Commentary

This year in the United States, there were an estimated 22,530 new cases of ovarian cancer and an estimated 13,980 ovarian cancer deaths.¹ Ovarian cancer accounts for more deaths than any other female reproductive system cancer.² The high mortality rate is attributed to the advanced stage of cancer at initial presentation: Women diagnosed with localized disease have an estimated 5-year survival rate of 92%, while those diagnosed with advanced disease have a 5-year survival rate of 29%.³ For this reason, early detection of ovarian cancer is paramount.

A Personal Story

I think about ovarian cancer every day, because I am a survivor of this deadly disease. In 2018, at age 53, I received the diagnosis of stage 1A high-grade serous carcinoma of the left ovary. My cancer was discovered incidentally: I presented to my health care provider with a 6-month history of metrorrhagia and a prior history of regular menstruation with dysmenorrhea controlled with ibuprofen. My family and personal history of cancer was negative, I had a normal BMI, I didn’t smoke and consumed alcohol only moderately, my lifestyle was active, and I had no chronic diseases and used no medications regularly. My clinician performed a pelvic exam and ordered sexually transmitted infection testing and blood work (complete blood count, metabolic panel, and TSH). The differential diagnosis at this point included

• Thyroid dysfunction
• Perimenopause
• Sexually transmitted infection
• Coagulation defect
• Foreign body
• Infection.

All testing yielded normal findings. At my follow-up appointment, we discussed perimenopause symptoms and agreed that I would continue monitoring the bleeding. If at a later date I wanted to pursue an ultrasound, I was instructed to call the office. It was not suggested that I schedule a follow-up office visit.

Several months later, persistent metrorrhagia prompted me to request a transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)—resulting in the discovery of a left adnexal solid mass and probable endometrial polyp. A referral to a gynecologic oncologist resulted in further imaging, which confirmed the TVU results. Surgical intervention was recommended.

One week later, I underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, left pelvic and periaortic lymph node dissection, and omentectomy. The pathology report confirmed stage 1A high-grade serous carcinoma of the left ovary, as well as stage 1A grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus. I required 6 cycles of chemotherapy before follow-up imaging yielded negative results, with no evidence of metastatic disease.

A Call to Action

The recently updated US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines continue not to recommend annual screening with TVU and/or cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) blood testing for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk women. A review of the evidence found no mortality benefit and high false-positive rates, which led to unnecessary surgeries and physiologic stress due to excess cancer worry.⁴ This (lack of) recommendation leaves the clinician in the position of not performing or ordering screening tests, except in cases in which the patient presents with symptoms or requests screening for ovarian cancer.

Yet it cannot be overstated: The clinician’s role in identifying risk factors for and recognizing symptoms of ovarian cancer is extremely important in the absence of routine screening recommendations. Risk factors include a positive family history of gynecologic, breast, or colon cancers; genetic predisposition; personal history of breast cancer; use of menopausal hormone therapy; excess body weight; smoking; and sedentary lifestyle.³ In my case, my risk for ovarian cancer was average.

Continue to: With regard to symptoms...

With regard to symptoms, most women do not report any until ovarian cancer has reached advanced stages—and even then, the symptoms are vague and nonspecific.⁵ They may include urinary urgency or frequency; change in bowel habit; difficulty eating or feeling full quickly; persistent back, pelvic, or abdominal pain; extreme tiredness; vaginal bleeding after menopause; increased abdominal size; or bloating on most days.⁵

So what can we as clinicians do? First, if I may offer a word of caution: When confronted with those vague and nonspecific symptoms, be careful not to dismiss them out of hand as a result of aging, stress, or menopause. As my case demonstrates, for example, metrorrhagia is not necessarily a benign condition for the premenopausal woman.

Furthermore, we can empower patients by educating them about ovarian cancer symptoms and risk factors, information that may promote help-seeking behaviors that aid in early detection. In my case, the continued symptom of abnormal uterine bleeding prompted me to seek further assessment, which led to the discovery of ovarian cancer. Had I not been an educated and empowered patient, I would be telling a completely different story today—most likely one that would include advanced staging. Partner with your patient to discuss available diagnostic testing options and schedule follow-up appointments to monitor presenting complaints.

We also need to partner with our oncology colleagues and researchers. A positive diagnostic test result for possible malignancy necessitates referral to a gynecologic oncologist. Treatment by specialists in high-volume hospitals results in improved ovarian cancer outcomes.⁶ And we should advocate for continued research to support the discovery of an efficient population screening protocol for this deadly disease.

Finally, and perhaps most radically, I encourage you not to take a watch-and-wait approach in these situations. Ultrasounds are inexpensive, have low mortality risk, and achieve high sensitivity and specificity in detecting and managing adnexal abnormalities.⁷ In my opinion, the endorsement of TVU testing in this clinical situation is a proactive, prudent, and reasonable action compared with watching and waiting, and it may result in early detection as opposed to advanced disease.

Continue to: I hope that...

I hope that sharing my personal experience with ovarian cancer will compel health care providers to consider this disease as a differential diagnosis and perform appropriate testing when average-risk patients present with nonspecific symptoms. Ultimately, our collective goal should be to increase the survival rate and reduce the suffering associated with ovarian cancer.

This year in the United States, there were an estimated 22,530 new cases of ovarian cancer and an estimated 13,980 ovarian cancer deaths.¹ Ovarian cancer accounts for more deaths than any other female reproductive system cancer.² The high mortality rate is attributed to the advanced stage of cancer at initial presentation: Women diagnosed with localized disease have an estimated 5-year survival rate of 92%, while those diagnosed with advanced disease have a 5-year survival rate of 29%.³ For this reason, early detection of ovarian cancer is paramount.

A Personal Story

I think about ovarian cancer every day, because I am a survivor of this deadly disease. In 2018, at age 53, I received the diagnosis of stage 1A high-grade serous carcinoma of the left ovary. My cancer was discovered incidentally: I presented to my health care provider with a 6-month history of metrorrhagia and a prior history of regular menstruation with dysmenorrhea controlled with ibuprofen. My family and personal history of cancer was negative, I had a normal BMI, I didn’t smoke and consumed alcohol only moderately, my lifestyle was active, and I had no chronic diseases and used no medications regularly. My clinician performed a pelvic exam and ordered sexually transmitted infection testing and blood work (complete blood count, metabolic panel, and TSH). The differential diagnosis at this point included

• Thyroid dysfunction
• Perimenopause
• Sexually transmitted infection
• Coagulation defect
• Foreign body
• Infection.

All testing yielded normal findings. At my follow-up appointment, we discussed perimenopause symptoms and agreed that I would continue monitoring the bleeding. If at a later date I wanted to pursue an ultrasound, I was instructed to call the office. It was not suggested that I schedule a follow-up office visit.

Several months later, persistent metrorrhagia prompted me to request a transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)—resulting in the discovery of a left adnexal solid mass and probable endometrial polyp. A referral to a gynecologic oncologist resulted in further imaging, which confirmed the TVU results. Surgical intervention was recommended.

One week later, I underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, left pelvic and periaortic lymph node dissection, and omentectomy. The pathology report confirmed stage 1A high-grade serous carcinoma of the left ovary, as well as stage 1A grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus. I required 6 cycles of chemotherapy before follow-up imaging yielded negative results, with no evidence of metastatic disease.

A Call to Action

The recently updated US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines continue not to recommend annual screening with TVU and/or cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) blood testing for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk women. A review of the evidence found no mortality benefit and high false-positive rates, which led to unnecessary surgeries and physiologic stress due to excess cancer worry.⁴ This (lack of) recommendation leaves the clinician in the position of not performing or ordering screening tests, except in cases in which the patient presents with symptoms or requests screening for ovarian cancer.

Yet it cannot be overstated: The clinician’s role in identifying risk factors for and recognizing symptoms of ovarian cancer is extremely important in the absence of routine screening recommendations. Risk factors include a positive family history of gynecologic, breast, or colon cancers; genetic predisposition; personal history of breast cancer; use of menopausal hormone therapy; excess body weight; smoking; and sedentary lifestyle.³ In my case, my risk for ovarian cancer was average.

Continue to: With regard to symptoms...

With regard to symptoms, most women do not report any until ovarian cancer has reached advanced stages—and even then, the symptoms are vague and nonspecific.⁵ They may include urinary urgency or frequency; change in bowel habit; difficulty eating or feeling full quickly; persistent back, pelvic, or abdominal pain; extreme tiredness; vaginal bleeding after menopause; increased abdominal size; or bloating on most days.⁵

So what can we as clinicians do? First, if I may offer a word of caution: When confronted with those vague and nonspecific symptoms, be careful not to dismiss them out of hand as a result of aging, stress, or menopause. As my case demonstrates, for example, metrorrhagia is not necessarily a benign condition for the premenopausal woman.

Furthermore, we can empower patients by educating them about ovarian cancer symptoms and risk factors, information that may promote help-seeking behaviors that aid in early detection. In my case, the continued symptom of abnormal uterine bleeding prompted me to seek further assessment, which led to the discovery of ovarian cancer. Had I not been an educated and empowered patient, I would be telling a completely different story today—most likely one that would include advanced staging. Partner with your patient to discuss available diagnostic testing options and schedule follow-up appointments to monitor presenting complaints.

We also need to partner with our oncology colleagues and researchers. A positive diagnostic test result for possible malignancy necessitates referral to a gynecologic oncologist. Treatment by specialists in high-volume hospitals results in improved ovarian cancer outcomes.⁶ And we should advocate for continued research to support the discovery of an efficient population screening protocol for this deadly disease.

Finally, and perhaps most radically, I encourage you not to take a watch-and-wait approach in these situations. Ultrasounds are inexpensive, have low mortality risk, and achieve high sensitivity and specificity in detecting and managing adnexal abnormalities.⁷ In my opinion, the endorsement of TVU testing in this clinical situation is a proactive, prudent, and reasonable action compared with watching and waiting, and it may result in early detection as opposed to advanced disease.

Continue to: I hope that...

I hope that sharing my personal experience with ovarian cancer will compel health care providers to consider this disease as a differential diagnosis and perform appropriate testing when average-risk patients present with nonspecific symptoms. Ultimately, our collective goal should be to increase the survival rate and reduce the suffering associated with ovarian cancer.

This year in the United States, there were an estimated 22,530 new cases of ovarian cancer and an estimated 13,980 ovarian cancer deaths.¹ Ovarian cancer accounts for more deaths than any other female reproductive system cancer.² The high mortality rate is attributed to the advanced stage of cancer at initial presentation: Women diagnosed with localized disease have an estimated 5-year survival rate of 92%, while those diagnosed with advanced disease have a 5-year survival rate of 29%.³ For this reason, early detection of ovarian cancer is paramount.

A Personal Story

I think about ovarian cancer every day, because I am a survivor of this deadly disease. In 2018, at age 53, I received the diagnosis of stage 1A high-grade serous carcinoma of the left ovary. My cancer was discovered incidentally: I presented to my health care provider with a 6-month history of metrorrhagia and a prior history of regular menstruation with dysmenorrhea controlled with ibuprofen. My family and personal history of cancer was negative, I had a normal BMI, I didn’t smoke and consumed alcohol only moderately, my lifestyle was active, and I had no chronic diseases and used no medications regularly. My clinician performed a pelvic exam and ordered sexually transmitted infection testing and blood work (complete blood count, metabolic panel, and TSH). The differential diagnosis at this point included

• Thyroid dysfunction
• Perimenopause
• Sexually transmitted infection
• Coagulation defect
• Foreign body
• Infection.

All testing yielded normal findings. At my follow-up appointment, we discussed perimenopause symptoms and agreed that I would continue monitoring the bleeding. If at a later date I wanted to pursue an ultrasound, I was instructed to call the office. It was not suggested that I schedule a follow-up office visit.

Several months later, persistent metrorrhagia prompted me to request a transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)—resulting in the discovery of a left adnexal solid mass and probable endometrial polyp. A referral to a gynecologic oncologist resulted in further imaging, which confirmed the TVU results. Surgical intervention was recommended.

One week later, I underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, left pelvic and periaortic lymph node dissection, and omentectomy. The pathology report confirmed stage 1A high-grade serous carcinoma of the left ovary, as well as stage 1A grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus. I required 6 cycles of chemotherapy before follow-up imaging yielded negative results, with no evidence of metastatic disease.

A Call to Action

The recently updated US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines continue not to recommend annual screening with TVU and/or cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) blood testing for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk women. A review of the evidence found no mortality benefit and high false-positive rates, which led to unnecessary surgeries and physiologic stress due to excess cancer worry.⁴ This (lack of) recommendation leaves the clinician in the position of not performing or ordering screening tests, except in cases in which the patient presents with symptoms or requests screening for ovarian cancer.

Yet it cannot be overstated: The clinician’s role in identifying risk factors for and recognizing symptoms of ovarian cancer is extremely important in the absence of routine screening recommendations. Risk factors include a positive family history of gynecologic, breast, or colon cancers; genetic predisposition; personal history of breast cancer; use of menopausal hormone therapy; excess body weight; smoking; and sedentary lifestyle.³ In my case, my risk for ovarian cancer was average.

Continue to: With regard to symptoms...

With regard to symptoms, most women do not report any until ovarian cancer has reached advanced stages—and even then, the symptoms are vague and nonspecific.⁵ They may include urinary urgency or frequency; change in bowel habit; difficulty eating or feeling full quickly; persistent back, pelvic, or abdominal pain; extreme tiredness; vaginal bleeding after menopause; increased abdominal size; or bloating on most days.⁵

So what can we as clinicians do? First, if I may offer a word of caution: When confronted with those vague and nonspecific symptoms, be careful not to dismiss them out of hand as a result of aging, stress, or menopause. As my case demonstrates, for example, metrorrhagia is not necessarily a benign condition for the premenopausal woman.

Furthermore, we can empower patients by educating them about ovarian cancer symptoms and risk factors, information that may promote help-seeking behaviors that aid in early detection. In my case, the continued symptom of abnormal uterine bleeding prompted me to seek further assessment, which led to the discovery of ovarian cancer. Had I not been an educated and empowered patient, I would be telling a completely different story today—most likely one that would include advanced staging. Partner with your patient to discuss available diagnostic testing options and schedule follow-up appointments to monitor presenting complaints.

We also need to partner with our oncology colleagues and researchers. A positive diagnostic test result for possible malignancy necessitates referral to a gynecologic oncologist. Treatment by specialists in high-volume hospitals results in improved ovarian cancer outcomes.⁶ And we should advocate for continued research to support the discovery of an efficient population screening protocol for this deadly disease.

Finally, and perhaps most radically, I encourage you not to take a watch-and-wait approach in these situations. Ultrasounds are inexpensive, have low mortality risk, and achieve high sensitivity and specificity in detecting and managing adnexal abnormalities.⁷ In my opinion, the endorsement of TVU testing in this clinical situation is a proactive, prudent, and reasonable action compared with watching and waiting, and it may result in early detection as opposed to advanced disease.

Continue to: I hope that...

I hope that sharing my personal experience with ovarian cancer will compel health care providers to consider this disease as a differential diagnosis and perform appropriate testing when average-risk patients present with nonspecific symptoms. Ultimately, our collective goal should be to increase the survival rate and reduce the suffering associated with ovarian cancer.

A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.

In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.

In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),¹ which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.² Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.³ VNS⁴ remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.

It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.

Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”⁵ and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”⁶Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.

We are now in a renaissance period⁷ where psychedelic drugs are being reestablished as a new approach to very important public health problems. With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study⁸ with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.

Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,⁹ as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.¹⁰ It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.

The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,¹¹ the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.¹² The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide¹³ (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.

Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.

References

1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.

2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.

3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.

4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.

5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.

6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).

7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.

8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.

9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.

10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.

11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.

12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.

13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.

*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.

A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.

In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.

In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),¹ which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.² Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.³ VNS⁴ remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.

It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.

Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”⁵ and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”⁶Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.

We are now in a renaissance period⁷ where psychedelic drugs are being reestablished as a new approach to very important public health problems. With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study⁸ with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.

Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,⁹ as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.¹⁰ It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.

The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,¹¹ the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.¹² The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide¹³ (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.

Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.

References

1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.

2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.

3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.

4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.

5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.

6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).

7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.

8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.

9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.

10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.

11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.

12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.

13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.

*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.

A significant proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) either do not respond or have partial responses to the currently available Food and Drug Administration–approved antidepressants.

In controlled clinical trials, there is about a 40%-60% symptom remission rate with a 20%-40% remission rate in community-based treatment settings. Not only do those medications lack efficacy in treating MDD, but there are currently no cures for this debilitating illness. As a result, many patients with MDD continue to suffer.

In response to those poor outcomes, researchers and clinicians have developed algorithms aimed at diagnosing the condition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD),¹ which enable opportunities for various treatment methods.² Several studies underway across the United States are testing what some might consider medically invasive procedures, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). ECT often is considered the gold standard of treatment response, but it requires anesthesia, induces a convulsion, and needs a willing patient and clinician. DBS has been used more widely in neurological treatment of movement disorders. Pioneering neurosurgical treatment for TRD reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that DBS of an area in the brain called the subcallosal cingulate produces clear and apparently sustained antidepressant effects.³ VNS⁴ remains an experimental treatment for MDD. TMS is safe, noninvasive, and approved by the FDA for depression, but responses appear similar to those with usual antidepressants.

It is not surprising, given those outcomes, that ketamine was fast-tracked in 2016. The enthusiasm related to ketamine’s effect on MDD and TRD has grown over time as more research findings reach the public. While it is unknown how ketamine affects the biological neural network, a single intravenous dose of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) in patients diagnosed with TRD can lead to improved depression symptoms outcomes within a few hours – and those effects were sustained in 65%-70% of patients at 24 hours. Antidepressants take many weeks to show effects. Ketamine’s exciting findings also offered hope to clinicians and patients trying to manage suicidal thoughts and plans. Ketamine was quickly approved by the FDA as a nasal spray medication.

Now, in another encouraging development, the FDA has granted the Usona Institute Breakthrough Therapy designation for psilocybin for the treatment of MDD. The medical benefits of psilocybin, or “magic mushrooms,” has a long empirical history in our literature. Most recently, psilocybin was featured on “60 Minutes,”⁵ and in his book, “How to Change Your Mind,”⁶Michael Pollan details how psychedelic drugs where used to investigate and treat psychiatric disorders until the 1960s, when street use and unsupervised administration led to restrictions on their research and clinical use.

We are now in a renaissance period⁷ where psychedelic drugs are being reestablished as a new approach to very important public health problems. With protocol-driven specific trials, they might become critical medications for a wide range of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and addictions. Exciting findings are coming from Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, and his team at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. In a recent study⁸ with cancer patients suffering from depression and anxiety, carefully administered, specific and supervised high doses of psilocybin produced decreases in depression and anxiety, and increases in quality of life and life meaning attitudes. Those improved attitudes, behavior, and responses were sustained by 80% of the sample 6 months post treatment.

Dr. Griffiths’ center is collaborating with Usona, and this collaboration should result in specific guidelines for dose, safety, and protection against abuse and diversion,⁹ as the study and FDA trials for ketamine have as well.¹⁰ It is very encouraging that psychedelic drugs are receiving fast-track designations, and this development reflects a shift in the risk-benefit considerations taking place in our society. Changing attitudes about depression and other psychiatric diseases are encouraging new approaches and new treatments. Psychiatric suffering and pain are being prioritized in research and appreciated by the general public as devastating. Serious, random assignment placebo-controlled and double- blind research studies will define just how valuable these medications might be, what is the safe dose and duration, and for whom they might prove more effective than existing treatments.

The process will take some time. And it is worth remembering that, although research has been promising,¹¹ the number of patients studied, research design, and outcomes are not yet proven for psilosybin.¹² The FDA fast-track makes sense, and the agency should continue supporting these efforts for psychedelics. In fact, we think the FDA also should support the promising trials of nitrous oxide¹³ (laughing gas), and other safe and novel approaches to successfully treat refractory depression. While we wait for personalized psychiatric medicines to be developed and validated through the long process of FDA approval, we will at least have a larger suite of treatment options to match patients with, along with some new algorithms that treat MDD,* TRD, and other disorders just are around the corner.

Dr. Patterson Silver Wolf is an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis’s Brown School of Social Work. He is a training faculty member for two National Institutes of Health–funded (T32) training programs and serves as the director of the Community Academic Partnership on Addiction (CAPA). He’s chief research officer at the new CAPA Clinic, a teaching addiction treatment facility that is incorporating and testing various performance-based practice technology tools to respond to the opioid crisis and improve addiction treatment outcomes. Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He has written several books and published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, texts, and practice guidelines.

References

1. Sackeim HA et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;113:125-36.

2. Conway CR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 25 Nov;76(11):1569-70.

3. Crowell AL et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.1176.appi.ajp.2019.18121427.

4. Kumar A et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Feb 13;15:457-68.

5. Psilocybin sessions: Psychedelics could help people with addiction and anxiety. “60 Minutes” CBS News. 2019 Oct 13.

6. Pollan M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (Penguin Random House, 2018).

7. Nutt D. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(2):139-47.

8. Griffiths RR et al. J Psychopharmacol 2016 Dec;30(12):1181-97.

9. Johnson MW et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Nov;142:143-66.

10. Schwenk ES et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Jul;43(5):456-66.

11. Johnson MW et al. Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Jul;14(3):734-40.

12. Mutonni S et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Nov.1;258:11-24.

13. Nagele P et al. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018 Apr;38(2):144-8.

*Correction, 1/9/2020: An earlier version of this story misidentified the intended disease state.

Family physicians try to base treatment decisions on the very best available evidence from randomized trials and other high-quality studies. Very often, however, the evidence is not conclusive. Family physicians are confronted with questions about a wide variety of treatments that may or may not be effective. The classic example for me is the use of chondroitin sulfate/glucosamine for knee osteoarthritis. The preponderance of evidence tells us it is not effective, but one long-term clinical trial did find some benefit.¹ And some patients swear by it!

In this issue of JFP, we have 2 articles that fall into this category: 1 by Hahn about the treatment of asthma with macrolides and the other by Sorsby et al about use of positive airway pressure (PAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

The article by Hahn is an extensive literature review regarding the effectiveness of macrolides for asthma. Despite 2 meta-analyses and many clinical trials, the results are not conclusive; but they are highly suggestive that macrolides may benefit patients with new-onset asthma and severe asthma that does not respond completely to mainstream treatments. Why don't we have conclusive evidence? Because the right studies have not been done. Most studies of macrolides for asthma have not focused on these 2 groups, so any treatment effect may have been diluted by including patients not likely to respond.

Why don't we have conclusive evidence? Because the right studies have not been done.

The issue with PAP, also known as CPAP (or continuous positive airway pressure), for the treatment of OSA is different. In this case, the question is: What conditions and outcomes are improved by use of PAP? Studies strongly support that PAP is effective in reducing daytime sleepiness and motor vehicle accidents associated with OSA. Most of us had high hopes that PAP also would reduce the adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with OSA. But the results of large randomized trials have not found a protective effective.

Enthusiasts argue that the studies have not been of sufficient duration and that the participants did not use their PAP devices long enough each night. Some follow-up studies have suggested a protective effective when the device is used for many years, but those studies have the major flaw of volunteer bias, meaning those who adhere to any treatment have better health outcomes than those who do not adhere.

What should you do when there is uncertainty regarding effectiveness? Use shared decision making: What does the patient want to do after you have explained the possible benefits and harms?

Family physicians try to base treatment decisions on the very best available evidence from randomized trials and other high-quality studies. Very often, however, the evidence is not conclusive. Family physicians are confronted with questions about a wide variety of treatments that may or may not be effective. The classic example for me is the use of chondroitin sulfate/glucosamine for knee osteoarthritis. The preponderance of evidence tells us it is not effective, but one long-term clinical trial did find some benefit.¹ And some patients swear by it!

In this issue of JFP, we have 2 articles that fall into this category: 1 by Hahn about the treatment of asthma with macrolides and the other by Sorsby et al about use of positive airway pressure (PAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

The article by Hahn is an extensive literature review regarding the effectiveness of macrolides for asthma. Despite 2 meta-analyses and many clinical trials, the results are not conclusive; but they are highly suggestive that macrolides may benefit patients with new-onset asthma and severe asthma that does not respond completely to mainstream treatments. Why don't we have conclusive evidence? Because the right studies have not been done. Most studies of macrolides for asthma have not focused on these 2 groups, so any treatment effect may have been diluted by including patients not likely to respond.

Why don't we have conclusive evidence? Because the right studies have not been done.

The issue with PAP, also known as CPAP (or continuous positive airway pressure), for the treatment of OSA is different. In this case, the question is: What conditions and outcomes are improved by use of PAP? Studies strongly support that PAP is effective in reducing daytime sleepiness and motor vehicle accidents associated with OSA. Most of us had high hopes that PAP also would reduce the adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with OSA. But the results of large randomized trials have not found a protective effective.

Enthusiasts argue that the studies have not been of sufficient duration and that the participants did not use their PAP devices long enough each night. Some follow-up studies have suggested a protective effective when the device is used for many years, but those studies have the major flaw of volunteer bias, meaning those who adhere to any treatment have better health outcomes than those who do not adhere.

What should you do when there is uncertainty regarding effectiveness? Use shared decision making: What does the patient want to do after you have explained the possible benefits and harms?

Family physicians try to base treatment decisions on the very best available evidence from randomized trials and other high-quality studies. Very often, however, the evidence is not conclusive. Family physicians are confronted with questions about a wide variety of treatments that may or may not be effective. The classic example for me is the use of chondroitin sulfate/glucosamine for knee osteoarthritis. The preponderance of evidence tells us it is not effective, but one long-term clinical trial did find some benefit.¹ And some patients swear by it!

In this issue of JFP, we have 2 articles that fall into this category: 1 by Hahn about the treatment of asthma with macrolides and the other by Sorsby et al about use of positive airway pressure (PAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

The article by Hahn is an extensive literature review regarding the effectiveness of macrolides for asthma. Despite 2 meta-analyses and many clinical trials, the results are not conclusive; but they are highly suggestive that macrolides may benefit patients with new-onset asthma and severe asthma that does not respond completely to mainstream treatments. Why don't we have conclusive evidence? Because the right studies have not been done. Most studies of macrolides for asthma have not focused on these 2 groups, so any treatment effect may have been diluted by including patients not likely to respond.

Why don't we have conclusive evidence? Because the right studies have not been done.

The issue with PAP, also known as CPAP (or continuous positive airway pressure), for the treatment of OSA is different. In this case, the question is: What conditions and outcomes are improved by use of PAP? Studies strongly support that PAP is effective in reducing daytime sleepiness and motor vehicle accidents associated with OSA. Most of us had high hopes that PAP also would reduce the adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with OSA. But the results of large randomized trials have not found a protective effective.

Enthusiasts argue that the studies have not been of sufficient duration and that the participants did not use their PAP devices long enough each night. Some follow-up studies have suggested a protective effective when the device is used for many years, but those studies have the major flaw of volunteer bias, meaning those who adhere to any treatment have better health outcomes than those who do not adhere.

What should you do when there is uncertainty regarding effectiveness? Use shared decision making: What does the patient want to do after you have explained the possible benefits and harms?

It has been more than 50 years since central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) was first defined by LoPresti and colleagues¹ as hot comb alopecia. Fifty years later, we are only just starting to understand the pathogenesis of CCCA and its systemic implications.

Then and Now

The use of hot combs, a metal device used to straighten naturally curly hair, was ubiquitous in the households of black women in the 1960s. It is no surprise then that this styling process was labeled as the culprit of this disease that affects black women almost exclusively. As the use of hot combs waned but the prevalence of CCCA persisted, its name evolved to chemically induced alopecia—an ode to the popular styling product of the 1990s, the chemical relaxer—and eventually CCCA, a name that reflects its clinical progression and histologic findings.²

Since then, research has explored the association with systemic diseases, some noting increased rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus and thyroid disease, and more recently, an increased rate of fibroids in affected patients.^3,4

Clues to Pathogenesis

Compared to other primary cicatricial alopecias, CCCA is unique in that active progression is difficult to detect. Symptoms, such as pruritus, often are minimal or absent, rendering clinical assessment quite difficult.⁵ Unlike other forms of scarring hair loss, fibrosis, not inflammation, is the predominant clinical feature. The clinical presentation is not unlike a group of disorders termed fibroproliferative disorders, which includes systemic sclerosis, uterine fibroids, atherosclerosis, and keloids, among others. It has been postulated that diseases of aberrant scarring are more common in black individuals due to the protective effect profibrotic alleles have against endemic helminthic infections of sub-Saharan infections, including oncocerciasis.⁶

A recent study showed an increased expression of fibroproliferative genes, particularly those implicated in other fibroproliferative disorders, in affected scalp of patients with CCCA.⁷ Most notably, an expression in gene overlap was noted between fibroids and CCCA in this study, though the relationship between these two diseases needs to be further explored.

Gene Variants Identified in CCCA

More recently, a new study has identified a gene variant of peptidyl arginine deiminase 3, PADI3, that is present in approximately one-quarter of studied patients with CCCA.⁸PADI3 plays a role in hair shaft formation and has been implicated in another hair disorder, uncombable hair syndrome, though the latter presents in children, improves with age, and is not associated with a scarring phenotype.⁹ However, this study has provided greater insight into our understanding of CCCA by establishing a possible genetic predisposition in patients affected with this disease.⁸

What’s Next for CCCA?

For years, many patients with CCCA have been turned away with few answers and left thinking that it is their own styling habits that have led to their hair loss, when in fact the data we have now suggest a possible link with other systemic diseases and a genetic predisposition for disease. Armed with this knowledge, we can start working to identify treatment options and discuss strategies for early detection of CCCA. Future research should address 1 of 4 large domains: (1) understanding the influence of PADI3 on the scarring pattern seen in CCCA and identifying additional genetic variants implicated in CCCA; (2) identifying what, if any, inheritance pattern is associated with CCCA; (3) identifying other systemic disease associations; and (4) optimizing treatment options for patients with CCCA.

The future is bright for CCCA. Although our understanding of CCCA is still in its infancy, it is my hope that with greater understanding of this disease will come greater empathy for our patients.

It has been more than 50 years since central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) was first defined by LoPresti and colleagues¹ as hot comb alopecia. Fifty years later, we are only just starting to understand the pathogenesis of CCCA and its systemic implications.

Then and Now

The use of hot combs, a metal device used to straighten naturally curly hair, was ubiquitous in the households of black women in the 1960s. It is no surprise then that this styling process was labeled as the culprit of this disease that affects black women almost exclusively. As the use of hot combs waned but the prevalence of CCCA persisted, its name evolved to chemically induced alopecia—an ode to the popular styling product of the 1990s, the chemical relaxer—and eventually CCCA, a name that reflects its clinical progression and histologic findings.²

Since then, research has explored the association with systemic diseases, some noting increased rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus and thyroid disease, and more recently, an increased rate of fibroids in affected patients.^3,4

Clues to Pathogenesis

Compared to other primary cicatricial alopecias, CCCA is unique in that active progression is difficult to detect. Symptoms, such as pruritus, often are minimal or absent, rendering clinical assessment quite difficult.⁵ Unlike other forms of scarring hair loss, fibrosis, not inflammation, is the predominant clinical feature. The clinical presentation is not unlike a group of disorders termed fibroproliferative disorders, which includes systemic sclerosis, uterine fibroids, atherosclerosis, and keloids, among others. It has been postulated that diseases of aberrant scarring are more common in black individuals due to the protective effect profibrotic alleles have against endemic helminthic infections of sub-Saharan infections, including oncocerciasis.⁶

A recent study showed an increased expression of fibroproliferative genes, particularly those implicated in other fibroproliferative disorders, in affected scalp of patients with CCCA.⁷ Most notably, an expression in gene overlap was noted between fibroids and CCCA in this study, though the relationship between these two diseases needs to be further explored.

Gene Variants Identified in CCCA

More recently, a new study has identified a gene variant of peptidyl arginine deiminase 3, PADI3, that is present in approximately one-quarter of studied patients with CCCA.⁸PADI3 plays a role in hair shaft formation and has been implicated in another hair disorder, uncombable hair syndrome, though the latter presents in children, improves with age, and is not associated with a scarring phenotype.⁹ However, this study has provided greater insight into our understanding of CCCA by establishing a possible genetic predisposition in patients affected with this disease.⁸

What’s Next for CCCA?

For years, many patients with CCCA have been turned away with few answers and left thinking that it is their own styling habits that have led to their hair loss, when in fact the data we have now suggest a possible link with other systemic diseases and a genetic predisposition for disease. Armed with this knowledge, we can start working to identify treatment options and discuss strategies for early detection of CCCA. Future research should address 1 of 4 large domains: (1) understanding the influence of PADI3 on the scarring pattern seen in CCCA and identifying additional genetic variants implicated in CCCA; (2) identifying what, if any, inheritance pattern is associated with CCCA; (3) identifying other systemic disease associations; and (4) optimizing treatment options for patients with CCCA.

The future is bright for CCCA. Although our understanding of CCCA is still in its infancy, it is my hope that with greater understanding of this disease will come greater empathy for our patients.

It has been more than 50 years since central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) was first defined by LoPresti and colleagues¹ as hot comb alopecia. Fifty years later, we are only just starting to understand the pathogenesis of CCCA and its systemic implications.

Then and Now

The use of hot combs, a metal device used to straighten naturally curly hair, was ubiquitous in the households of black women in the 1960s. It is no surprise then that this styling process was labeled as the culprit of this disease that affects black women almost exclusively. As the use of hot combs waned but the prevalence of CCCA persisted, its name evolved to chemically induced alopecia—an ode to the popular styling product of the 1990s, the chemical relaxer—and eventually CCCA, a name that reflects its clinical progression and histologic findings.²

Since then, research has explored the association with systemic diseases, some noting increased rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus and thyroid disease, and more recently, an increased rate of fibroids in affected patients.^3,4

Clues to Pathogenesis

Compared to other primary cicatricial alopecias, CCCA is unique in that active progression is difficult to detect. Symptoms, such as pruritus, often are minimal or absent, rendering clinical assessment quite difficult.⁵ Unlike other forms of scarring hair loss, fibrosis, not inflammation, is the predominant clinical feature. The clinical presentation is not unlike a group of disorders termed fibroproliferative disorders, which includes systemic sclerosis, uterine fibroids, atherosclerosis, and keloids, among others. It has been postulated that diseases of aberrant scarring are more common in black individuals due to the protective effect profibrotic alleles have against endemic helminthic infections of sub-Saharan infections, including oncocerciasis.⁶

A recent study showed an increased expression of fibroproliferative genes, particularly those implicated in other fibroproliferative disorders, in affected scalp of patients with CCCA.⁷ Most notably, an expression in gene overlap was noted between fibroids and CCCA in this study, though the relationship between these two diseases needs to be further explored.

Gene Variants Identified in CCCA

More recently, a new study has identified a gene variant of peptidyl arginine deiminase 3, PADI3, that is present in approximately one-quarter of studied patients with CCCA.⁸PADI3 plays a role in hair shaft formation and has been implicated in another hair disorder, uncombable hair syndrome, though the latter presents in children, improves with age, and is not associated with a scarring phenotype.⁹ However, this study has provided greater insight into our understanding of CCCA by establishing a possible genetic predisposition in patients affected with this disease.⁸

What’s Next for CCCA?

For years, many patients with CCCA have been turned away with few answers and left thinking that it is their own styling habits that have led to their hair loss, when in fact the data we have now suggest a possible link with other systemic diseases and a genetic predisposition for disease. Armed with this knowledge, we can start working to identify treatment options and discuss strategies for early detection of CCCA. Future research should address 1 of 4 large domains: (1) understanding the influence of PADI3 on the scarring pattern seen in CCCA and identifying additional genetic variants implicated in CCCA; (2) identifying what, if any, inheritance pattern is associated with CCCA; (3) identifying other systemic disease associations; and (4) optimizing treatment options for patients with CCCA.

The future is bright for CCCA. Although our understanding of CCCA is still in its infancy, it is my hope that with greater understanding of this disease will come greater empathy for our patients.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

The findings from the C-axSpAnd study that Jonathan Kay, MD, and colleagues reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology are not surprising. Earlier studies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis showed that short symptom duration is one of the best predictors of good treatment response to TNFi therapy. The highest response rates were obtained in studies conducted in axSpA patients with symptom duration of less than 5 years or even less than 3 years. Since nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and r-axSpA are considered as two stages of one disease, it is logical that the same effect is also observed in studies in nr-axSpA. Indeed, in the first study of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in nr-axSpA (ABILITY-1), patients with symptom duration less than 5 years responded much better to the TNFi adalimumab than did those with longer symptom duration, and the delta of the response between adalimumab and placebo was much greater. All these results together indicate that early disease stage associated with favorable treatment response in axSpA is better defined by symptom duration than by the presence or absence of structural damage in the sacroiliac joints. Furthermore, these data stress the importance of the early diagnosis in axSpA.

We also know from observational studies and subanalyses from clinical trials that treatment with monoclonal antibodies against TNF is associated with reduction of uveitis flares in axSpA. However, no prospective clinical studies had been conducted with acute anterior uveitis flares as the primary outcome until the C-VIEW study, which was presented by Irene E. van der Horst-Bruinsma, MD, PhD, at ACR 2019. The results of C-VIEW are therefore the first to prospectively address the question of reduction of uveitis flares under TNFi. The main limitation of the study is the lack of a control group, which makes interpretation of the results difficult because it is not clear to what extent the natural course of the disease – which might involve very long flare-free periods lasting from months to years – contributed to the reduction of flares. A randomized, controlled study aimed at label extension is highly desired for patients with acute anterior uveitis, especially for those with a frequently relapsing course resistant to local treatment.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD , is head of the rheumatology department at Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. He disclosed receiving research grants from AbbVie, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, as well as receiving consultancy or speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

The findings from the C-axSpAnd study that Jonathan Kay, MD, and colleagues reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology are not surprising. Earlier studies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis showed that short symptom duration is one of the best predictors of good treatment response to TNFi therapy. The highest response rates were obtained in studies conducted in axSpA patients with symptom duration of less than 5 years or even less than 3 years. Since nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and r-axSpA are considered as two stages of one disease, it is logical that the same effect is also observed in studies in nr-axSpA. Indeed, in the first study of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in nr-axSpA (ABILITY-1), patients with symptom duration less than 5 years responded much better to the TNFi adalimumab than did those with longer symptom duration, and the delta of the response between adalimumab and placebo was much greater. All these results together indicate that early disease stage associated with favorable treatment response in axSpA is better defined by symptom duration than by the presence or absence of structural damage in the sacroiliac joints. Furthermore, these data stress the importance of the early diagnosis in axSpA.

We also know from observational studies and subanalyses from clinical trials that treatment with monoclonal antibodies against TNF is associated with reduction of uveitis flares in axSpA. However, no prospective clinical studies had been conducted with acute anterior uveitis flares as the primary outcome until the C-VIEW study, which was presented by Irene E. van der Horst-Bruinsma, MD, PhD, at ACR 2019. The results of C-VIEW are therefore the first to prospectively address the question of reduction of uveitis flares under TNFi. The main limitation of the study is the lack of a control group, which makes interpretation of the results difficult because it is not clear to what extent the natural course of the disease – which might involve very long flare-free periods lasting from months to years – contributed to the reduction of flares. A randomized, controlled study aimed at label extension is highly desired for patients with acute anterior uveitis, especially for those with a frequently relapsing course resistant to local treatment.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD , is head of the rheumatology department at Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. He disclosed receiving research grants from AbbVie, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, as well as receiving consultancy or speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

The findings from the C-axSpAnd study that Jonathan Kay, MD, and colleagues reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology are not surprising. Earlier studies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis showed that short symptom duration is one of the best predictors of good treatment response to TNFi therapy. The highest response rates were obtained in studies conducted in axSpA patients with symptom duration of less than 5 years or even less than 3 years. Since nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and r-axSpA are considered as two stages of one disease, it is logical that the same effect is also observed in studies in nr-axSpA. Indeed, in the first study of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in nr-axSpA (ABILITY-1), patients with symptom duration less than 5 years responded much better to the TNFi adalimumab than did those with longer symptom duration, and the delta of the response between adalimumab and placebo was much greater. All these results together indicate that early disease stage associated with favorable treatment response in axSpA is better defined by symptom duration than by the presence or absence of structural damage in the sacroiliac joints. Furthermore, these data stress the importance of the early diagnosis in axSpA.

We also know from observational studies and subanalyses from clinical trials that treatment with monoclonal antibodies against TNF is associated with reduction of uveitis flares in axSpA. However, no prospective clinical studies had been conducted with acute anterior uveitis flares as the primary outcome until the C-VIEW study, which was presented by Irene E. van der Horst-Bruinsma, MD, PhD, at ACR 2019. The results of C-VIEW are therefore the first to prospectively address the question of reduction of uveitis flares under TNFi. The main limitation of the study is the lack of a control group, which makes interpretation of the results difficult because it is not clear to what extent the natural course of the disease – which might involve very long flare-free periods lasting from months to years – contributed to the reduction of flares. A randomized, controlled study aimed at label extension is highly desired for patients with acute anterior uveitis, especially for those with a frequently relapsing course resistant to local treatment.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD , is head of the rheumatology department at Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. He disclosed receiving research grants from AbbVie, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, as well as receiving consultancy or speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration – crizanlizumab for sickle cell patients with painful crises and zanubrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients in relapse.

Crizanlizumab

P-selectin is an adhesion molecule expressed on activated vascular endothelial cells and platelets. It is a key molecule in the initiation of leukocyte rolling on vessel walls and promotes firm attachment and extravasation to underlying tissues during inflammation. Up-regulation of P-selectin on endothelial cells and platelets contributes to the cell-cell interactions involved in the pathogenesis of sickle cell pain crises.

The SUSTAIN study was a multisite, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial of two different dosage levels of intravenous crizanlizumab (2.5 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg for 52 weeks), a humanized anti–P-selectin antibody, examining its effect on pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of sickle cell pain crises, with a variety of clinically relevant secondary endpoints. The target population had 2-10 pain crises in the 12 months before enrollment. Patients on a stable dose of hydroxyurea for at least the most recent 3 months were allowed to enter, but if patients were not receiving hydroxyurea, it could not be initiated during the trial. Patients who were undergoing chronic red-cell transfusion therapy were excluded.

Among 198 enrolled patients, 35% did not complete the 52 weeks of treatment. Discontinuations were equally balanced among patients assigned to the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo cohorts. Adverse events associated with crizanlizumab included back pain, nausea, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Serious adverse events occurred in 55 patients, with 5 deaths, all of which were unrelated to treatment. Crizanlizumab did not augment hemolysis or bacterial infections.

In the efficacy analysis, patients receiving high-dose crizanlizumab had a median annual rate of 1.63 health care visits for sickle cell pain crises, compared with 2.98 visits for placebo patients (P = .01). In comparison with placebo, high-dose crizanlizumab also delayed the first pain crisis after starting treatment (4.1 months vs. 1.4 months), delayed the median time to a second pain crisis, and decreased the median number of pain crises annually.

More than twice as many high-dose crizanlizumab patients had no pain crisis episodes, compared with placebo patients. In general, differences were more striking in patients who were not taking hydroxyurea and who had non–hemoglobin SS disease. Differences in the primary endpoint between low-dose crizanlizumab and placebo were numerically, but not statistically, different.

How these results influence practice

It has been over 20 years since a new agent (hydroxyurea) was approved for sickle cell patients and, despite its use, sickle cell pain crises remain a frequent problem. Pain crises are associated with worse quality of life and increased risk of death. A promising advance is badly needed, especially in an era in which sensitivity to providers’ role in the opioid addiction crisis is highly scrutinized and may contribute to future undertreatment of pain episodes. This is especially true for patients from areas with high levels of opioid misuse.

The SUSTAIN trial was international, multi-institutional, placebo-controlled, and inclusive. These attributes enhance the likelihood that crizanlizumab will enhance patient care in routine practice. As an intravenous agent, monitoring adherence and toxicity are less challenging than with hydroxyurea. Despite these factors, however, there are some concerns. Crizanlizumab was not free of toxicity, quality of life via the Brief Pain Inventory used in the trial was not improved, and changes in the pain-severity and pain-interference domains were small. Treatment in SUSTAIN ensued for 52 weeks, so the emergence of late neutralizing antibodies and late toxicities with longer-term therapy will require careful postmarketing assessment.

These concerns notwithstanding, anyone who has cared for sickle cell patients would be excited about the potential benefits crizanlizumab could bring to patient care.
 

Zanubrutinib

The FDA has approved zanubrutinib for the treatment of MCL in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy. The approval is based on the results of two studies in which overall response rate was the primary endpoint.

BGB-3111-206 (NCT03206970) was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial of 86 patients with MCL who received at least one prior therapy. Zanubrutinib was given orally at 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. BGB-3111-AU-003 (NCT 02343120) was a phase 1/2, open-label, dose-escalation trial of B-cell malignancies, including 32 previously treated MCL patients treated with zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily.

In the phase 2 trial, 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scans were required and the ORR was 84% (95% confidence interval, 74%-91%), with a complete response rate of 59% (95% CI, 48%-70%) and a median response duration of 19.5 months (95% CI, 16.6% to not estimable). In the phase 1/2 dose-escalation trial, FDG-PET scans were not required and the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 67%-95%), with a complete response rate of 22% (95% CI, 9%-40%) and a median response duration of 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.6% to not estimable). In both trials, median follow-up on study was about 18 months.

The most common adverse reactions were cytopenias, upper respiratory tract infection, rash, bruising, diarrhea, and cough. The most common serious adverse reactions were pneumonia in 11% and hemorrhage in 5% of patients. Of 118 MCL patients, 8 stopped therapy because of an adverse event, most frequently pneumonia (3.4%).

How these results influence practice

Unfortunately, the therapy of recurrent MCL is noncurative, because of the rapid development of treatment resistance. There are multiple single-and multiagent chemotherapy regimens that may be tried, many incorporating immunotherapy options such as anti-CD20- or Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK)–targeted agents. Given the limited efficacy of these agents, temporary nature of remissions, and paucity of data comparing these various treatment options, participation in clinical trials is encouraged whenever possible.

Outside of a clinical trial, zanubrutinib joins ibrutinib and acalabrutinib as approved single-agent BTK inhibitors for adult MCL patients in relapse. The impressive ORR and response duration reported for zanubrutinib are similar to the results achieved with the other agents, but the toxicity pattern may be slightly different.

As in the treatment of hormonally sensitive breast cancer, clinicians and patients benefit when they have multiple similar, equally efficacious oral agents with slightly different toxicity patterns so that quality of life can be improved and treatment duration maximized before treatment resistance develops and a more toxic and/or inconvenient therapy needs to be employed.

Whether zanubrutinib has benefits beyond those for MCL patients in relapse will depend on the results of confirmatory trials and patient-reported outcome data.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration – crizanlizumab for sickle cell patients with painful crises and zanubrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients in relapse.

Crizanlizumab

P-selectin is an adhesion molecule expressed on activated vascular endothelial cells and platelets. It is a key molecule in the initiation of leukocyte rolling on vessel walls and promotes firm attachment and extravasation to underlying tissues during inflammation. Up-regulation of P-selectin on endothelial cells and platelets contributes to the cell-cell interactions involved in the pathogenesis of sickle cell pain crises.

The SUSTAIN study was a multisite, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial of two different dosage levels of intravenous crizanlizumab (2.5 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg for 52 weeks), a humanized anti–P-selectin antibody, examining its effect on pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of sickle cell pain crises, with a variety of clinically relevant secondary endpoints. The target population had 2-10 pain crises in the 12 months before enrollment. Patients on a stable dose of hydroxyurea for at least the most recent 3 months were allowed to enter, but if patients were not receiving hydroxyurea, it could not be initiated during the trial. Patients who were undergoing chronic red-cell transfusion therapy were excluded.

Among 198 enrolled patients, 35% did not complete the 52 weeks of treatment. Discontinuations were equally balanced among patients assigned to the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo cohorts. Adverse events associated with crizanlizumab included back pain, nausea, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Serious adverse events occurred in 55 patients, with 5 deaths, all of which were unrelated to treatment. Crizanlizumab did not augment hemolysis or bacterial infections.

In the efficacy analysis, patients receiving high-dose crizanlizumab had a median annual rate of 1.63 health care visits for sickle cell pain crises, compared with 2.98 visits for placebo patients (P = .01). In comparison with placebo, high-dose crizanlizumab also delayed the first pain crisis after starting treatment (4.1 months vs. 1.4 months), delayed the median time to a second pain crisis, and decreased the median number of pain crises annually.

More than twice as many high-dose crizanlizumab patients had no pain crisis episodes, compared with placebo patients. In general, differences were more striking in patients who were not taking hydroxyurea and who had non–hemoglobin SS disease. Differences in the primary endpoint between low-dose crizanlizumab and placebo were numerically, but not statistically, different.

How these results influence practice

It has been over 20 years since a new agent (hydroxyurea) was approved for sickle cell patients and, despite its use, sickle cell pain crises remain a frequent problem. Pain crises are associated with worse quality of life and increased risk of death. A promising advance is badly needed, especially in an era in which sensitivity to providers’ role in the opioid addiction crisis is highly scrutinized and may contribute to future undertreatment of pain episodes. This is especially true for patients from areas with high levels of opioid misuse.

The SUSTAIN trial was international, multi-institutional, placebo-controlled, and inclusive. These attributes enhance the likelihood that crizanlizumab will enhance patient care in routine practice. As an intravenous agent, monitoring adherence and toxicity are less challenging than with hydroxyurea. Despite these factors, however, there are some concerns. Crizanlizumab was not free of toxicity, quality of life via the Brief Pain Inventory used in the trial was not improved, and changes in the pain-severity and pain-interference domains were small. Treatment in SUSTAIN ensued for 52 weeks, so the emergence of late neutralizing antibodies and late toxicities with longer-term therapy will require careful postmarketing assessment.

These concerns notwithstanding, anyone who has cared for sickle cell patients would be excited about the potential benefits crizanlizumab could bring to patient care.
 

Zanubrutinib

The FDA has approved zanubrutinib for the treatment of MCL in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy. The approval is based on the results of two studies in which overall response rate was the primary endpoint.

BGB-3111-206 (NCT03206970) was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial of 86 patients with MCL who received at least one prior therapy. Zanubrutinib was given orally at 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. BGB-3111-AU-003 (NCT 02343120) was a phase 1/2, open-label, dose-escalation trial of B-cell malignancies, including 32 previously treated MCL patients treated with zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily.

In the phase 2 trial, 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scans were required and the ORR was 84% (95% confidence interval, 74%-91%), with a complete response rate of 59% (95% CI, 48%-70%) and a median response duration of 19.5 months (95% CI, 16.6% to not estimable). In the phase 1/2 dose-escalation trial, FDG-PET scans were not required and the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 67%-95%), with a complete response rate of 22% (95% CI, 9%-40%) and a median response duration of 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.6% to not estimable). In both trials, median follow-up on study was about 18 months.

The most common adverse reactions were cytopenias, upper respiratory tract infection, rash, bruising, diarrhea, and cough. The most common serious adverse reactions were pneumonia in 11% and hemorrhage in 5% of patients. Of 118 MCL patients, 8 stopped therapy because of an adverse event, most frequently pneumonia (3.4%).

How these results influence practice

Unfortunately, the therapy of recurrent MCL is noncurative, because of the rapid development of treatment resistance. There are multiple single-and multiagent chemotherapy regimens that may be tried, many incorporating immunotherapy options such as anti-CD20- or Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK)–targeted agents. Given the limited efficacy of these agents, temporary nature of remissions, and paucity of data comparing these various treatment options, participation in clinical trials is encouraged whenever possible.

Outside of a clinical trial, zanubrutinib joins ibrutinib and acalabrutinib as approved single-agent BTK inhibitors for adult MCL patients in relapse. The impressive ORR and response duration reported for zanubrutinib are similar to the results achieved with the other agents, but the toxicity pattern may be slightly different.

As in the treatment of hormonally sensitive breast cancer, clinicians and patients benefit when they have multiple similar, equally efficacious oral agents with slightly different toxicity patterns so that quality of life can be improved and treatment duration maximized before treatment resistance develops and a more toxic and/or inconvenient therapy needs to be employed.

Whether zanubrutinib has benefits beyond those for MCL patients in relapse will depend on the results of confirmatory trials and patient-reported outcome data.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration – crizanlizumab for sickle cell patients with painful crises and zanubrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients in relapse.

Crizanlizumab

P-selectin is an adhesion molecule expressed on activated vascular endothelial cells and platelets. It is a key molecule in the initiation of leukocyte rolling on vessel walls and promotes firm attachment and extravasation to underlying tissues during inflammation. Up-regulation of P-selectin on endothelial cells and platelets contributes to the cell-cell interactions involved in the pathogenesis of sickle cell pain crises.

The SUSTAIN study was a multisite, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial of two different dosage levels of intravenous crizanlizumab (2.5 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg for 52 weeks), a humanized anti–P-selectin antibody, examining its effect on pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of sickle cell pain crises, with a variety of clinically relevant secondary endpoints. The target population had 2-10 pain crises in the 12 months before enrollment. Patients on a stable dose of hydroxyurea for at least the most recent 3 months were allowed to enter, but if patients were not receiving hydroxyurea, it could not be initiated during the trial. Patients who were undergoing chronic red-cell transfusion therapy were excluded.

Among 198 enrolled patients, 35% did not complete the 52 weeks of treatment. Discontinuations were equally balanced among patients assigned to the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo cohorts. Adverse events associated with crizanlizumab included back pain, nausea, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Serious adverse events occurred in 55 patients, with 5 deaths, all of which were unrelated to treatment. Crizanlizumab did not augment hemolysis or bacterial infections.

In the efficacy analysis, patients receiving high-dose crizanlizumab had a median annual rate of 1.63 health care visits for sickle cell pain crises, compared with 2.98 visits for placebo patients (P = .01). In comparison with placebo, high-dose crizanlizumab also delayed the first pain crisis after starting treatment (4.1 months vs. 1.4 months), delayed the median time to a second pain crisis, and decreased the median number of pain crises annually.

More than twice as many high-dose crizanlizumab patients had no pain crisis episodes, compared with placebo patients. In general, differences were more striking in patients who were not taking hydroxyurea and who had non–hemoglobin SS disease. Differences in the primary endpoint between low-dose crizanlizumab and placebo were numerically, but not statistically, different.

How these results influence practice

It has been over 20 years since a new agent (hydroxyurea) was approved for sickle cell patients and, despite its use, sickle cell pain crises remain a frequent problem. Pain crises are associated with worse quality of life and increased risk of death. A promising advance is badly needed, especially in an era in which sensitivity to providers’ role in the opioid addiction crisis is highly scrutinized and may contribute to future undertreatment of pain episodes. This is especially true for patients from areas with high levels of opioid misuse.

The SUSTAIN trial was international, multi-institutional, placebo-controlled, and inclusive. These attributes enhance the likelihood that crizanlizumab will enhance patient care in routine practice. As an intravenous agent, monitoring adherence and toxicity are less challenging than with hydroxyurea. Despite these factors, however, there are some concerns. Crizanlizumab was not free of toxicity, quality of life via the Brief Pain Inventory used in the trial was not improved, and changes in the pain-severity and pain-interference domains were small. Treatment in SUSTAIN ensued for 52 weeks, so the emergence of late neutralizing antibodies and late toxicities with longer-term therapy will require careful postmarketing assessment.

These concerns notwithstanding, anyone who has cared for sickle cell patients would be excited about the potential benefits crizanlizumab could bring to patient care.
 

Zanubrutinib

The FDA has approved zanubrutinib for the treatment of MCL in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy. The approval is based on the results of two studies in which overall response rate was the primary endpoint.

BGB-3111-206 (NCT03206970) was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter, single-arm trial of 86 patients with MCL who received at least one prior therapy. Zanubrutinib was given orally at 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. BGB-3111-AU-003 (NCT 02343120) was a phase 1/2, open-label, dose-escalation trial of B-cell malignancies, including 32 previously treated MCL patients treated with zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily.

In the phase 2 trial, 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scans were required and the ORR was 84% (95% confidence interval, 74%-91%), with a complete response rate of 59% (95% CI, 48%-70%) and a median response duration of 19.5 months (95% CI, 16.6% to not estimable). In the phase 1/2 dose-escalation trial, FDG-PET scans were not required and the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 67%-95%), with a complete response rate of 22% (95% CI, 9%-40%) and a median response duration of 18.5 months (95% CI, 12.6% to not estimable). In both trials, median follow-up on study was about 18 months.

The most common adverse reactions were cytopenias, upper respiratory tract infection, rash, bruising, diarrhea, and cough. The most common serious adverse reactions were pneumonia in 11% and hemorrhage in 5% of patients. Of 118 MCL patients, 8 stopped therapy because of an adverse event, most frequently pneumonia (3.4%).

How these results influence practice

Unfortunately, the therapy of recurrent MCL is noncurative, because of the rapid development of treatment resistance. There are multiple single-and multiagent chemotherapy regimens that may be tried, many incorporating immunotherapy options such as anti-CD20- or Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK)–targeted agents. Given the limited efficacy of these agents, temporary nature of remissions, and paucity of data comparing these various treatment options, participation in clinical trials is encouraged whenever possible.

Outside of a clinical trial, zanubrutinib joins ibrutinib and acalabrutinib as approved single-agent BTK inhibitors for adult MCL patients in relapse. The impressive ORR and response duration reported for zanubrutinib are similar to the results achieved with the other agents, but the toxicity pattern may be slightly different.

As in the treatment of hormonally sensitive breast cancer, clinicians and patients benefit when they have multiple similar, equally efficacious oral agents with slightly different toxicity patterns so that quality of life can be improved and treatment duration maximized before treatment resistance develops and a more toxic and/or inconvenient therapy needs to be employed.

Whether zanubrutinib has benefits beyond those for MCL patients in relapse will depend on the results of confirmatory trials and patient-reported outcome data.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

To the Editor: We read with interest the editorial on the clinical use of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression by Editor-in-Chief Cynthia Geppert in the October 2019 issue of Federal Practitioner.¹ A recent case report published in your journal illustrated the success of IV ketamine in alleviating refractory chronic pain caused by a rare disease.² Ketamine has been well established as an appropriate adjuvant as well as an alternative to opioids in attenuating acute postoperative pain and in certain chronic pain syndromes.³ We write out of concern for the rapidity of adoption of intranasal esketamine without considering the merits of IV ketamine.

When adopting new treatments or extending established drugs for newer indications, clinicians must balance beneficence and nonmaleficence. There is an urgent need for better treatment options for depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain in the veteran population. However, one must proceed with caution before wide adoption of a treatment that lacks real-world data on sustained or long-term benefits.⁴ Enthusiasm for this drug must also be tempered by the documented adverse effect (AE) of hepatic injury and the lack of data tracking this AE from repeated, long-term use.⁵ With these considerations in mind, reliable dosing and predictable pharmacokinetics are of great importance.

In addition to outpatient esketamine, outpatient IV administration of racemic ketamine remains an advantageous option with unique benefits compared with esketamine. Pharmacokinetically, IV ketamine is superior to intranasal esketamine. The bioavailability of intranasal esketamine is likely to be variable. A patient with a poor intranasal application or poor absorption might be falsely labeled an esketamine nonresponder. Increasing intranasal esketamine dosage to avoid false nonresponders may place other patients at risk for overdose and undesired AEs, including dysphoria and hallucinations. The variable bioavailability of intranasal ketamine adds complexity to the examination of its clinical effectiveness. IV ketamine should provide a predictable drug level and more reliable data. One might retort that esketamine is not the same as ketamine. True, esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, whereas ketamine is a racemic mixture of S- and R-ketamine. However, there is no clear evidence of clinically relevant differences between these formulations.⁵

Psychomimetic effects and cardiovascular changes are the most common short-term AEs resulting from ketamine.⁵ An IV infusion allows the treating physician to slowly titrate the administered ketamine to reach an effective concentration at the target site. Unlike an all-or-none intranasal administration, an infusion can be stopped at the first appearance of an AE. Psychomimetic effects, such as hallucinations, visual disturbances, and dysphoria are thought to occur in a dose-dependent fashion and remit once a ketamine infusion is stopped.⁵ Furthermore, cardiovascular AEs, such as hypertension and tachycardia, are commonly in patients with a body mass index > 30, with IV administration on a mg/kg basis. This suggests that calculated ideal body weight is a safer denominator, and reliable dosing is important to mitigating AEs.⁶

We urge caution with the widespread adoption of intranasal esketamine and suggest the advantages of the IV route, which offers predictability of AEs and titratability of dose. Questions remain regarding the appropriate dose and formulation of ketamine, rate of infusion, and route of administration for chronic pain and psychiatric indications.^5,7 It is our responsibility to further study the long-term safety profile of ketamine and determine an appropriate dose of ketamine. The IV route allows many veterans to be helped in a safe and controllable manner.

Eugene Raggi, MD; and Srikantha L. Rao, MD, MS, FAS

To the Editor: We read with interest the editorial on the clinical use of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression by Editor-in-Chief Cynthia Geppert in the October 2019 issue of Federal Practitioner.¹ A recent case report published in your journal illustrated the success of IV ketamine in alleviating refractory chronic pain caused by a rare disease.² Ketamine has been well established as an appropriate adjuvant as well as an alternative to opioids in attenuating acute postoperative pain and in certain chronic pain syndromes.³ We write out of concern for the rapidity of adoption of intranasal esketamine without considering the merits of IV ketamine.

When adopting new treatments or extending established drugs for newer indications, clinicians must balance beneficence and nonmaleficence. There is an urgent need for better treatment options for depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain in the veteran population. However, one must proceed with caution before wide adoption of a treatment that lacks real-world data on sustained or long-term benefits.⁴ Enthusiasm for this drug must also be tempered by the documented adverse effect (AE) of hepatic injury and the lack of data tracking this AE from repeated, long-term use.⁵ With these considerations in mind, reliable dosing and predictable pharmacokinetics are of great importance.

In addition to outpatient esketamine, outpatient IV administration of racemic ketamine remains an advantageous option with unique benefits compared with esketamine. Pharmacokinetically, IV ketamine is superior to intranasal esketamine. The bioavailability of intranasal esketamine is likely to be variable. A patient with a poor intranasal application or poor absorption might be falsely labeled an esketamine nonresponder. Increasing intranasal esketamine dosage to avoid false nonresponders may place other patients at risk for overdose and undesired AEs, including dysphoria and hallucinations. The variable bioavailability of intranasal ketamine adds complexity to the examination of its clinical effectiveness. IV ketamine should provide a predictable drug level and more reliable data. One might retort that esketamine is not the same as ketamine. True, esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, whereas ketamine is a racemic mixture of S- and R-ketamine. However, there is no clear evidence of clinically relevant differences between these formulations.⁵

Psychomimetic effects and cardiovascular changes are the most common short-term AEs resulting from ketamine.⁵ An IV infusion allows the treating physician to slowly titrate the administered ketamine to reach an effective concentration at the target site. Unlike an all-or-none intranasal administration, an infusion can be stopped at the first appearance of an AE. Psychomimetic effects, such as hallucinations, visual disturbances, and dysphoria are thought to occur in a dose-dependent fashion and remit once a ketamine infusion is stopped.⁵ Furthermore, cardiovascular AEs, such as hypertension and tachycardia, are commonly in patients with a body mass index > 30, with IV administration on a mg/kg basis. This suggests that calculated ideal body weight is a safer denominator, and reliable dosing is important to mitigating AEs.⁶

We urge caution with the widespread adoption of intranasal esketamine and suggest the advantages of the IV route, which offers predictability of AEs and titratability of dose. Questions remain regarding the appropriate dose and formulation of ketamine, rate of infusion, and route of administration for chronic pain and psychiatric indications.^5,7 It is our responsibility to further study the long-term safety profile of ketamine and determine an appropriate dose of ketamine. The IV route allows many veterans to be helped in a safe and controllable manner.

Eugene Raggi, MD; and Srikantha L. Rao, MD, MS, FAS

To the Editor: We read with interest the editorial on the clinical use of intranasal esketamine in treatment-resistant depression by Editor-in-Chief Cynthia Geppert in the October 2019 issue of Federal Practitioner.¹ A recent case report published in your journal illustrated the success of IV ketamine in alleviating refractory chronic pain caused by a rare disease.² Ketamine has been well established as an appropriate adjuvant as well as an alternative to opioids in attenuating acute postoperative pain and in certain chronic pain syndromes.³ We write out of concern for the rapidity of adoption of intranasal esketamine without considering the merits of IV ketamine.

When adopting new treatments or extending established drugs for newer indications, clinicians must balance beneficence and nonmaleficence. There is an urgent need for better treatment options for depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain in the veteran population. However, one must proceed with caution before wide adoption of a treatment that lacks real-world data on sustained or long-term benefits.⁴ Enthusiasm for this drug must also be tempered by the documented adverse effect (AE) of hepatic injury and the lack of data tracking this AE from repeated, long-term use.⁵ With these considerations in mind, reliable dosing and predictable pharmacokinetics are of great importance.

In addition to outpatient esketamine, outpatient IV administration of racemic ketamine remains an advantageous option with unique benefits compared with esketamine. Pharmacokinetically, IV ketamine is superior to intranasal esketamine. The bioavailability of intranasal esketamine is likely to be variable. A patient with a poor intranasal application or poor absorption might be falsely labeled an esketamine nonresponder. Increasing intranasal esketamine dosage to avoid false nonresponders may place other patients at risk for overdose and undesired AEs, including dysphoria and hallucinations. The variable bioavailability of intranasal ketamine adds complexity to the examination of its clinical effectiveness. IV ketamine should provide a predictable drug level and more reliable data. One might retort that esketamine is not the same as ketamine. True, esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, whereas ketamine is a racemic mixture of S- and R-ketamine. However, there is no clear evidence of clinically relevant differences between these formulations.⁵

Psychomimetic effects and cardiovascular changes are the most common short-term AEs resulting from ketamine.⁵ An IV infusion allows the treating physician to slowly titrate the administered ketamine to reach an effective concentration at the target site. Unlike an all-or-none intranasal administration, an infusion can be stopped at the first appearance of an AE. Psychomimetic effects, such as hallucinations, visual disturbances, and dysphoria are thought to occur in a dose-dependent fashion and remit once a ketamine infusion is stopped.⁵ Furthermore, cardiovascular AEs, such as hypertension and tachycardia, are commonly in patients with a body mass index > 30, with IV administration on a mg/kg basis. This suggests that calculated ideal body weight is a safer denominator, and reliable dosing is important to mitigating AEs.⁶

We urge caution with the widespread adoption of intranasal esketamine and suggest the advantages of the IV route, which offers predictability of AEs and titratability of dose. Questions remain regarding the appropriate dose and formulation of ketamine, rate of infusion, and route of administration for chronic pain and psychiatric indications.^5,7 It is our responsibility to further study the long-term safety profile of ketamine and determine an appropriate dose of ketamine. The IV route allows many veterans to be helped in a safe and controllable manner.

Eugene Raggi, MD; and Srikantha L. Rao, MD, MS, FAS

Readers may recall that at the end of each calendar as opposed to fiscal year—I know it is hard to believe time exists outside the Federal system—Federal Practitioner publishes my ethics-focused version of the familiar year-end roundup. This year I am reversing the typical order of most annual rankings by putting the worst first for 2 morally salient reasons.

The first is that, sadly, it is almost always easier to identify multiple incidents that compete ignominiously for the “worst” of federal health care. Even more disappointing, it is comparatively difficult to find stories for the “best” that are of the same scale and scope as the bad news. This is not to say that every day there are not individual narratives of courage and compassion reported in US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and hundreds more unsung heroes.

The second reason is that as human beings our psychology is such that we gravitate toward the worst things more powerfully and persistently than we do the best. This is in part why it is more difficult to find uplifting stories and why the demoralizing ones affect us so strongly. In an exhaustive review of the subject, psychologists Roy Baumeister and colleagues conclude that,

When equal measures of good and bad are present, however, the psychological effects of bad ones outweigh those of the good ones. This may in fact be a general principle or law of psychological phenomena, possibly reflecting the innate predispositions of the psyche or at least reflecting the almost inevitable adaptation of each individual to the exigencies of daily life.²

I am thus saving the best for last in the hope that it will be more memorable and impactful than the worst.

Unique to this year’s look-back, both the negative and the positive accounts come from the domain of end-of-life care. And unlike prior reviews where the lack of administrative vigilance and professional competence affected hundreds of patients, families, and staff, each of this year’s incidents involve a single patient.

An incident that occurred in September 2019 at a VA Community Living Center (CLC) in Georgia stood out in infamy apart from all others. It was the report of a veteran in a VA nursing home who had been bitten more than 100 times by ants crawling all over his room. He died shortly afterward. In a scene out of a horror movie tapping into the most primeval human fears, his daughter Laquana Ross described her father, a Vietnam Air Force veteran with cancer, to media and VA officials in graphic terms. “I understand mistakes happen,” she said. “I’ve had ants. But he was bit by ants two days in a row. They feasted on him.”³

In this new era of holding its senior executive service accountable, the outraged chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee demanded that heads roll, and the VA acted rapidly to comply.⁴ The VA Central Office placed the network director on administrative leave, reassigned the chief medical officer, and initiated quality and safety reviews as well as an administrative investigative board to scrutinize how the parent Atlanta VA medical center managed the situation. In total, 9 officials connected to the incident were placed on leave. The VA apologized, with VA Secretary Robert Wilke zeroing in on the core values involved in the tragedy, “This is about basic humanity and dignity,” he said. “I don’t care what steps were taken to address the issues. We did not treat a vet with the dignity that he and his family deserved.”⁵ Yet it was the veteran’s daughter, with unbelievable charity, who asked the most crucial question that must be answered within the framework of a just culture if similar tragedies are not to occur in the future, “I know the staff, without a shadow of doubt, respected my dad and even loved him,” Ross said. “But what’s their ability to assess situations and fix things?”³

To begin to give Ms. Ross the answer she deserves, we must understand that the antithesis of love is not hate but indifference; of compassion, it is not cruelty but coldness. A true just culture reserves individual blame for those who have ill-will and adopts a systems perspective of organizational improvement toward most other types of errors.⁶ This means that the deplorable conditions in the CLC cannot be charged to the failure of a single staff member to fulfil their obligations but to collective collapse at many levels of the organization. Just culture is ethically laudable and far superior to the history in federal service of capricious punishment or institutional apathy that far too often were the default reactions to media exposures or congressional ire. Justice, though necessary, is not sufficient to achieve virtue. Those who work in health care also must be inspired to offer mercy, kindness, and compassion, especially in our most sacred privilege to provide care of the dying.

The best of 2019 illustrates this distinction movingly. This account also involves a Vietnam veteran, this time a Marine also dying of cancer, which happened just about a month after the earlier report. To be transparent it occurred at my home VA medical center in New Mexico. I was peripherally involved in the case as a consultant but had no role in the wondrous things that transpired. The last wish of a patient dying in the hospice unit on campus was to see his beloved dog who had been taken to the local city animal shelter when he was hospitalized because he had no friends or family to look after the companion animal. A social worker on the palliative care team called the animal shelter and explained the patient did not have much time left but wanted to see his dog before he died. Working together with support from facility leadership, shelter workers brought the dog to visit with the patient for an entire day while hospice staff cried with joy and sadness.⁷

As the epigraph for this editorial from Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, says, the difference between unspeakable pain and meaningful suffering can be measured in the depth of compassion caregivers show to the dying. It is this quality of mercy that in one case condemns, and in the other praises, us all as health care and administrative professionals in the service of our country. Baumeister and colleagues suggest that the human tendency to magnify the bad and minimize the good in everyday myopia may in a wider vision actually be a reason for hope:

It may be that humans and animals show heightened awareness of and responded more quickly to negative information because it signals a need for change. Hence, the adaptiveness of self-regulation partly lies in the organism’s ability to detect when response modifications are necessary and when they are unnecessary. Moreover, the lessons learned from bad events should ideally be retained permanently so that the same dangers or costs are not encountered repeatedly. Meanwhile, good events (such as those that provide a feeling of satisfaction and contentment) should ideally wear off so that the organism is motivated to continue searching for more and better outcomes.²

Let us all take this lesson into our work in 2020 so that when it comes time to write this column next year in the chilling cold of late autumn there will be more stories of light than darkness from which to choose.

Readers may recall that at the end of each calendar as opposed to fiscal year—I know it is hard to believe time exists outside the Federal system—Federal Practitioner publishes my ethics-focused version of the familiar year-end roundup. This year I am reversing the typical order of most annual rankings by putting the worst first for 2 morally salient reasons.

The first is that, sadly, it is almost always easier to identify multiple incidents that compete ignominiously for the “worst” of federal health care. Even more disappointing, it is comparatively difficult to find stories for the “best” that are of the same scale and scope as the bad news. This is not to say that every day there are not individual narratives of courage and compassion reported in US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and hundreds more unsung heroes.

The second reason is that as human beings our psychology is such that we gravitate toward the worst things more powerfully and persistently than we do the best. This is in part why it is more difficult to find uplifting stories and why the demoralizing ones affect us so strongly. In an exhaustive review of the subject, psychologists Roy Baumeister and colleagues conclude that,

When equal measures of good and bad are present, however, the psychological effects of bad ones outweigh those of the good ones. This may in fact be a general principle or law of psychological phenomena, possibly reflecting the innate predispositions of the psyche or at least reflecting the almost inevitable adaptation of each individual to the exigencies of daily life.²

I am thus saving the best for last in the hope that it will be more memorable and impactful than the worst.

Unique to this year’s look-back, both the negative and the positive accounts come from the domain of end-of-life care. And unlike prior reviews where the lack of administrative vigilance and professional competence affected hundreds of patients, families, and staff, each of this year’s incidents involve a single patient.

An incident that occurred in September 2019 at a VA Community Living Center (CLC) in Georgia stood out in infamy apart from all others. It was the report of a veteran in a VA nursing home who had been bitten more than 100 times by ants crawling all over his room. He died shortly afterward. In a scene out of a horror movie tapping into the most primeval human fears, his daughter Laquana Ross described her father, a Vietnam Air Force veteran with cancer, to media and VA officials in graphic terms. “I understand mistakes happen,” she said. “I’ve had ants. But he was bit by ants two days in a row. They feasted on him.”³

In this new era of holding its senior executive service accountable, the outraged chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee demanded that heads roll, and the VA acted rapidly to comply.⁴ The VA Central Office placed the network director on administrative leave, reassigned the chief medical officer, and initiated quality and safety reviews as well as an administrative investigative board to scrutinize how the parent Atlanta VA medical center managed the situation. In total, 9 officials connected to the incident were placed on leave. The VA apologized, with VA Secretary Robert Wilke zeroing in on the core values involved in the tragedy, “This is about basic humanity and dignity,” he said. “I don’t care what steps were taken to address the issues. We did not treat a vet with the dignity that he and his family deserved.”⁵ Yet it was the veteran’s daughter, with unbelievable charity, who asked the most crucial question that must be answered within the framework of a just culture if similar tragedies are not to occur in the future, “I know the staff, without a shadow of doubt, respected my dad and even loved him,” Ross said. “But what’s their ability to assess situations and fix things?”³

To begin to give Ms. Ross the answer she deserves, we must understand that the antithesis of love is not hate but indifference; of compassion, it is not cruelty but coldness. A true just culture reserves individual blame for those who have ill-will and adopts a systems perspective of organizational improvement toward most other types of errors.⁶ This means that the deplorable conditions in the CLC cannot be charged to the failure of a single staff member to fulfil their obligations but to collective collapse at many levels of the organization. Just culture is ethically laudable and far superior to the history in federal service of capricious punishment or institutional apathy that far too often were the default reactions to media exposures or congressional ire. Justice, though necessary, is not sufficient to achieve virtue. Those who work in health care also must be inspired to offer mercy, kindness, and compassion, especially in our most sacred privilege to provide care of the dying.

The best of 2019 illustrates this distinction movingly. This account also involves a Vietnam veteran, this time a Marine also dying of cancer, which happened just about a month after the earlier report. To be transparent it occurred at my home VA medical center in New Mexico. I was peripherally involved in the case as a consultant but had no role in the wondrous things that transpired. The last wish of a patient dying in the hospice unit on campus was to see his beloved dog who had been taken to the local city animal shelter when he was hospitalized because he had no friends or family to look after the companion animal. A social worker on the palliative care team called the animal shelter and explained the patient did not have much time left but wanted to see his dog before he died. Working together with support from facility leadership, shelter workers brought the dog to visit with the patient for an entire day while hospice staff cried with joy and sadness.⁷

As the epigraph for this editorial from Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, says, the difference between unspeakable pain and meaningful suffering can be measured in the depth of compassion caregivers show to the dying. It is this quality of mercy that in one case condemns, and in the other praises, us all as health care and administrative professionals in the service of our country. Baumeister and colleagues suggest that the human tendency to magnify the bad and minimize the good in everyday myopia may in a wider vision actually be a reason for hope:

It may be that humans and animals show heightened awareness of and responded more quickly to negative information because it signals a need for change. Hence, the adaptiveness of self-regulation partly lies in the organism’s ability to detect when response modifications are necessary and when they are unnecessary. Moreover, the lessons learned from bad events should ideally be retained permanently so that the same dangers or costs are not encountered repeatedly. Meanwhile, good events (such as those that provide a feeling of satisfaction and contentment) should ideally wear off so that the organism is motivated to continue searching for more and better outcomes.²

Let us all take this lesson into our work in 2020 so that when it comes time to write this column next year in the chilling cold of late autumn there will be more stories of light than darkness from which to choose.

Readers may recall that at the end of each calendar as opposed to fiscal year—I know it is hard to believe time exists outside the Federal system—Federal Practitioner publishes my ethics-focused version of the familiar year-end roundup. This year I am reversing the typical order of most annual rankings by putting the worst first for 2 morally salient reasons.

The first is that, sadly, it is almost always easier to identify multiple incidents that compete ignominiously for the “worst” of federal health care. Even more disappointing, it is comparatively difficult to find stories for the “best” that are of the same scale and scope as the bad news. This is not to say that every day there are not individual narratives of courage and compassion reported in US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and hundreds more unsung heroes.

The second reason is that as human beings our psychology is such that we gravitate toward the worst things more powerfully and persistently than we do the best. This is in part why it is more difficult to find uplifting stories and why the demoralizing ones affect us so strongly. In an exhaustive review of the subject, psychologists Roy Baumeister and colleagues conclude that,

When equal measures of good and bad are present, however, the psychological effects of bad ones outweigh those of the good ones. This may in fact be a general principle or law of psychological phenomena, possibly reflecting the innate predispositions of the psyche or at least reflecting the almost inevitable adaptation of each individual to the exigencies of daily life.²

I am thus saving the best for last in the hope that it will be more memorable and impactful than the worst.

Unique to this year’s look-back, both the negative and the positive accounts come from the domain of end-of-life care. And unlike prior reviews where the lack of administrative vigilance and professional competence affected hundreds of patients, families, and staff, each of this year’s incidents involve a single patient.

An incident that occurred in September 2019 at a VA Community Living Center (CLC) in Georgia stood out in infamy apart from all others. It was the report of a veteran in a VA nursing home who had been bitten more than 100 times by ants crawling all over his room. He died shortly afterward. In a scene out of a horror movie tapping into the most primeval human fears, his daughter Laquana Ross described her father, a Vietnam Air Force veteran with cancer, to media and VA officials in graphic terms. “I understand mistakes happen,” she said. “I’ve had ants. But he was bit by ants two days in a row. They feasted on him.”³

In this new era of holding its senior executive service accountable, the outraged chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee demanded that heads roll, and the VA acted rapidly to comply.⁴ The VA Central Office placed the network director on administrative leave, reassigned the chief medical officer, and initiated quality and safety reviews as well as an administrative investigative board to scrutinize how the parent Atlanta VA medical center managed the situation. In total, 9 officials connected to the incident were placed on leave. The VA apologized, with VA Secretary Robert Wilke zeroing in on the core values involved in the tragedy, “This is about basic humanity and dignity,” he said. “I don’t care what steps were taken to address the issues. We did not treat a vet with the dignity that he and his family deserved.”⁵ Yet it was the veteran’s daughter, with unbelievable charity, who asked the most crucial question that must be answered within the framework of a just culture if similar tragedies are not to occur in the future, “I know the staff, without a shadow of doubt, respected my dad and even loved him,” Ross said. “But what’s their ability to assess situations and fix things?”³

To begin to give Ms. Ross the answer she deserves, we must understand that the antithesis of love is not hate but indifference; of compassion, it is not cruelty but coldness. A true just culture reserves individual blame for those who have ill-will and adopts a systems perspective of organizational improvement toward most other types of errors.⁶ This means that the deplorable conditions in the CLC cannot be charged to the failure of a single staff member to fulfil their obligations but to collective collapse at many levels of the organization. Just culture is ethically laudable and far superior to the history in federal service of capricious punishment or institutional apathy that far too often were the default reactions to media exposures or congressional ire. Justice, though necessary, is not sufficient to achieve virtue. Those who work in health care also must be inspired to offer mercy, kindness, and compassion, especially in our most sacred privilege to provide care of the dying.

The best of 2019 illustrates this distinction movingly. This account also involves a Vietnam veteran, this time a Marine also dying of cancer, which happened just about a month after the earlier report. To be transparent it occurred at my home VA medical center in New Mexico. I was peripherally involved in the case as a consultant but had no role in the wondrous things that transpired. The last wish of a patient dying in the hospice unit on campus was to see his beloved dog who had been taken to the local city animal shelter when he was hospitalized because he had no friends or family to look after the companion animal. A social worker on the palliative care team called the animal shelter and explained the patient did not have much time left but wanted to see his dog before he died. Working together with support from facility leadership, shelter workers brought the dog to visit with the patient for an entire day while hospice staff cried with joy and sadness.⁷

As the epigraph for this editorial from Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, says, the difference between unspeakable pain and meaningful suffering can be measured in the depth of compassion caregivers show to the dying. It is this quality of mercy that in one case condemns, and in the other praises, us all as health care and administrative professionals in the service of our country. Baumeister and colleagues suggest that the human tendency to magnify the bad and minimize the good in everyday myopia may in a wider vision actually be a reason for hope:

It may be that humans and animals show heightened awareness of and responded more quickly to negative information because it signals a need for change. Hence, the adaptiveness of self-regulation partly lies in the organism’s ability to detect when response modifications are necessary and when they are unnecessary. Moreover, the lessons learned from bad events should ideally be retained permanently so that the same dangers or costs are not encountered repeatedly. Meanwhile, good events (such as those that provide a feeling of satisfaction and contentment) should ideally wear off so that the organism is motivated to continue searching for more and better outcomes.²

Let us all take this lesson into our work in 2020 so that when it comes time to write this column next year in the chilling cold of late autumn there will be more stories of light than darkness from which to choose.