnston Jr, MD

Theodora Karagounis, MD

Michael Kasperkiewicz, MD

Brett H. Keeling, MD

Chesahna Kindred, MD, MBA

Christina Nicole Kraus, MD

Eun Ji Kwon, MD

Eden Lake, MD

Nicholas Logemann, DO

Michele S. Maroon, MD

Cathy Massoud, MD

Elizabeth I. McBurney, MD

Lynn J. McKinley-Grant, MD

Amy J. McMichael, MD

Darius R. Mehregan, MD

Jon Hamilton Meyerle, MD

Robert Micheletti, MD

Binh Ngo, MD

Anh Nguyen, MD

Josephine Nguyen, MD, MHCDS

Joe Niamtu III, DMD

Rajiv I. Nijhawan, MD

Michael A. Nowak, MD

Maria T. Ochoa, MD

Chika Ohata, MD

Lawrence C. Parish, MD

Marion Apter Quinn, MD

Phoebe Rich, MD

Maureen Riegert, MD

Bethany Rohr, MD

Lorraine L. Rosamilia, MD

Ted Rosen, MD

Robert I. Rudolph, MD

Elizabeth K. Satter, MD, MPH

Robert A. Schwartz, MD, MPH

Michael J. Scott III, DO, MD, MPH

Jane Scribner, MD

Bridget E. Shields, MD

Daniel Mark Siegel, MD, MS

Nanette B. Silverberg, MD

Steven Brett Sloan, MD

Leonard Sperling, MD

Stephen P. Stone, MD

Brian L. Swick, MD

Susan C. Taylor, MD

Manuel Valdebran, MD

Richard F. Wagner Jr, MD

Emily Wong, MD

Julie Woodward, MD

Scott Worswick, MD

Julia Wu, MD

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

Cutis Reviewers, JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2021

Jennifer L. Adams, MD

Brandon Adler, MD

Iris Ahronowitz, MD

Abdullah Aleisa, MD

Justin Bandino, MD

Robert Baran, MD

Naiara S. Barbosa, MD

Kristina R. Burke, MD

Craig Burkhart, MD

Jeffrey P. Callen, MD

Charles Camisa, MD

Ashley B. Crew, MD

Zoe Diana Draelos, MD

Joseph S. Eastern, MD

Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc

Joseph C. English III, MD

Tammie C. Ferringer, MD

Bahar F. Firoz, MD, MPH

John R. Griffin, MD

Kristi Hawley, DO

Thomas N. Helm, MD

Stephen Ellsworth Helms, MD

Brian P. Hibler, MD

Ranella J. Hirsch, MD

Jenny Hu, MD, MPH

Erick Jacobson-Dunlop, MD

William D. James, MD

Camilla K. Janniger, MD

Ronald Belle Johnston Jr, MD

Theodora Karagounis, MD

Michael Kasperkiewicz, MD

Brett H. Keeling, MD

Chesahna Kindred, MD, MBA

Christina Nicole Kraus, MD

Eun Ji Kwon, MD

Eden Lake, MD

Nicholas Logemann, DO

Michele S. Maroon, MD

Cathy Massoud, MD

Elizabeth I. McBurney, MD

Lynn J. McKinley-Grant, MD

Amy J. McMichael, MD

Darius R. Mehregan, MD

Jon Hamilton Meyerle, MD

Robert Micheletti, MD

Binh Ngo, MD

Anh Nguyen, MD

Josephine Nguyen, MD, MHCDS

Joe Niamtu III, DMD

Rajiv I. Nijhawan, MD

Michael A. Nowak, MD

Maria T. Ochoa, MD

Chika Ohata, MD

Lawrence C. Parish, MD

Marion Apter Quinn, MD

Phoebe Rich, MD

Maureen Riegert, MD

Bethany Rohr, MD

Lorraine L. Rosamilia, MD

Ted Rosen, MD

Robert I. Rudolph, MD

Elizabeth K. Satter, MD, MPH

Robert A. Schwartz, MD, MPH

Michael J. Scott III, DO, MD, MPH

Jane Scribner, MD

Bridget E. Shields, MD

Daniel Mark Siegel, MD, MS

Nanette B. Silverberg, MD

Steven Brett Sloan, MD

Leonard Sperling, MD

Stephen P. Stone, MD

Brian L. Swick, MD

Susan C. Taylor, MD

Manuel Valdebran, MD

Richard F. Wagner Jr, MD

Emily Wong, MD

Julie Woodward, MD

Scott Worswick, MD

Julia Wu, MD

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

Cutis Reviewers, JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2021

Jennifer L. Adams, MD

Brandon Adler, MD

Iris Ahronowitz, MD

Abdullah Aleisa, MD

Justin Bandino, MD

Robert Baran, MD

Naiara S. Barbosa, MD

Kristina R. Burke, MD

Craig Burkhart, MD

Jeffrey P. Callen, MD

Charles Camisa, MD

Ashley B. Crew, MD

Zoe Diana Draelos, MD

Joseph S. Eastern, MD

Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc

Joseph C. English III, MD

Tammie C. Ferringer, MD

Bahar F. Firoz, MD, MPH

John R. Griffin, MD

Kristi Hawley, DO

Thomas N. Helm, MD

Stephen Ellsworth Helms, MD

Brian P. Hibler, MD

Ranella J. Hirsch, MD

Jenny Hu, MD, MPH

Erick Jacobson-Dunlop, MD

William D. James, MD

Camilla K. Janniger, MD

Ronald Belle Johnston Jr, MD

Theodora Karagounis, MD

Michael Kasperkiewicz, MD

Brett H. Keeling, MD

Chesahna Kindred, MD, MBA

Christina Nicole Kraus, MD

Eun Ji Kwon, MD

Eden Lake, MD

Nicholas Logemann, DO

Michele S. Maroon, MD

Cathy Massoud, MD

Elizabeth I. McBurney, MD

Lynn J. McKinley-Grant, MD

Amy J. McMichael, MD

Darius R. Mehregan, MD

Jon Hamilton Meyerle, MD

Robert Micheletti, MD

Binh Ngo, MD

Anh Nguyen, MD

Josephine Nguyen, MD, MHCDS

Joe Niamtu III, DMD

Rajiv I. Nijhawan, MD

Michael A. Nowak, MD

Maria T. Ochoa, MD

Chika Ohata, MD

Lawrence C. Parish, MD

Marion Apter Quinn, MD

Phoebe Rich, MD

Maureen Riegert, MD

Bethany Rohr, MD

Lorraine L. Rosamilia, MD

Ted Rosen, MD

Robert I. Rudolph, MD

Elizabeth K. Satter, MD, MPH

Robert A. Schwartz, MD, MPH

Michael J. Scott III, DO, MD, MPH

Jane Scribner, MD

Bridget E. Shields, MD

Daniel Mark Siegel, MD, MS

Nanette B. Silverberg, MD

Steven Brett Sloan, MD

Leonard Sperling, MD

Stephen P. Stone, MD

Brian L. Swick, MD

Susan C. Taylor, MD

Manuel Valdebran, MD

Richard F. Wagner Jr, MD

Emily Wong, MD

Julie Woodward, MD

Scott Worswick, MD

Julia Wu, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.

But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.

When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.

The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.

So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.

A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.

But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.

When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.

The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.

So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.

A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.

But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.

When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.

The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.

So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.

A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

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

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

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

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

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