Commentary

My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.

The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.

These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.

Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.

In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.

While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.

Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”

No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.

Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.

There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.

There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
 

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.

My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.

The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.

These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.

Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.

In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.

While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.

Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”

No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.

Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.

There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.

There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
 

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.

My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.

The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.

These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.

Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.

In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.

While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.

Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”

No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.

Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.

There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.

There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
 

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.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanksgiving has long been my favorite holiday: a chance to reconnect with family and friends as well as time for reflection, gratitude, and hope. While Thanksgiving 2020 (sadly) was spent eating takeout turkey on the couch due to the pandemic, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving 2021 will for most of us bring a return to the holiday traditions that sustain us.

In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight several important studies impacting frontline clinical practice. Relevant to patients with liver disease, we highlight work evaluating the potential supra-additive effects of alcohol intake and obesity in impacting cirrhosis incidence and assessing the comparative performance of non-invasive screening tests in detecting NASH-related fibrosis. Another study of note, relevant to clinical management of GERD, suggests that combinations of abnormal pH-impedance monitoring metrics may predict PPI nonresponders better than individual metrics and could be used to identify patients more likely to respond to invasive GERD management.

We also wish to acknowledge in this issue the outstanding work that AGA and its fellow societies do on behalf of the gastroenterology community in developing and harmonizing ACGME Reporting Milestones for GI and Transplant Hepatology fellowship programs to assist with trainee assessment. Our fellowship trainees represent the future of our profession, and it is of critical importance that we train competent, compassionate professionals who will provide outstanding clinical care to our patients. Kudos to the team, including Dr. Brijen Shah, GI & Hepatology News associate editor Dr. Janice Jou, and others, for their hard work on Milestones 2.0!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

Thanksgiving has long been my favorite holiday: a chance to reconnect with family and friends as well as time for reflection, gratitude, and hope. While Thanksgiving 2020 (sadly) was spent eating takeout turkey on the couch due to the pandemic, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving 2021 will for most of us bring a return to the holiday traditions that sustain us.

In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight several important studies impacting frontline clinical practice. Relevant to patients with liver disease, we highlight work evaluating the potential supra-additive effects of alcohol intake and obesity in impacting cirrhosis incidence and assessing the comparative performance of non-invasive screening tests in detecting NASH-related fibrosis. Another study of note, relevant to clinical management of GERD, suggests that combinations of abnormal pH-impedance monitoring metrics may predict PPI nonresponders better than individual metrics and could be used to identify patients more likely to respond to invasive GERD management.

We also wish to acknowledge in this issue the outstanding work that AGA and its fellow societies do on behalf of the gastroenterology community in developing and harmonizing ACGME Reporting Milestones for GI and Transplant Hepatology fellowship programs to assist with trainee assessment. Our fellowship trainees represent the future of our profession, and it is of critical importance that we train competent, compassionate professionals who will provide outstanding clinical care to our patients. Kudos to the team, including Dr. Brijen Shah, GI & Hepatology News associate editor Dr. Janice Jou, and others, for their hard work on Milestones 2.0!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

Thanksgiving has long been my favorite holiday: a chance to reconnect with family and friends as well as time for reflection, gratitude, and hope. While Thanksgiving 2020 (sadly) was spent eating takeout turkey on the couch due to the pandemic, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving 2021 will for most of us bring a return to the holiday traditions that sustain us.

In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight several important studies impacting frontline clinical practice. Relevant to patients with liver disease, we highlight work evaluating the potential supra-additive effects of alcohol intake and obesity in impacting cirrhosis incidence and assessing the comparative performance of non-invasive screening tests in detecting NASH-related fibrosis. Another study of note, relevant to clinical management of GERD, suggests that combinations of abnormal pH-impedance monitoring metrics may predict PPI nonresponders better than individual metrics and could be used to identify patients more likely to respond to invasive GERD management.

We also wish to acknowledge in this issue the outstanding work that AGA and its fellow societies do on behalf of the gastroenterology community in developing and harmonizing ACGME Reporting Milestones for GI and Transplant Hepatology fellowship programs to assist with trainee assessment. Our fellowship trainees represent the future of our profession, and it is of critical importance that we train competent, compassionate professionals who will provide outstanding clinical care to our patients. Kudos to the team, including Dr. Brijen Shah, GI & Hepatology News associate editor Dr. Janice Jou, and others, for their hard work on Milestones 2.0!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

Medical transition in transgender patients

I just read the article “Writing letters for transgender patients undergoing medical transition” by Dr. Amy Riese (Pearls, Current Psychiatry, August 2021, p. 51-52). I very much appreciate this topic being brought into the light and her excellent guidelines for patients who suffer from gender dysphoria and require medical transition.

I would like to use her piece as an opportunity to highlight what has become a chasm in psychiatric care. Dr. Riese’s article was on the letter itself and not the assessment of a patient with possible gender dysphoria, but assessment is barely mentioned, and is the single most important part of a gender transition process. Assessment has become the huge chasm in treatment. In my community, both personally and professionally, I have witnessed very little assessment taking place, yet a lot of transitioning is happening.

Concerned and caring family members take their child (or self-present if the patient is an adult) to gender specialists for their expertise. What is happening during these evaluations are brief conversations during which the gender specialist accepts a patient’s (sometimes a minor’s) self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There is discussion of the importance of being gender-affirming, and the beginning of a discussion of hormone therapy. During these discussions of hormone therapy, there is very little disclosure of some of the untoward effects. I understand this is a generalization, and there are some gender specialists who are doing excellent, thorough assessments. But this is what I am seeing in my community, to the point that I have no local specialists to whom I feel comfortable sending my patients who may have gender dysphoria.

During discussions, some of the significant medical outcomes of hormone therapy (immunosuppression, loss of bone density, sterility, increased risk of certain types of cancer, etc.) are not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing. Clinicians have begun using euphemisms such as “top surgery” or “upper body surgery,” as used in Dr. Riese’s article, rather than the medically accurate term, which is “bilateral mastectomy.” These behaviors are being manifested by mostly well-meaning clinicians, and start the process of ushering a patient down a one-way street toward a medical transition.

In April of this year, a prestigious institution in my state did a training on aspects of treating transgender and nonbinary youth. The training advocated giving less information to transgender youth regarding the effects of treatment on fertility, arguing that giving adequate information would disrupt the normal course of development. However, we are allowing these same youth to consent for treatment.

This is a very destructive phenomenon, and only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for patients who medically transition who did not have an adequate assessment. After so much loss under the auspices of treatment, one would hope that at the very least, these children and young adults would be in a better place psychologically, that they would finally be happy and fulfilled in their new reality, that their mental anguish would evaporate, and with it, their risk of suicide. And this may be true if the patient had gender dysphoria.

But what about the patients who did not have an adequate assessment, whose self-diagnosis was accepted without question, the gender-affirming model immediately implemented, and referrals quickly made for medical treatment? For those patients, once everything has been done, every hormone taken, every surgery performed, but still not male enough, not convincingly male in every aspect, now what? Where does one go from there?

Only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for these patients, who are primarily youth and young adults at this point. What about the psychological pain that brought them to identify as transgender in the first place? Since the patient was colluded with in the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that pain was never identified and addressed. What will the suicide rate be of these fully transitioned patients who never had gender dysphoria?

And what shall become of the clinicians who treated them without pause or careful consideration, who bypassed informed consent, treating teens as if they had the judgment and psychological maturity of an adult? What will be their defense when the malpractice lawsuits begin to mount against them, when patients and their families emerge on the other side of the medical transition to find that life, identity, intimacy, and the most basic biological functions have been altered forever based on the capricious and suggestible whims of children?

According to the DSM-5, the prevalence of gender dysphoria is very low. Even if we were to double the DSM-5 estimate, it is still very low. As psychiatrists, we are leaders in the mental health field, and need to set the tone and guide nonphysician clinicians toward extremely careful assessment of these patients.

While Dr. Riese gives excellent information about how to write a letter for a patient who needs transition, far fewer of these letters should be written. The upward trend in the numbers of patients receiving a diagnosis, and subsequently letters, is largely imposed by clinicians who disregard the DSM-5 and fail to apply critical thought to this assessments.

Medical transition in transgender patients

I just read the article “Writing letters for transgender patients undergoing medical transition” by Dr. Amy Riese (Pearls, Current Psychiatry, August 2021, p. 51-52). I very much appreciate this topic being brought into the light and her excellent guidelines for patients who suffer from gender dysphoria and require medical transition.

I would like to use her piece as an opportunity to highlight what has become a chasm in psychiatric care. Dr. Riese’s article was on the letter itself and not the assessment of a patient with possible gender dysphoria, but assessment is barely mentioned, and is the single most important part of a gender transition process. Assessment has become the huge chasm in treatment. In my community, both personally and professionally, I have witnessed very little assessment taking place, yet a lot of transitioning is happening.

Concerned and caring family members take their child (or self-present if the patient is an adult) to gender specialists for their expertise. What is happening during these evaluations are brief conversations during which the gender specialist accepts a patient’s (sometimes a minor’s) self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There is discussion of the importance of being gender-affirming, and the beginning of a discussion of hormone therapy. During these discussions of hormone therapy, there is very little disclosure of some of the untoward effects. I understand this is a generalization, and there are some gender specialists who are doing excellent, thorough assessments. But this is what I am seeing in my community, to the point that I have no local specialists to whom I feel comfortable sending my patients who may have gender dysphoria.

During discussions, some of the significant medical outcomes of hormone therapy (immunosuppression, loss of bone density, sterility, increased risk of certain types of cancer, etc.) are not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing. Clinicians have begun using euphemisms such as “top surgery” or “upper body surgery,” as used in Dr. Riese’s article, rather than the medically accurate term, which is “bilateral mastectomy.” These behaviors are being manifested by mostly well-meaning clinicians, and start the process of ushering a patient down a one-way street toward a medical transition.

In April of this year, a prestigious institution in my state did a training on aspects of treating transgender and nonbinary youth. The training advocated giving less information to transgender youth regarding the effects of treatment on fertility, arguing that giving adequate information would disrupt the normal course of development. However, we are allowing these same youth to consent for treatment.

This is a very destructive phenomenon, and only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for patients who medically transition who did not have an adequate assessment. After so much loss under the auspices of treatment, one would hope that at the very least, these children and young adults would be in a better place psychologically, that they would finally be happy and fulfilled in their new reality, that their mental anguish would evaporate, and with it, their risk of suicide. And this may be true if the patient had gender dysphoria.

But what about the patients who did not have an adequate assessment, whose self-diagnosis was accepted without question, the gender-affirming model immediately implemented, and referrals quickly made for medical treatment? For those patients, once everything has been done, every hormone taken, every surgery performed, but still not male enough, not convincingly male in every aspect, now what? Where does one go from there?

Only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for these patients, who are primarily youth and young adults at this point. What about the psychological pain that brought them to identify as transgender in the first place? Since the patient was colluded with in the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that pain was never identified and addressed. What will the suicide rate be of these fully transitioned patients who never had gender dysphoria?

And what shall become of the clinicians who treated them without pause or careful consideration, who bypassed informed consent, treating teens as if they had the judgment and psychological maturity of an adult? What will be their defense when the malpractice lawsuits begin to mount against them, when patients and their families emerge on the other side of the medical transition to find that life, identity, intimacy, and the most basic biological functions have been altered forever based on the capricious and suggestible whims of children?

According to the DSM-5, the prevalence of gender dysphoria is very low. Even if we were to double the DSM-5 estimate, it is still very low. As psychiatrists, we are leaders in the mental health field, and need to set the tone and guide nonphysician clinicians toward extremely careful assessment of these patients.

While Dr. Riese gives excellent information about how to write a letter for a patient who needs transition, far fewer of these letters should be written. The upward trend in the numbers of patients receiving a diagnosis, and subsequently letters, is largely imposed by clinicians who disregard the DSM-5 and fail to apply critical thought to this assessments.

Medical transition in transgender patients

I just read the article “Writing letters for transgender patients undergoing medical transition” by Dr. Amy Riese (Pearls, Current Psychiatry, August 2021, p. 51-52). I very much appreciate this topic being brought into the light and her excellent guidelines for patients who suffer from gender dysphoria and require medical transition.

I would like to use her piece as an opportunity to highlight what has become a chasm in psychiatric care. Dr. Riese’s article was on the letter itself and not the assessment of a patient with possible gender dysphoria, but assessment is barely mentioned, and is the single most important part of a gender transition process. Assessment has become the huge chasm in treatment. In my community, both personally and professionally, I have witnessed very little assessment taking place, yet a lot of transitioning is happening.

Concerned and caring family members take their child (or self-present if the patient is an adult) to gender specialists for their expertise. What is happening during these evaluations are brief conversations during which the gender specialist accepts a patient’s (sometimes a minor’s) self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There is discussion of the importance of being gender-affirming, and the beginning of a discussion of hormone therapy. During these discussions of hormone therapy, there is very little disclosure of some of the untoward effects. I understand this is a generalization, and there are some gender specialists who are doing excellent, thorough assessments. But this is what I am seeing in my community, to the point that I have no local specialists to whom I feel comfortable sending my patients who may have gender dysphoria.

During discussions, some of the significant medical outcomes of hormone therapy (immunosuppression, loss of bone density, sterility, increased risk of certain types of cancer, etc.) are not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing. Clinicians have begun using euphemisms such as “top surgery” or “upper body surgery,” as used in Dr. Riese’s article, rather than the medically accurate term, which is “bilateral mastectomy.” These behaviors are being manifested by mostly well-meaning clinicians, and start the process of ushering a patient down a one-way street toward a medical transition.

In April of this year, a prestigious institution in my state did a training on aspects of treating transgender and nonbinary youth. The training advocated giving less information to transgender youth regarding the effects of treatment on fertility, arguing that giving adequate information would disrupt the normal course of development. However, we are allowing these same youth to consent for treatment.

This is a very destructive phenomenon, and only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for patients who medically transition who did not have an adequate assessment. After so much loss under the auspices of treatment, one would hope that at the very least, these children and young adults would be in a better place psychologically, that they would finally be happy and fulfilled in their new reality, that their mental anguish would evaporate, and with it, their risk of suicide. And this may be true if the patient had gender dysphoria.

But what about the patients who did not have an adequate assessment, whose self-diagnosis was accepted without question, the gender-affirming model immediately implemented, and referrals quickly made for medical treatment? For those patients, once everything has been done, every hormone taken, every surgery performed, but still not male enough, not convincingly male in every aspect, now what? Where does one go from there?

Only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for these patients, who are primarily youth and young adults at this point. What about the psychological pain that brought them to identify as transgender in the first place? Since the patient was colluded with in the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that pain was never identified and addressed. What will the suicide rate be of these fully transitioned patients who never had gender dysphoria?

And what shall become of the clinicians who treated them without pause or careful consideration, who bypassed informed consent, treating teens as if they had the judgment and psychological maturity of an adult? What will be their defense when the malpractice lawsuits begin to mount against them, when patients and their families emerge on the other side of the medical transition to find that life, identity, intimacy, and the most basic biological functions have been altered forever based on the capricious and suggestible whims of children?

According to the DSM-5, the prevalence of gender dysphoria is very low. Even if we were to double the DSM-5 estimate, it is still very low. As psychiatrists, we are leaders in the mental health field, and need to set the tone and guide nonphysician clinicians toward extremely careful assessment of these patients.

While Dr. Riese gives excellent information about how to write a letter for a patient who needs transition, far fewer of these letters should be written. The upward trend in the numbers of patients receiving a diagnosis, and subsequently letters, is largely imposed by clinicians who disregard the DSM-5 and fail to apply critical thought to this assessments.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact letters@currentpsychiatry.com.

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder, often with onset at a young age. An estimated 4.4% of US adults experience bipolar disorder at some time in their lives.¹ According to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the past-year prevalence of bipolar disorder in adults age ≥60 is 0.7%.¹ An estimated 83% of people with bipolar disorder have serious impairment, which is the highest percentage of serious impairment among mood disorders.¹ Bipolar I disorder affects men and women equally, whereas bipolar II disorder seems to occur more frequently in women.² Symptoms of bipolar disorder include episodes of mania, depression, and mixed states.²

A variety of medications—including mood stabilizers, lithium, and antipsychotics (Table 1,^3,4 and Table 2,⁴)—and somatic treatments such as electro­convulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation are used to manage the depressive and manic/mixed episodes of bipolar disorder. Treatment should be individualized based on the patient’s symptom severity, sensitivity, response to treatment, and preferences.

Continue to: CASE REPORT...

CASE REPORT

Mrs. G, age 65, lives with her husband. She has a history of bipolar disorder, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension associated with hyperaldosteronism, and obesity, for which she has undergone bariatric surgery. Symptoms of bipolar disorder started when she was in her 30s, following the death of her father. Her initial symptoms included depressed mood, anger, irritability, difficulty sleeping, racing thoughts, and impulsive spending. She did not have any suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation. She did not have anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. For some time, she took perphenazine, 16 mg/d, divalproex sodium, 1,500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime. These doses were reduced as her mood stabilized. Over time, divalproex sodium was tapered and discontinued, and perphenazine was reduced to 4 mg/d at bedtime. Lithium was tried briefly but discontinued because Mrs. G did not tolerate it well. She has never been hospitalized for mental health issues, but did have one emergency department visit a very long time ago. She has no history of suicide attempts, and there is no family history of completed suicide. There is a family history of bipolar disorder in her mother.

Mrs. G was born and raised outside the United States in a stable, two-parent home. She had no maltreatment during childhood. She has a bachelor’s degree and was employed. She is a social drinker, with no history of treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Mrs. G was stable on perphenazine, 4 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d, until 5 years ago. In 2016, she became concerned about her weight and overall health, and underwent bariatric surgery (gastric sleeve). After this surgery, Mrs. G experienced changes in mood and thought. She felt paranoid and had ideas of reference, social sensitivity, increased irritability, and poor self-esteem. Perphenazine was discontinued, divalproex was reintroduced, and lurasidone was started. Lurasidone was titrated up to 120 mg/d, and divalproex up to 1,500 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued for her insomnia. She also occasionally took over-the-counter melatonin, 5 to 10 mg, as needed for insomnia.

Mrs. G improved on this combination, and became stable and euthymic in September 2017. Other than a brief hypomanic episode in Spring 2018 that resolved quickly, she remained euthymic. During routine follow-up visits, Mrs. G’s nephrologist noticed that her sodium levels had been fluctuating. Mrs. G said her nephrologist was not sure exactly what was causing these fluctuations, and she continued to take the same medications.

In June 2018, Mrs. G developed tremors, slowing, and lethargy. Lurasidone was gradually reduced to 60 mg/d and divalproex to 750 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued. In July 2018, divalproex was further reduced to 500 mg/d because Mrs. G’s free valproic acid levels were elevated. In February 2019, lurasidone was further reduced to 40 mg/d due to blunted affect, and in April 2019, escitalopram, 10 mg/d, was added for symptoms of depression (off-label), and anxiety. In June 2019, Mrs. G’s sodium level was 127 mEq/L (reference range: 135 to 145 mEq/L). Because escitalopram can cause hyponatremia, it was discontinued in August 2019, but Mrs. G continued to take lurasidone, 40 mg/d, divalproex, 500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d.

In October and November 2020, Mrs. G’s sodium level remained low at 123 and 127 mEq/L. Our treatment team wondered if lurasidone could be causing Mrs. G’s sodium levels to fall. Lurasidone was tapered over 3 days and discontinued. Repeat blood work showed that Mrs. G’s sodium levels soon returned to normal range. In January through March 2021, her sodium levels were 138, 139, and 136 mEq/L, all of which were within normal range. This confirmed our suspicion that lurasidone had caused the hyponatremia, though briefly it may have been made worse by escitalopram. Currently, Mrs. G is stable on perphenazine, 4 mg twice a day, divalproex, 500 mg/d, temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, and melatonin, 5 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion...

 

 

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) secretion can result in hyponatremia. Classes of medications that can cause SIADH include antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cytotoxic agents, and pain medications.⁵ The class of drugs most commonly associated with SIADH is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly citalopram.⁵ Among the antipsychotics, risperidone is most associated with hyponatremia. The proposed mechanism of medication-induced SIADH is an increase in the release of ADH.⁶ Treatment options include discontinuing the offending medication(s) or switching to a different medication.

Hyponatremia is a rare adverse effect of lurasidone, with a reported incidence <1%.⁷ Although hyponatremia is potentially life-threatening, there is no recommendation to routinely monitor sodium levels in patients treated with lurasidone or other psychotropics, and patients who are prescribed lurasidone are not routinely monitored for sodium deficiency. Table 3^8,9 outlines risk factors for developing hyponatremia among patients taking psychotropic medications.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact letters@currentpsychiatry.com.

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder, often with onset at a young age. An estimated 4.4% of US adults experience bipolar disorder at some time in their lives.¹ According to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the past-year prevalence of bipolar disorder in adults age ≥60 is 0.7%.¹ An estimated 83% of people with bipolar disorder have serious impairment, which is the highest percentage of serious impairment among mood disorders.¹ Bipolar I disorder affects men and women equally, whereas bipolar II disorder seems to occur more frequently in women.² Symptoms of bipolar disorder include episodes of mania, depression, and mixed states.²

A variety of medications—including mood stabilizers, lithium, and antipsychotics (Table 1,^3,4 and Table 2,⁴)—and somatic treatments such as electro­convulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation are used to manage the depressive and manic/mixed episodes of bipolar disorder. Treatment should be individualized based on the patient’s symptom severity, sensitivity, response to treatment, and preferences.

Continue to: CASE REPORT...

CASE REPORT

Mrs. G, age 65, lives with her husband. She has a history of bipolar disorder, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension associated with hyperaldosteronism, and obesity, for which she has undergone bariatric surgery. Symptoms of bipolar disorder started when she was in her 30s, following the death of her father. Her initial symptoms included depressed mood, anger, irritability, difficulty sleeping, racing thoughts, and impulsive spending. She did not have any suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation. She did not have anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. For some time, she took perphenazine, 16 mg/d, divalproex sodium, 1,500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime. These doses were reduced as her mood stabilized. Over time, divalproex sodium was tapered and discontinued, and perphenazine was reduced to 4 mg/d at bedtime. Lithium was tried briefly but discontinued because Mrs. G did not tolerate it well. She has never been hospitalized for mental health issues, but did have one emergency department visit a very long time ago. She has no history of suicide attempts, and there is no family history of completed suicide. There is a family history of bipolar disorder in her mother.

Mrs. G was born and raised outside the United States in a stable, two-parent home. She had no maltreatment during childhood. She has a bachelor’s degree and was employed. She is a social drinker, with no history of treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Mrs. G was stable on perphenazine, 4 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d, until 5 years ago. In 2016, she became concerned about her weight and overall health, and underwent bariatric surgery (gastric sleeve). After this surgery, Mrs. G experienced changes in mood and thought. She felt paranoid and had ideas of reference, social sensitivity, increased irritability, and poor self-esteem. Perphenazine was discontinued, divalproex was reintroduced, and lurasidone was started. Lurasidone was titrated up to 120 mg/d, and divalproex up to 1,500 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued for her insomnia. She also occasionally took over-the-counter melatonin, 5 to 10 mg, as needed for insomnia.

Mrs. G improved on this combination, and became stable and euthymic in September 2017. Other than a brief hypomanic episode in Spring 2018 that resolved quickly, she remained euthymic. During routine follow-up visits, Mrs. G’s nephrologist noticed that her sodium levels had been fluctuating. Mrs. G said her nephrologist was not sure exactly what was causing these fluctuations, and she continued to take the same medications.

In June 2018, Mrs. G developed tremors, slowing, and lethargy. Lurasidone was gradually reduced to 60 mg/d and divalproex to 750 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued. In July 2018, divalproex was further reduced to 500 mg/d because Mrs. G’s free valproic acid levels were elevated. In February 2019, lurasidone was further reduced to 40 mg/d due to blunted affect, and in April 2019, escitalopram, 10 mg/d, was added for symptoms of depression (off-label), and anxiety. In June 2019, Mrs. G’s sodium level was 127 mEq/L (reference range: 135 to 145 mEq/L). Because escitalopram can cause hyponatremia, it was discontinued in August 2019, but Mrs. G continued to take lurasidone, 40 mg/d, divalproex, 500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d.

In October and November 2020, Mrs. G’s sodium level remained low at 123 and 127 mEq/L. Our treatment team wondered if lurasidone could be causing Mrs. G’s sodium levels to fall. Lurasidone was tapered over 3 days and discontinued. Repeat blood work showed that Mrs. G’s sodium levels soon returned to normal range. In January through March 2021, her sodium levels were 138, 139, and 136 mEq/L, all of which were within normal range. This confirmed our suspicion that lurasidone had caused the hyponatremia, though briefly it may have been made worse by escitalopram. Currently, Mrs. G is stable on perphenazine, 4 mg twice a day, divalproex, 500 mg/d, temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, and melatonin, 5 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion...

 

 

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) secretion can result in hyponatremia. Classes of medications that can cause SIADH include antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cytotoxic agents, and pain medications.⁵ The class of drugs most commonly associated with SIADH is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly citalopram.⁵ Among the antipsychotics, risperidone is most associated with hyponatremia. The proposed mechanism of medication-induced SIADH is an increase in the release of ADH.⁶ Treatment options include discontinuing the offending medication(s) or switching to a different medication.

Hyponatremia is a rare adverse effect of lurasidone, with a reported incidence <1%.⁷ Although hyponatremia is potentially life-threatening, there is no recommendation to routinely monitor sodium levels in patients treated with lurasidone or other psychotropics, and patients who are prescribed lurasidone are not routinely monitored for sodium deficiency. Table 3^8,9 outlines risk factors for developing hyponatremia among patients taking psychotropic medications.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact letters@currentpsychiatry.com.

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder, often with onset at a young age. An estimated 4.4% of US adults experience bipolar disorder at some time in their lives.¹ According to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the past-year prevalence of bipolar disorder in adults age ≥60 is 0.7%.¹ An estimated 83% of people with bipolar disorder have serious impairment, which is the highest percentage of serious impairment among mood disorders.¹ Bipolar I disorder affects men and women equally, whereas bipolar II disorder seems to occur more frequently in women.² Symptoms of bipolar disorder include episodes of mania, depression, and mixed states.²

A variety of medications—including mood stabilizers, lithium, and antipsychotics (Table 1,^3,4 and Table 2,⁴)—and somatic treatments such as electro­convulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation are used to manage the depressive and manic/mixed episodes of bipolar disorder. Treatment should be individualized based on the patient’s symptom severity, sensitivity, response to treatment, and preferences.

Continue to: CASE REPORT...

CASE REPORT

Mrs. G, age 65, lives with her husband. She has a history of bipolar disorder, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension associated with hyperaldosteronism, and obesity, for which she has undergone bariatric surgery. Symptoms of bipolar disorder started when she was in her 30s, following the death of her father. Her initial symptoms included depressed mood, anger, irritability, difficulty sleeping, racing thoughts, and impulsive spending. She did not have any suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation. She did not have anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. For some time, she took perphenazine, 16 mg/d, divalproex sodium, 1,500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime. These doses were reduced as her mood stabilized. Over time, divalproex sodium was tapered and discontinued, and perphenazine was reduced to 4 mg/d at bedtime. Lithium was tried briefly but discontinued because Mrs. G did not tolerate it well. She has never been hospitalized for mental health issues, but did have one emergency department visit a very long time ago. She has no history of suicide attempts, and there is no family history of completed suicide. There is a family history of bipolar disorder in her mother.

Mrs. G was born and raised outside the United States in a stable, two-parent home. She had no maltreatment during childhood. She has a bachelor’s degree and was employed. She is a social drinker, with no history of treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Mrs. G was stable on perphenazine, 4 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d, until 5 years ago. In 2016, she became concerned about her weight and overall health, and underwent bariatric surgery (gastric sleeve). After this surgery, Mrs. G experienced changes in mood and thought. She felt paranoid and had ideas of reference, social sensitivity, increased irritability, and poor self-esteem. Perphenazine was discontinued, divalproex was reintroduced, and lurasidone was started. Lurasidone was titrated up to 120 mg/d, and divalproex up to 1,500 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued for her insomnia. She also occasionally took over-the-counter melatonin, 5 to 10 mg, as needed for insomnia.

Mrs. G improved on this combination, and became stable and euthymic in September 2017. Other than a brief hypomanic episode in Spring 2018 that resolved quickly, she remained euthymic. During routine follow-up visits, Mrs. G’s nephrologist noticed that her sodium levels had been fluctuating. Mrs. G said her nephrologist was not sure exactly what was causing these fluctuations, and she continued to take the same medications.

In June 2018, Mrs. G developed tremors, slowing, and lethargy. Lurasidone was gradually reduced to 60 mg/d and divalproex to 750 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued. In July 2018, divalproex was further reduced to 500 mg/d because Mrs. G’s free valproic acid levels were elevated. In February 2019, lurasidone was further reduced to 40 mg/d due to blunted affect, and in April 2019, escitalopram, 10 mg/d, was added for symptoms of depression (off-label), and anxiety. In June 2019, Mrs. G’s sodium level was 127 mEq/L (reference range: 135 to 145 mEq/L). Because escitalopram can cause hyponatremia, it was discontinued in August 2019, but Mrs. G continued to take lurasidone, 40 mg/d, divalproex, 500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d.

In October and November 2020, Mrs. G’s sodium level remained low at 123 and 127 mEq/L. Our treatment team wondered if lurasidone could be causing Mrs. G’s sodium levels to fall. Lurasidone was tapered over 3 days and discontinued. Repeat blood work showed that Mrs. G’s sodium levels soon returned to normal range. In January through March 2021, her sodium levels were 138, 139, and 136 mEq/L, all of which were within normal range. This confirmed our suspicion that lurasidone had caused the hyponatremia, though briefly it may have been made worse by escitalopram. Currently, Mrs. G is stable on perphenazine, 4 mg twice a day, divalproex, 500 mg/d, temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, and melatonin, 5 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion...

 

 

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) secretion can result in hyponatremia. Classes of medications that can cause SIADH include antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cytotoxic agents, and pain medications.⁵ The class of drugs most commonly associated with SIADH is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly citalopram.⁵ Among the antipsychotics, risperidone is most associated with hyponatremia. The proposed mechanism of medication-induced SIADH is an increase in the release of ADH.⁶ Treatment options include discontinuing the offending medication(s) or switching to a different medication.

Hyponatremia is a rare adverse effect of lurasidone, with a reported incidence <1%.⁷ Although hyponatremia is potentially life-threatening, there is no recommendation to routinely monitor sodium levels in patients treated with lurasidone or other psychotropics, and patients who are prescribed lurasidone are not routinely monitored for sodium deficiency. Table 3^8,9 outlines risk factors for developing hyponatremia among patients taking psychotropic medications.

One of the most inspiring speeches ever made is Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” about ending discrimination and achieving social justice. Many of the tenets of that classic speech are relevant to psychiatric patients who have been subjected to discrimination and bias instead of the compassion and support that they deserve, as do patients with other medical disorders.

Like Rev. King, we all have dreams, spoken and unspoken. They may be related to our various goals or objectives as individuals, spouses, parents, professionals, friends, or citizens of the world. Here, I will elaborate on my dream as a psychiatric physician, educator, and researcher, with decades of experience treating thousands of patients, many of whom I followed for a long time. I have come to see the world through the eyes and painful journeys of suffering psychiatric patients.

Vision of a better world for our patients

So, here is my dream, comprised of multiple parts that many clinician-readers may have incorporated in their own dreams about psychiatry. I have a dream:

• that the ugly, stubborn stigma of mental illness evaporates and is replaced with empathy and compassion
• that genuine full parity be implemented for all psychiatric patients
• that the public becomes far more educated about their own mental health, and cognizant of psychiatric symptoms in their family members and friends, so they can urge them to promptly seek medical help. The public should be aware that the success rate of treating psychiatric disorders is similar to that of many general medical conditions, such as heart, lung, kidney, and liver diseases
• that psychiatry continues to evolve into a clinical neuroscience, respected and appreciated like its sister neurology, and emphasizing that all mental illnesses are biologically rooted in various brain circuits
• that neuroscience literacy among psychiatrists increases dramatically, while maintaining our biopsychosocial clinical framework
• that federal funding for research into the causes and treatments of psychiatric disorders increases by an order of magnitude, to help accelerate the discovery of cures for disabling psychiatric disorders, which have a serious personal, societal, and financial toll
• that some of the many fabulously wealthy billionaires in this country (and around the world) adopt psychiatry as their favorite charity, and establish powerful and very well-funded research foundations to explore the brain and solve its mysteries in health and disease
• that effective treatments for and interventions to prevent alcohol and substance use disorders are discovered, including vaccines for alcoholism and other drugs of abuse. This would save countless lives lost to addiction
• that Medicare opens its huge wallet and supports thousands of additional residency training positions to address the serious shortage of psychiatrists
• that pharmaceutical companies, admittedly the only entities with the requisite infrastructure to develop new drugs for psychiatry, be creatively incentivized to discover drugs with new mechanisms of action to effectively treat psychiatric conditions for which there are no FDA-approved medications, such as the negative symptoms and cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, personality disorders (such as borderline personality), autism, and Alzheimer’s disease
• that the jailing, incarceration, and criminalization of patients with serious mental illness ceases immediately and is replaced with hospitalization and dignified medical treatment instead of prison sentences with murders and rapists. Building more hospitals instead of more prisons is the civilized and ethical approach to psychiatric brain disorders
• that the public recognizes that persons suffering from schizophrenia are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators. Tell that to the misguided media
• that clinicians in primary care specialties, where up to 50% of patients have a diagnosable and treatable psychiatric illness, be much better trained in psychiatry during their residency. Currently, residents in family medicine, general internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics/gynecology receive 0 months to 1 month of psychiatry in their 4 years of training. Many are unable to handle the large number of psychiatric disorders in their patients. In addition, psychiatrists and primary care physicians should be colocalized so psychiatric and primary care patients can both benefit from true collaborative care, because many are dually afflicted
• that the syndemic¹ (ie, multiple epidemics) that often is effectively addressed for the sake of our patients and society at large. The ongoing syndemic includes poverty, child abuse, human trafficking, domestic violence, racism, suicide, gun violence, broken families, and social media addiction across all ages
• that psychiatric practitioners embrace and adopt validated rating scales in their practice to quantify the severity of the patient’s illness and adverse effects at each visit, and to assess the degree of improvement in both. Measurement is at the foundation of science. Psychiatry will be a stronger medical specialty with measurement-based practice
• that licensing boards stop discriminating against physicians who have recovered from a psychiatric disorder or addiction. This form of stigma is destructive to the functioning of highly trained medical professionals who recover with treatment and can return to work
• that the number of psychiatric hospital beds in the country is significantly expanded to accommodate the high demand, and that psychiatric wards in general hospitals not be repurposed for more lucrative, procedure-oriented programs
• that insurance companies stop the absurdity of authorizing only 3 to 4 days for the inpatient treatment of patients who are acutely psychotic, manic, or suicidally depressed. It is impossible for such serious brain disorders to improve rapidly. This leads to discharging patients who are still unstable and who might relapse quickly after discharge, risking harm to themselves, or ending up in jail
• that HIPAA laws are revised to allow psychiatrists to collect or exchange information about ailing adult members of the family. Collateral information is a vital component of psychiatric evaluation, and its prohibition can be harmful to the patient. The family often is the most likely support system for the mentally ill individual, and must be informed about what their family member needs after discharge
• that long-acting antipsychotics are used very early and widely to prevent the tragic consequences of psychotic relapses,² and long-lasting antidepressants are developed to prevent the relapse and risk of suicide in many patients who stop their antidepressant medication once they feel better, and do not recognize that like hypertension or diabetes, depression requires ongoing pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse
• that the time to get a court order for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to acutely psychotic patients is reduced to 1 day because a large body of published evidence shows that a longer duration of untreated psychosis has a deleterious neurotoxic effect on the brain, worsening outcomes and prognosis.³ The legal system should catch up with scientific findings.

Just as Martin Luther King’s dream resonated loudly for decades and led to salutary legal and societal changes, I hope that what I dream about will eventually become reality. My dream is shared by all my fellow psychiatrists, and it will come true if we unite, lobby continuously, and advocate vigorously for our patients and our noble profession. I am sure we shall overcome our challenges someday.

One of the most inspiring speeches ever made is Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” about ending discrimination and achieving social justice. Many of the tenets of that classic speech are relevant to psychiatric patients who have been subjected to discrimination and bias instead of the compassion and support that they deserve, as do patients with other medical disorders.

Like Rev. King, we all have dreams, spoken and unspoken. They may be related to our various goals or objectives as individuals, spouses, parents, professionals, friends, or citizens of the world. Here, I will elaborate on my dream as a psychiatric physician, educator, and researcher, with decades of experience treating thousands of patients, many of whom I followed for a long time. I have come to see the world through the eyes and painful journeys of suffering psychiatric patients.

Vision of a better world for our patients

So, here is my dream, comprised of multiple parts that many clinician-readers may have incorporated in their own dreams about psychiatry. I have a dream:

• that the ugly, stubborn stigma of mental illness evaporates and is replaced with empathy and compassion
• that genuine full parity be implemented for all psychiatric patients
• that the public becomes far more educated about their own mental health, and cognizant of psychiatric symptoms in their family members and friends, so they can urge them to promptly seek medical help. The public should be aware that the success rate of treating psychiatric disorders is similar to that of many general medical conditions, such as heart, lung, kidney, and liver diseases
• that psychiatry continues to evolve into a clinical neuroscience, respected and appreciated like its sister neurology, and emphasizing that all mental illnesses are biologically rooted in various brain circuits
• that neuroscience literacy among psychiatrists increases dramatically, while maintaining our biopsychosocial clinical framework
• that federal funding for research into the causes and treatments of psychiatric disorders increases by an order of magnitude, to help accelerate the discovery of cures for disabling psychiatric disorders, which have a serious personal, societal, and financial toll
• that some of the many fabulously wealthy billionaires in this country (and around the world) adopt psychiatry as their favorite charity, and establish powerful and very well-funded research foundations to explore the brain and solve its mysteries in health and disease
• that effective treatments for and interventions to prevent alcohol and substance use disorders are discovered, including vaccines for alcoholism and other drugs of abuse. This would save countless lives lost to addiction
• that Medicare opens its huge wallet and supports thousands of additional residency training positions to address the serious shortage of psychiatrists
• that pharmaceutical companies, admittedly the only entities with the requisite infrastructure to develop new drugs for psychiatry, be creatively incentivized to discover drugs with new mechanisms of action to effectively treat psychiatric conditions for which there are no FDA-approved medications, such as the negative symptoms and cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, personality disorders (such as borderline personality), autism, and Alzheimer’s disease
• that the jailing, incarceration, and criminalization of patients with serious mental illness ceases immediately and is replaced with hospitalization and dignified medical treatment instead of prison sentences with murders and rapists. Building more hospitals instead of more prisons is the civilized and ethical approach to psychiatric brain disorders
• that the public recognizes that persons suffering from schizophrenia are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators. Tell that to the misguided media
• that clinicians in primary care specialties, where up to 50% of patients have a diagnosable and treatable psychiatric illness, be much better trained in psychiatry during their residency. Currently, residents in family medicine, general internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics/gynecology receive 0 months to 1 month of psychiatry in their 4 years of training. Many are unable to handle the large number of psychiatric disorders in their patients. In addition, psychiatrists and primary care physicians should be colocalized so psychiatric and primary care patients can both benefit from true collaborative care, because many are dually afflicted
• that the syndemic¹ (ie, multiple epidemics) that often is effectively addressed for the sake of our patients and society at large. The ongoing syndemic includes poverty, child abuse, human trafficking, domestic violence, racism, suicide, gun violence, broken families, and social media addiction across all ages
• that psychiatric practitioners embrace and adopt validated rating scales in their practice to quantify the severity of the patient’s illness and adverse effects at each visit, and to assess the degree of improvement in both. Measurement is at the foundation of science. Psychiatry will be a stronger medical specialty with measurement-based practice
• that licensing boards stop discriminating against physicians who have recovered from a psychiatric disorder or addiction. This form of stigma is destructive to the functioning of highly trained medical professionals who recover with treatment and can return to work
• that the number of psychiatric hospital beds in the country is significantly expanded to accommodate the high demand, and that psychiatric wards in general hospitals not be repurposed for more lucrative, procedure-oriented programs
• that insurance companies stop the absurdity of authorizing only 3 to 4 days for the inpatient treatment of patients who are acutely psychotic, manic, or suicidally depressed. It is impossible for such serious brain disorders to improve rapidly. This leads to discharging patients who are still unstable and who might relapse quickly after discharge, risking harm to themselves, or ending up in jail
• that HIPAA laws are revised to allow psychiatrists to collect or exchange information about ailing adult members of the family. Collateral information is a vital component of psychiatric evaluation, and its prohibition can be harmful to the patient. The family often is the most likely support system for the mentally ill individual, and must be informed about what their family member needs after discharge
• that long-acting antipsychotics are used very early and widely to prevent the tragic consequences of psychotic relapses,² and long-lasting antidepressants are developed to prevent the relapse and risk of suicide in many patients who stop their antidepressant medication once they feel better, and do not recognize that like hypertension or diabetes, depression requires ongoing pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse
• that the time to get a court order for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to acutely psychotic patients is reduced to 1 day because a large body of published evidence shows that a longer duration of untreated psychosis has a deleterious neurotoxic effect on the brain, worsening outcomes and prognosis.³ The legal system should catch up with scientific findings.

Just as Martin Luther King’s dream resonated loudly for decades and led to salutary legal and societal changes, I hope that what I dream about will eventually become reality. My dream is shared by all my fellow psychiatrists, and it will come true if we unite, lobby continuously, and advocate vigorously for our patients and our noble profession. I am sure we shall overcome our challenges someday.

One of the most inspiring speeches ever made is Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” about ending discrimination and achieving social justice. Many of the tenets of that classic speech are relevant to psychiatric patients who have been subjected to discrimination and bias instead of the compassion and support that they deserve, as do patients with other medical disorders.

Like Rev. King, we all have dreams, spoken and unspoken. They may be related to our various goals or objectives as individuals, spouses, parents, professionals, friends, or citizens of the world. Here, I will elaborate on my dream as a psychiatric physician, educator, and researcher, with decades of experience treating thousands of patients, many of whom I followed for a long time. I have come to see the world through the eyes and painful journeys of suffering psychiatric patients.

Vision of a better world for our patients

So, here is my dream, comprised of multiple parts that many clinician-readers may have incorporated in their own dreams about psychiatry. I have a dream:

• that the ugly, stubborn stigma of mental illness evaporates and is replaced with empathy and compassion
• that genuine full parity be implemented for all psychiatric patients
• that the public becomes far more educated about their own mental health, and cognizant of psychiatric symptoms in their family members and friends, so they can urge them to promptly seek medical help. The public should be aware that the success rate of treating psychiatric disorders is similar to that of many general medical conditions, such as heart, lung, kidney, and liver diseases
• that psychiatry continues to evolve into a clinical neuroscience, respected and appreciated like its sister neurology, and emphasizing that all mental illnesses are biologically rooted in various brain circuits
• that neuroscience literacy among psychiatrists increases dramatically, while maintaining our biopsychosocial clinical framework
• that federal funding for research into the causes and treatments of psychiatric disorders increases by an order of magnitude, to help accelerate the discovery of cures for disabling psychiatric disorders, which have a serious personal, societal, and financial toll
• that some of the many fabulously wealthy billionaires in this country (and around the world) adopt psychiatry as their favorite charity, and establish powerful and very well-funded research foundations to explore the brain and solve its mysteries in health and disease
• that effective treatments for and interventions to prevent alcohol and substance use disorders are discovered, including vaccines for alcoholism and other drugs of abuse. This would save countless lives lost to addiction
• that Medicare opens its huge wallet and supports thousands of additional residency training positions to address the serious shortage of psychiatrists
• that pharmaceutical companies, admittedly the only entities with the requisite infrastructure to develop new drugs for psychiatry, be creatively incentivized to discover drugs with new mechanisms of action to effectively treat psychiatric conditions for which there are no FDA-approved medications, such as the negative symptoms and cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, personality disorders (such as borderline personality), autism, and Alzheimer’s disease
• that the jailing, incarceration, and criminalization of patients with serious mental illness ceases immediately and is replaced with hospitalization and dignified medical treatment instead of prison sentences with murders and rapists. Building more hospitals instead of more prisons is the civilized and ethical approach to psychiatric brain disorders
• that the public recognizes that persons suffering from schizophrenia are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators. Tell that to the misguided media
• that clinicians in primary care specialties, where up to 50% of patients have a diagnosable and treatable psychiatric illness, be much better trained in psychiatry during their residency. Currently, residents in family medicine, general internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics/gynecology receive 0 months to 1 month of psychiatry in their 4 years of training. Many are unable to handle the large number of psychiatric disorders in their patients. In addition, psychiatrists and primary care physicians should be colocalized so psychiatric and primary care patients can both benefit from true collaborative care, because many are dually afflicted
• that the syndemic¹ (ie, multiple epidemics) that often is effectively addressed for the sake of our patients and society at large. The ongoing syndemic includes poverty, child abuse, human trafficking, domestic violence, racism, suicide, gun violence, broken families, and social media addiction across all ages
• that psychiatric practitioners embrace and adopt validated rating scales in their practice to quantify the severity of the patient’s illness and adverse effects at each visit, and to assess the degree of improvement in both. Measurement is at the foundation of science. Psychiatry will be a stronger medical specialty with measurement-based practice
• that licensing boards stop discriminating against physicians who have recovered from a psychiatric disorder or addiction. This form of stigma is destructive to the functioning of highly trained medical professionals who recover with treatment and can return to work
• that the number of psychiatric hospital beds in the country is significantly expanded to accommodate the high demand, and that psychiatric wards in general hospitals not be repurposed for more lucrative, procedure-oriented programs
• that insurance companies stop the absurdity of authorizing only 3 to 4 days for the inpatient treatment of patients who are acutely psychotic, manic, or suicidally depressed. It is impossible for such serious brain disorders to improve rapidly. This leads to discharging patients who are still unstable and who might relapse quickly after discharge, risking harm to themselves, or ending up in jail
• that HIPAA laws are revised to allow psychiatrists to collect or exchange information about ailing adult members of the family. Collateral information is a vital component of psychiatric evaluation, and its prohibition can be harmful to the patient. The family often is the most likely support system for the mentally ill individual, and must be informed about what their family member needs after discharge
• that long-acting antipsychotics are used very early and widely to prevent the tragic consequences of psychotic relapses,² and long-lasting antidepressants are developed to prevent the relapse and risk of suicide in many patients who stop their antidepressant medication once they feel better, and do not recognize that like hypertension or diabetes, depression requires ongoing pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse
• that the time to get a court order for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to acutely psychotic patients is reduced to 1 day because a large body of published evidence shows that a longer duration of untreated psychosis has a deleterious neurotoxic effect on the brain, worsening outcomes and prognosis.³ The legal system should catch up with scientific findings.

Just as Martin Luther King’s dream resonated loudly for decades and led to salutary legal and societal changes, I hope that what I dream about will eventually become reality. My dream is shared by all my fellow psychiatrists, and it will come true if we unite, lobby continuously, and advocate vigorously for our patients and our noble profession. I am sure we shall overcome our challenges someday.

For this Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Maria A. Oquendo, MD, PhD. Dr. Oquendo is the Ruth Meltzer Professor and Chairman of Psychiatry at University of Pennsylvania and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Until 2016, she was Professor of Psychiatry and Vice Chairman for Education at Columbia University. In 2017, she was elected to the National Academy of Medicine, one of the highest honors in medicine. Dr. Oquendo has used positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to map brain abnormalities in mood disorders and suicidal behavior. Dr. Oquendo is Past President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the International Academy of Suicide Research, and the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP). She is President of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Board of Directors, Vice President of the College of International Neuropsychopharmacology, and has served on the National Institute of Mental Health’s Advisory Council. A recipient of multiple awards in the US, Europe, and South America, most recently, she received the Virginia Kneeland Award for Distinguished Women in Medicine (Columbia University 2016), the Award for Mood Disorders Research (ACP 2017), the Alexandra Symonds Award (APA 2017), the APA’s Research Award (2018), the Dolores Shockley Award (ACNP 2018), the Alexander Glassman Award (Columbia University 2021), and the Senior Investigator Klerman Award (Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance 2021).

Dr. Aftab: A major focus of your presidential year at APA was on prevention in psychiatry (especially suicide prevention), and working toward prevention through collaboration with colleagues in other medical specialties. What is your perspective on where our field presently stands in this regard?

Dr. Oquendo: There are more and more studies that focus on early childhood or pre-adolescence and the utility of intervening at the first sign of a potential issue. This is quite different from what was the case when I was training. Back then, the idea was that in many cases it was best to wait because kids might “grow out of it.” The implication was that care or intervention were “stigmatizing,” or that it could affect the child’s self-esteem and we wanted to “spare” the child. What we are learning now is that there are advantages of intervening early even if the issues are subtle, potentially preventing development of more serious problems down the line. Still, much work remains to be done. Because so many of the disorders we treat are in fact neurodevelopmental, we desperately need more investigators focused on childhood and adolescent mental health. We also need scientists to identify biomarkers that will permit identification of individuals at risk before the emergence of symptoms. Developing that workforce should be front and center if we are to make a dent in the rising rates of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Aftab: What do you see as some of the strengths of our profession?


Dr. Oquendo: Our profession’s recognition that the doctor-patient relationship remains a powerful element of healing is one of its greatest strengths. Psychiatry is the only area of medicine in which practitioners are students of the doctor-patient relationship. That provides an unparalleled ability to leverage it for good. Another strength is that many who enter psychiatry are humanists, so as a field, we are collectively engaged in working towards improving conditions for our patients and our community.



Dr. Aftab: Are there ways in which the status quo in psychiatry falls short of the ideal? What are our areas of relative weakness?


Dr. Oquendo: The most challenging issue that plagues psychiatry is not of our making, but we do have to address it. The ongoing lack of parity in the US and the insurance industry’s approach of using carve-outs and other strategies to keep psychiatry reimbursement low has led many, if not most, to practice on a cash basis only. This hurts our patients, but also our reputation among our medical colleagues. We need to use creative solutions and engage in advocacy to bring about change.



Dr. Aftab: What is your perception of the threats that psychiatry faces or is likely to face in the future?

Dr. Oquendo: An ongoing threat relates to the low reimbursement for psychiatric services, which tends to drive clinicians towards cash-based practices. Advocacy at the state and federal level as well as with large employers may be one strategy to remedy this inequity.


Dr. Aftab: What do you envision for the future of psychiatry? What sort of opportunities lie ahead for us?



Dr. Oquendo: The adoption of the advances in psychiatry that permit greater reach, such as the adoption of integrated mental health services, utilization of physician extenders, etc., has been slow in psychiatry, but I think the pace is accelerating. This is important because of an upcoming opportunity: the burgeoning need for our help. With stigma quickly decreasing and the younger generations being open about their needs and prioritization of mental health and wellness, it will be a new era, one in which we can make a huge difference in the health and quality of life of the population.

For this Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Maria A. Oquendo, MD, PhD. Dr. Oquendo is the Ruth Meltzer Professor and Chairman of Psychiatry at University of Pennsylvania and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Until 2016, she was Professor of Psychiatry and Vice Chairman for Education at Columbia University. In 2017, she was elected to the National Academy of Medicine, one of the highest honors in medicine. Dr. Oquendo has used positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to map brain abnormalities in mood disorders and suicidal behavior. Dr. Oquendo is Past President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the International Academy of Suicide Research, and the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP). She is President of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Board of Directors, Vice President of the College of International Neuropsychopharmacology, and has served on the National Institute of Mental Health’s Advisory Council. A recipient of multiple awards in the US, Europe, and South America, most recently, she received the Virginia Kneeland Award for Distinguished Women in Medicine (Columbia University 2016), the Award for Mood Disorders Research (ACP 2017), the Alexandra Symonds Award (APA 2017), the APA’s Research Award (2018), the Dolores Shockley Award (ACNP 2018), the Alexander Glassman Award (Columbia University 2021), and the Senior Investigator Klerman Award (Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance 2021).

Dr. Aftab: A major focus of your presidential year at APA was on prevention in psychiatry (especially suicide prevention), and working toward prevention through collaboration with colleagues in other medical specialties. What is your perspective on where our field presently stands in this regard?

Dr. Oquendo: There are more and more studies that focus on early childhood or pre-adolescence and the utility of intervening at the first sign of a potential issue. This is quite different from what was the case when I was training. Back then, the idea was that in many cases it was best to wait because kids might “grow out of it.” The implication was that care or intervention were “stigmatizing,” or that it could affect the child’s self-esteem and we wanted to “spare” the child. What we are learning now is that there are advantages of intervening early even if the issues are subtle, potentially preventing development of more serious problems down the line. Still, much work remains to be done. Because so many of the disorders we treat are in fact neurodevelopmental, we desperately need more investigators focused on childhood and adolescent mental health. We also need scientists to identify biomarkers that will permit identification of individuals at risk before the emergence of symptoms. Developing that workforce should be front and center if we are to make a dent in the rising rates of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Aftab: What do you see as some of the strengths of our profession?


Dr. Oquendo: Our profession’s recognition that the doctor-patient relationship remains a powerful element of healing is one of its greatest strengths. Psychiatry is the only area of medicine in which practitioners are students of the doctor-patient relationship. That provides an unparalleled ability to leverage it for good. Another strength is that many who enter psychiatry are humanists, so as a field, we are collectively engaged in working towards improving conditions for our patients and our community.



Dr. Aftab: Are there ways in which the status quo in psychiatry falls short of the ideal? What are our areas of relative weakness?


Dr. Oquendo: The most challenging issue that plagues psychiatry is not of our making, but we do have to address it. The ongoing lack of parity in the US and the insurance industry’s approach of using carve-outs and other strategies to keep psychiatry reimbursement low has led many, if not most, to practice on a cash basis only. This hurts our patients, but also our reputation among our medical colleagues. We need to use creative solutions and engage in advocacy to bring about change.



Dr. Aftab: What is your perception of the threats that psychiatry faces or is likely to face in the future?

Dr. Oquendo: An ongoing threat relates to the low reimbursement for psychiatric services, which tends to drive clinicians towards cash-based practices. Advocacy at the state and federal level as well as with large employers may be one strategy to remedy this inequity.


Dr. Aftab: What do you envision for the future of psychiatry? What sort of opportunities lie ahead for us?



Dr. Oquendo: The adoption of the advances in psychiatry that permit greater reach, such as the adoption of integrated mental health services, utilization of physician extenders, etc., has been slow in psychiatry, but I think the pace is accelerating. This is important because of an upcoming opportunity: the burgeoning need for our help. With stigma quickly decreasing and the younger generations being open about their needs and prioritization of mental health and wellness, it will be a new era, one in which we can make a huge difference in the health and quality of life of the population.

For this Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Maria A. Oquendo, MD, PhD. Dr. Oquendo is the Ruth Meltzer Professor and Chairman of Psychiatry at University of Pennsylvania and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Until 2016, she was Professor of Psychiatry and Vice Chairman for Education at Columbia University. In 2017, she was elected to the National Academy of Medicine, one of the highest honors in medicine. Dr. Oquendo has used positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to map brain abnormalities in mood disorders and suicidal behavior. Dr. Oquendo is Past President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the International Academy of Suicide Research, and the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP). She is President of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Board of Directors, Vice President of the College of International Neuropsychopharmacology, and has served on the National Institute of Mental Health’s Advisory Council. A recipient of multiple awards in the US, Europe, and South America, most recently, she received the Virginia Kneeland Award for Distinguished Women in Medicine (Columbia University 2016), the Award for Mood Disorders Research (ACP 2017), the Alexandra Symonds Award (APA 2017), the APA’s Research Award (2018), the Dolores Shockley Award (ACNP 2018), the Alexander Glassman Award (Columbia University 2021), and the Senior Investigator Klerman Award (Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance 2021).

Dr. Aftab: A major focus of your presidential year at APA was on prevention in psychiatry (especially suicide prevention), and working toward prevention through collaboration with colleagues in other medical specialties. What is your perspective on where our field presently stands in this regard?

Dr. Oquendo: There are more and more studies that focus on early childhood or pre-adolescence and the utility of intervening at the first sign of a potential issue. This is quite different from what was the case when I was training. Back then, the idea was that in many cases it was best to wait because kids might “grow out of it.” The implication was that care or intervention were “stigmatizing,” or that it could affect the child’s self-esteem and we wanted to “spare” the child. What we are learning now is that there are advantages of intervening early even if the issues are subtle, potentially preventing development of more serious problems down the line. Still, much work remains to be done. Because so many of the disorders we treat are in fact neurodevelopmental, we desperately need more investigators focused on childhood and adolescent mental health. We also need scientists to identify biomarkers that will permit identification of individuals at risk before the emergence of symptoms. Developing that workforce should be front and center if we are to make a dent in the rising rates of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Aftab: What do you see as some of the strengths of our profession?


Dr. Oquendo: Our profession’s recognition that the doctor-patient relationship remains a powerful element of healing is one of its greatest strengths. Psychiatry is the only area of medicine in which practitioners are students of the doctor-patient relationship. That provides an unparalleled ability to leverage it for good. Another strength is that many who enter psychiatry are humanists, so as a field, we are collectively engaged in working towards improving conditions for our patients and our community.



Dr. Aftab: Are there ways in which the status quo in psychiatry falls short of the ideal? What are our areas of relative weakness?


Dr. Oquendo: The most challenging issue that plagues psychiatry is not of our making, but we do have to address it. The ongoing lack of parity in the US and the insurance industry’s approach of using carve-outs and other strategies to keep psychiatry reimbursement low has led many, if not most, to practice on a cash basis only. This hurts our patients, but also our reputation among our medical colleagues. We need to use creative solutions and engage in advocacy to bring about change.



Dr. Aftab: What is your perception of the threats that psychiatry faces or is likely to face in the future?

Dr. Oquendo: An ongoing threat relates to the low reimbursement for psychiatric services, which tends to drive clinicians towards cash-based practices. Advocacy at the state and federal level as well as with large employers may be one strategy to remedy this inequity.


Dr. Aftab: What do you envision for the future of psychiatry? What sort of opportunities lie ahead for us?



Dr. Oquendo: The adoption of the advances in psychiatry that permit greater reach, such as the adoption of integrated mental health services, utilization of physician extenders, etc., has been slow in psychiatry, but I think the pace is accelerating. This is important because of an upcoming opportunity: the burgeoning need for our help. With stigma quickly decreasing and the younger generations being open about their needs and prioritization of mental health and wellness, it will be a new era, one in which we can make a huge difference in the health and quality of life of the population.

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.¹ These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.

The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.


Taking stock of the available information:

• If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
• The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
• Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
• Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.² Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
• Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
• Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
• Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.

Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:

• Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.³ Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
• Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
• Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.

In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.

References

1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.

2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.

3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.

Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.¹ These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.

The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.


Taking stock of the available information:

• If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
• The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
• Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
• Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.² Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
• Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
• Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
• Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.

Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:

• Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.³ Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
• Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
• Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.

In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.

References

1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.

2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.

3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.

Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.¹ These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.

The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.


Taking stock of the available information:

• If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
• The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
• Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
• Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.² Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
• Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
• Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
• Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.

Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:

• Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.³ Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
• Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
• Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.

In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.

References

1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.

2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.

3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.