Commentary

In this issue of JFP, Weinstein and Worster provide a wealth of information about prescribing marijuana. Medical marijuana (Cannabis) is now legal in the majority of states, so it’s likely that some of your patients are using marijuana for symptom relief. For those physicians who elect to prescribe marijuana, reading this review will help you avoid harming patients while maximizing potential benefits.

I say “potential benefits” because the research evidence to support benefit for most conditions and symptoms is weak at best. In addition to the JAMA meta-analysis cited by Weinstein and Worster,¹ several meta-analyses and systematic reviews published since January 2018 reach similar conclusions.^2-4

Marijuana can provide significant relief from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and it is effective in reducing intractable seizures in 2 rare pediatric seizure disorders. There may be some benefit for treatment of spasticity, and there may be some therapeutic value for relief of neuropathic pain, although the evidence is not strong. Interestingly, there is some preliminary evidence that cannabis can improve gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.^5,6

Why do people use marijuana as medicine? A meta-analysis found that pain (64%), anxiety (50%), and depression/mood (34%) were common reasons.⁷ People use marijuana for a plethora of other conditions and symptoms, which is reflected in the long list of “approved” conditions in most state medical marijuana laws. The problem I have with prescribing cannabis for non-neuropathic pain, anxiety, and depression is that there is no good randomized trial evidence of its effectiveness beyond a placebo effect (which is probably quite strong considering the psychotropic effects of marijuana). And, as Weinstein and Worster point out, there is evidence of increased mental health symptoms in chronic marijuana users.

It behooves us to be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of Cannabis use with our patients—even if we decide not to prescribe it.

Regardless of the scientific evidence, use of cannabis for symptom relief is unlikely to be a passing fad. Surveys show that about 70% of users believe they receive benefit from it.⁸ Therefore, it behooves us to be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of cannabis use with our patients—even if we decide not to prescribe it. Warn patients with anxiety and depression that it is unlikely to be effective and may make matters worse.

There is intense interest in medical marijuana and better research will likely change the way we use cannabis for medical purposes in the future. So, for now, our best approach is to stay informed as the research unfolds.

In this issue of JFP, Weinstein and Worster provide a wealth of information about prescribing marijuana. Medical marijuana (Cannabis) is now legal in the majority of states, so it’s likely that some of your patients are using marijuana for symptom relief. For those physicians who elect to prescribe marijuana, reading this review will help you avoid harming patients while maximizing potential benefits.

I say “potential benefits” because the research evidence to support benefit for most conditions and symptoms is weak at best. In addition to the JAMA meta-analysis cited by Weinstein and Worster,¹ several meta-analyses and systematic reviews published since January 2018 reach similar conclusions.^2-4

Marijuana can provide significant relief from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and it is effective in reducing intractable seizures in 2 rare pediatric seizure disorders. There may be some benefit for treatment of spasticity, and there may be some therapeutic value for relief of neuropathic pain, although the evidence is not strong. Interestingly, there is some preliminary evidence that cannabis can improve gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.^5,6

Why do people use marijuana as medicine? A meta-analysis found that pain (64%), anxiety (50%), and depression/mood (34%) were common reasons.⁷ People use marijuana for a plethora of other conditions and symptoms, which is reflected in the long list of “approved” conditions in most state medical marijuana laws. The problem I have with prescribing cannabis for non-neuropathic pain, anxiety, and depression is that there is no good randomized trial evidence of its effectiveness beyond a placebo effect (which is probably quite strong considering the psychotropic effects of marijuana). And, as Weinstein and Worster point out, there is evidence of increased mental health symptoms in chronic marijuana users.

It behooves us to be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of Cannabis use with our patients—even if we decide not to prescribe it.

Regardless of the scientific evidence, use of cannabis for symptom relief is unlikely to be a passing fad. Surveys show that about 70% of users believe they receive benefit from it.⁸ Therefore, it behooves us to be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of cannabis use with our patients—even if we decide not to prescribe it. Warn patients with anxiety and depression that it is unlikely to be effective and may make matters worse.

There is intense interest in medical marijuana and better research will likely change the way we use cannabis for medical purposes in the future. So, for now, our best approach is to stay informed as the research unfolds.

In this issue of JFP, Weinstein and Worster provide a wealth of information about prescribing marijuana. Medical marijuana (Cannabis) is now legal in the majority of states, so it’s likely that some of your patients are using marijuana for symptom relief. For those physicians who elect to prescribe marijuana, reading this review will help you avoid harming patients while maximizing potential benefits.

I say “potential benefits” because the research evidence to support benefit for most conditions and symptoms is weak at best. In addition to the JAMA meta-analysis cited by Weinstein and Worster,¹ several meta-analyses and systematic reviews published since January 2018 reach similar conclusions.^2-4

Marijuana can provide significant relief from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and it is effective in reducing intractable seizures in 2 rare pediatric seizure disorders. There may be some benefit for treatment of spasticity, and there may be some therapeutic value for relief of neuropathic pain, although the evidence is not strong. Interestingly, there is some preliminary evidence that cannabis can improve gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.^5,6

Why do people use marijuana as medicine? A meta-analysis found that pain (64%), anxiety (50%), and depression/mood (34%) were common reasons.⁷ People use marijuana for a plethora of other conditions and symptoms, which is reflected in the long list of “approved” conditions in most state medical marijuana laws. The problem I have with prescribing cannabis for non-neuropathic pain, anxiety, and depression is that there is no good randomized trial evidence of its effectiveness beyond a placebo effect (which is probably quite strong considering the psychotropic effects of marijuana). And, as Weinstein and Worster point out, there is evidence of increased mental health symptoms in chronic marijuana users.

It behooves us to be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of Cannabis use with our patients—even if we decide not to prescribe it.

Regardless of the scientific evidence, use of cannabis for symptom relief is unlikely to be a passing fad. Surveys show that about 70% of users believe they receive benefit from it.⁸ Therefore, it behooves us to be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of cannabis use with our patients—even if we decide not to prescribe it. Warn patients with anxiety and depression that it is unlikely to be effective and may make matters worse.

There is intense interest in medical marijuana and better research will likely change the way we use cannabis for medical purposes in the future. So, for now, our best approach is to stay informed as the research unfolds.

In 2015, 1.2% of the US population was estimated to have active epilepsy.¹ For neurologists, key goals in the treatment of epilepsy include: controlling seizures, minimizing adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and optimizing quality of life. For obstetrician-gynecologists, women with epilepsy (WWE) have unique contraceptive, preconception, and obstetric needs that require highly specialized approaches to care. Here, I highlight 5 care points that are important to keep in mind when counseling WWE.  

1. Enzyme-inducing AEDs reduce the effectiveness of estrogen-progestin and some progestin contraceptives. 

AEDs can induce hepatic enzymes that accelerate steroid hormone metabolism, producing clinically important reductions in bioavailable steroid hormone concentration (TABLE 1). According to Lexicomp, AEDs that are inducers of hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones include: carbamazepine (Tegretol), eslicarbazepine (Aptiom), felbamate (Felbatol), oxcarbazepine (Trileptal), perampanel (Fycompa), phenobarbital, phenytoin (Dilantin), primidone (Mysoline), rufinamide (Banzel), and topiramate (Topamax) (at dosages >200 mg daily). According to Lexicomp, the following AEDs do not cause clinically significant changes in hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones: acetazolamide (Diamox), clonazepam (Klonopin), ethosuximide (Zarontin), gabapentin (Neurontin), lacosamide (Vimpat), levetiracetam (Keppra), pregabalin (Lyrica), tiagabine (Gabitril), vigabatrin (Vigadrone), and zonisamide (Zonegran).^2,3 In addition, lamotrigine (Lamictal) and valproate (Depakote) do not significantly influence the metabolism of contraceptive steroids,^4,5 but contraceptive steroids significantly influence their metabolism (TABLE 2). 

For WWE taking an AED that accelerates steroid hormone metabolism, estrogen-progestin contraceptive failure is common. In a survey of 111 WWE taking both an oral contraceptive and an AED, 27 reported becoming pregnant while taking the oral contraceptive.⁶ Carbamazepine, a strong inducer of hepatic enzymes, was the most frequently used AED in this sample.  

Many studies report that carbamazepine accelerates the metabolisms of estrogen and progestins and reduces contraceptive efficacy. For example, in one study 20 healthy women were administered an ethinyl estradiol (20 µg)-levonorgestrel (100 µg) contraceptive, and randomly assigned to either receive carbamazepine 600 mg daily or a placebo pill.⁷ In this study, based on serum progesterone measurements, 5 of 10 women in the carbamazepine group ovulated, compared with 1 of 10 women in the placebo group. Women taking carbamazepine had integrated serum ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel concentrations approximately 45% lower than women taking placebo.⁷ Other studies also report that carbamazepine accelerates steroid hormone metabolism and reduces the circulating concentration of ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone, and levonorgestrel by about 50%.^5,8  

WWE taking an AED that induces hepatic enzymes should be counseled to use a copper or levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception.⁹ WWE taking AEDs that do not induce hepatic enzymes can be offered the full array of contraceptive options, as outlined in Table 1.  Occasionally, a WWE taking an AED that is an inducer of hepatic enzymes may strongly prefer to use an estrogen-progestin contraceptive and decline the preferred option of using an IUD or DMPA. If an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is to be prescribed, safeguards to reduce the risk of pregnancy include:  

• prescribe a contraceptive with ≥35 µg of ethinyl estradiol  
• prescribe a contraceptive with the highest dose of progestin with a long half-life (drospirenone, desogestrel, levonorgestrel)  
• consider continuous hormonal contraception rather than 4 or 7 days off hormones and  
• recommend use of a barrier contraceptive in addition to the hormonal contraceptive. 

The effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception may also be reduced in WWE taking an enzyme-inducing AED. In these cases, some experts recommend a regimen of two doses of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, separated by 12 hours.¹⁰ The effectiveness of progestin subdermal contraceptives may be reduced in women taking phenytoin. In one study of 9 WWE using a progestin subdermal implant, phenytoin reduced the circulating levonorgestrel level by approximately 40%.¹¹  

Continue to: 2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives...

2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives. 

Estrogens, but not progestins, are known to reduce the serum concentration of lamotrigine by about 50%.^12,13 This is a clinically significant pharmacologic interaction. Consequently, when a cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptive is prescribed to a woman taking lamotrigine, oscillation in lamotrigine serum concentration can occur. When the woman is taking estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels decrease, which increases the risk of seizure. When the woman is not taking the estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels increase, possibly causing such adverse effects as nausea and vomiting. If a woman taking lamotrigine insists on using an estrogen-progestin contraceptive, the medication should be prescribed in a continuous regimen and the neurologist alerted so that they can increase the dose of lamotrigine and intensify their monitoring of lamotrigine levels. Lamotrigine does not change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and has minimal impact on the metabolism of levonorgestrel.⁴  

3. Estrogen-progestin contraceptives require valproate dosage adjustment. 

A few studies report that estrogen-progestin contraceptives accelerate the metabolism of valproate and reduce circulating valproate concentration,^14,15 as noted in Table 2.In one study, estrogen-progestin contraceptive was associated with 18% and 29% decreases in total and unbound valproate concentrations, respectively.¹⁴ Valproate may induce polycystic ovary syndrome in women.¹⁶ Therefore, it is common that valproate and an estrogen-progestin contraceptive are co-prescribed. In these situations, the neurologist should be alerted prior to prescribing an estrogen-progestin contraceptive to WWE taking valproate so that dosage adjustment may occur, if indicated. Valproate does not appear to change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol or levonorgestrel.⁵  

4. Preconception counseling: Before conception consider using an AED with low teratogenicity. 

Valproate is a potent teratogen, and consideration should be given to discontinuing valproate prior to conception. In a study of 1,788 pregnancies exposed to valproate, the risk of a major congenital malformation was 10% for valproate monotherapy, 11.3% for valproate combined with lamotrigine, and 11.7% for valproate combined with another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ At a valproate dose of ≥1,500 mg daily, the risk of major malformation was 24% for valproate monotherapy, 31% for valproate plus lamotrigine, and 19% for valproate plus another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ Valproate is reported to be associated with the following major congenital malformations: spina bifida, ventricular and atrial septal defects, pulmonary valve atresia, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, cleft palate, anorectal atresia, and hypospadias.¹⁸  

In a study of 7,555 pregnancies in women using a single AED, the risk of major congenital anomalies varied greatly among the AEDs, including: valproate (10.3%), phenobarbital (6.5%), phenytoin (6.4%), carbamazepine (5.5%), topiramate (3.9%), oxcarbazepine (3.0%), lamotrigine (2.9%), and levetiracetam (2.8%).¹⁹ For WWE considering pregnancy, many experts recommend use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine to minimize the risk of fetal anomalies.  

Continue to: 5. Folic acid...

5. Folic acid: Although the optimal dose for WWE taking an AED and planning to become pregnant is unknown, a high dose is reasonable. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that women planning pregnancy take 0.4 mg of folic acid daily, starting at least 1 month before pregnancy and continuing through at least the 12th week of gestation.²⁰ ACOG also recommends that women at high risk of a neural tube defect should take 4 mg of folic acid daily. WWE taking a teratogenic AED are known to be at increased risk for fetal malformations, including neural tube defects. Should these women take 4 mg of folic acid daily? ACOG notes that, for women taking valproate, the benefit of high-dose folic acid (4 mg daily) has not been definitively proven,²¹ and guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology do not recommend high-dose folic acid for women receiving AEDs.22 Hence, ACOG does not recommend that WWE taking an AED take high-dose folic acid.  

By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) recommends that all WWE planning a pregnancy take folic acid 5 mg daily, initiated 3 months before conception and continued through the first trimester of pregnancy.²³ The RCOG notes that among WWE taking an AED, intelligence quotient is greater in children whose mothers took folic acid during pregnancy.²⁴ Given the potential benefit of folic acid on long-term outcomes and the known safety of folic acid, it is reasonable to recommend high-dose folic acid for WWE. 

Final takeaways 

Surveys consistently report that WWE have a low-level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives and the teratogenicity of AEDs. For example, in a survey of 2,000 WWE, 45% who were taking an enzyme-inducing AED and an estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive reported that they had not been warned about the potential interaction between the medications.²⁵ Surprisingly, surveys of neurologists and obstetrician-gynecologists also report that there is a low level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives.²⁶ When providing contraceptive counseling for WWE, prioritize the use of a copper or levonorgestrel IUD. When providing preconception counseling for WWE, educate the patient about the high teratogenicity of valproate and the lower risk of malformations associated with the use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine.  
 

In 2015, 1.2% of the US population was estimated to have active epilepsy.¹ For neurologists, key goals in the treatment of epilepsy include: controlling seizures, minimizing adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and optimizing quality of life. For obstetrician-gynecologists, women with epilepsy (WWE) have unique contraceptive, preconception, and obstetric needs that require highly specialized approaches to care. Here, I highlight 5 care points that are important to keep in mind when counseling WWE.  

1. Enzyme-inducing AEDs reduce the effectiveness of estrogen-progestin and some progestin contraceptives. 

AEDs can induce hepatic enzymes that accelerate steroid hormone metabolism, producing clinically important reductions in bioavailable steroid hormone concentration (TABLE 1). According to Lexicomp, AEDs that are inducers of hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones include: carbamazepine (Tegretol), eslicarbazepine (Aptiom), felbamate (Felbatol), oxcarbazepine (Trileptal), perampanel (Fycompa), phenobarbital, phenytoin (Dilantin), primidone (Mysoline), rufinamide (Banzel), and topiramate (Topamax) (at dosages >200 mg daily). According to Lexicomp, the following AEDs do not cause clinically significant changes in hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones: acetazolamide (Diamox), clonazepam (Klonopin), ethosuximide (Zarontin), gabapentin (Neurontin), lacosamide (Vimpat), levetiracetam (Keppra), pregabalin (Lyrica), tiagabine (Gabitril), vigabatrin (Vigadrone), and zonisamide (Zonegran).^2,3 In addition, lamotrigine (Lamictal) and valproate (Depakote) do not significantly influence the metabolism of contraceptive steroids,^4,5 but contraceptive steroids significantly influence their metabolism (TABLE 2). 

For WWE taking an AED that accelerates steroid hormone metabolism, estrogen-progestin contraceptive failure is common. In a survey of 111 WWE taking both an oral contraceptive and an AED, 27 reported becoming pregnant while taking the oral contraceptive.⁶ Carbamazepine, a strong inducer of hepatic enzymes, was the most frequently used AED in this sample.  

Many studies report that carbamazepine accelerates the metabolisms of estrogen and progestins and reduces contraceptive efficacy. For example, in one study 20 healthy women were administered an ethinyl estradiol (20 µg)-levonorgestrel (100 µg) contraceptive, and randomly assigned to either receive carbamazepine 600 mg daily or a placebo pill.⁷ In this study, based on serum progesterone measurements, 5 of 10 women in the carbamazepine group ovulated, compared with 1 of 10 women in the placebo group. Women taking carbamazepine had integrated serum ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel concentrations approximately 45% lower than women taking placebo.⁷ Other studies also report that carbamazepine accelerates steroid hormone metabolism and reduces the circulating concentration of ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone, and levonorgestrel by about 50%.^5,8  

WWE taking an AED that induces hepatic enzymes should be counseled to use a copper or levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception.⁹ WWE taking AEDs that do not induce hepatic enzymes can be offered the full array of contraceptive options, as outlined in Table 1.  Occasionally, a WWE taking an AED that is an inducer of hepatic enzymes may strongly prefer to use an estrogen-progestin contraceptive and decline the preferred option of using an IUD or DMPA. If an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is to be prescribed, safeguards to reduce the risk of pregnancy include:  

• prescribe a contraceptive with ≥35 µg of ethinyl estradiol  
• prescribe a contraceptive with the highest dose of progestin with a long half-life (drospirenone, desogestrel, levonorgestrel)  
• consider continuous hormonal contraception rather than 4 or 7 days off hormones and  
• recommend use of a barrier contraceptive in addition to the hormonal contraceptive. 

The effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception may also be reduced in WWE taking an enzyme-inducing AED. In these cases, some experts recommend a regimen of two doses of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, separated by 12 hours.¹⁰ The effectiveness of progestin subdermal contraceptives may be reduced in women taking phenytoin. In one study of 9 WWE using a progestin subdermal implant, phenytoin reduced the circulating levonorgestrel level by approximately 40%.¹¹  

Continue to: 2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives...

2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives. 

Estrogens, but not progestins, are known to reduce the serum concentration of lamotrigine by about 50%.^12,13 This is a clinically significant pharmacologic interaction. Consequently, when a cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptive is prescribed to a woman taking lamotrigine, oscillation in lamotrigine serum concentration can occur. When the woman is taking estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels decrease, which increases the risk of seizure. When the woman is not taking the estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels increase, possibly causing such adverse effects as nausea and vomiting. If a woman taking lamotrigine insists on using an estrogen-progestin contraceptive, the medication should be prescribed in a continuous regimen and the neurologist alerted so that they can increase the dose of lamotrigine and intensify their monitoring of lamotrigine levels. Lamotrigine does not change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and has minimal impact on the metabolism of levonorgestrel.⁴  

3. Estrogen-progestin contraceptives require valproate dosage adjustment. 

A few studies report that estrogen-progestin contraceptives accelerate the metabolism of valproate and reduce circulating valproate concentration,^14,15 as noted in Table 2.In one study, estrogen-progestin contraceptive was associated with 18% and 29% decreases in total and unbound valproate concentrations, respectively.¹⁴ Valproate may induce polycystic ovary syndrome in women.¹⁶ Therefore, it is common that valproate and an estrogen-progestin contraceptive are co-prescribed. In these situations, the neurologist should be alerted prior to prescribing an estrogen-progestin contraceptive to WWE taking valproate so that dosage adjustment may occur, if indicated. Valproate does not appear to change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol or levonorgestrel.⁵  

4. Preconception counseling: Before conception consider using an AED with low teratogenicity. 

Valproate is a potent teratogen, and consideration should be given to discontinuing valproate prior to conception. In a study of 1,788 pregnancies exposed to valproate, the risk of a major congenital malformation was 10% for valproate monotherapy, 11.3% for valproate combined with lamotrigine, and 11.7% for valproate combined with another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ At a valproate dose of ≥1,500 mg daily, the risk of major malformation was 24% for valproate monotherapy, 31% for valproate plus lamotrigine, and 19% for valproate plus another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ Valproate is reported to be associated with the following major congenital malformations: spina bifida, ventricular and atrial septal defects, pulmonary valve atresia, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, cleft palate, anorectal atresia, and hypospadias.¹⁸  

In a study of 7,555 pregnancies in women using a single AED, the risk of major congenital anomalies varied greatly among the AEDs, including: valproate (10.3%), phenobarbital (6.5%), phenytoin (6.4%), carbamazepine (5.5%), topiramate (3.9%), oxcarbazepine (3.0%), lamotrigine (2.9%), and levetiracetam (2.8%).¹⁹ For WWE considering pregnancy, many experts recommend use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine to minimize the risk of fetal anomalies.  

Continue to: 5. Folic acid...

5. Folic acid: Although the optimal dose for WWE taking an AED and planning to become pregnant is unknown, a high dose is reasonable. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that women planning pregnancy take 0.4 mg of folic acid daily, starting at least 1 month before pregnancy and continuing through at least the 12th week of gestation.²⁰ ACOG also recommends that women at high risk of a neural tube defect should take 4 mg of folic acid daily. WWE taking a teratogenic AED are known to be at increased risk for fetal malformations, including neural tube defects. Should these women take 4 mg of folic acid daily? ACOG notes that, for women taking valproate, the benefit of high-dose folic acid (4 mg daily) has not been definitively proven,²¹ and guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology do not recommend high-dose folic acid for women receiving AEDs.22 Hence, ACOG does not recommend that WWE taking an AED take high-dose folic acid.  

By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) recommends that all WWE planning a pregnancy take folic acid 5 mg daily, initiated 3 months before conception and continued through the first trimester of pregnancy.²³ The RCOG notes that among WWE taking an AED, intelligence quotient is greater in children whose mothers took folic acid during pregnancy.²⁴ Given the potential benefit of folic acid on long-term outcomes and the known safety of folic acid, it is reasonable to recommend high-dose folic acid for WWE. 

Final takeaways 

Surveys consistently report that WWE have a low-level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives and the teratogenicity of AEDs. For example, in a survey of 2,000 WWE, 45% who were taking an enzyme-inducing AED and an estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive reported that they had not been warned about the potential interaction between the medications.²⁵ Surprisingly, surveys of neurologists and obstetrician-gynecologists also report that there is a low level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives.²⁶ When providing contraceptive counseling for WWE, prioritize the use of a copper or levonorgestrel IUD. When providing preconception counseling for WWE, educate the patient about the high teratogenicity of valproate and the lower risk of malformations associated with the use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine.  
 

In 2015, 1.2% of the US population was estimated to have active epilepsy.¹ For neurologists, key goals in the treatment of epilepsy include: controlling seizures, minimizing adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and optimizing quality of life. For obstetrician-gynecologists, women with epilepsy (WWE) have unique contraceptive, preconception, and obstetric needs that require highly specialized approaches to care. Here, I highlight 5 care points that are important to keep in mind when counseling WWE.  

1. Enzyme-inducing AEDs reduce the effectiveness of estrogen-progestin and some progestin contraceptives. 

AEDs can induce hepatic enzymes that accelerate steroid hormone metabolism, producing clinically important reductions in bioavailable steroid hormone concentration (TABLE 1). According to Lexicomp, AEDs that are inducers of hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones include: carbamazepine (Tegretol), eslicarbazepine (Aptiom), felbamate (Felbatol), oxcarbazepine (Trileptal), perampanel (Fycompa), phenobarbital, phenytoin (Dilantin), primidone (Mysoline), rufinamide (Banzel), and topiramate (Topamax) (at dosages >200 mg daily). According to Lexicomp, the following AEDs do not cause clinically significant changes in hepatic enzymes that metabolize steroid hormones: acetazolamide (Diamox), clonazepam (Klonopin), ethosuximide (Zarontin), gabapentin (Neurontin), lacosamide (Vimpat), levetiracetam (Keppra), pregabalin (Lyrica), tiagabine (Gabitril), vigabatrin (Vigadrone), and zonisamide (Zonegran).^2,3 In addition, lamotrigine (Lamictal) and valproate (Depakote) do not significantly influence the metabolism of contraceptive steroids,^4,5 but contraceptive steroids significantly influence their metabolism (TABLE 2). 

For WWE taking an AED that accelerates steroid hormone metabolism, estrogen-progestin contraceptive failure is common. In a survey of 111 WWE taking both an oral contraceptive and an AED, 27 reported becoming pregnant while taking the oral contraceptive.⁶ Carbamazepine, a strong inducer of hepatic enzymes, was the most frequently used AED in this sample.  

Many studies report that carbamazepine accelerates the metabolisms of estrogen and progestins and reduces contraceptive efficacy. For example, in one study 20 healthy women were administered an ethinyl estradiol (20 µg)-levonorgestrel (100 µg) contraceptive, and randomly assigned to either receive carbamazepine 600 mg daily or a placebo pill.⁷ In this study, based on serum progesterone measurements, 5 of 10 women in the carbamazepine group ovulated, compared with 1 of 10 women in the placebo group. Women taking carbamazepine had integrated serum ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel concentrations approximately 45% lower than women taking placebo.⁷ Other studies also report that carbamazepine accelerates steroid hormone metabolism and reduces the circulating concentration of ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone, and levonorgestrel by about 50%.^5,8  

WWE taking an AED that induces hepatic enzymes should be counseled to use a copper or levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for contraception.⁹ WWE taking AEDs that do not induce hepatic enzymes can be offered the full array of contraceptive options, as outlined in Table 1.  Occasionally, a WWE taking an AED that is an inducer of hepatic enzymes may strongly prefer to use an estrogen-progestin contraceptive and decline the preferred option of using an IUD or DMPA. If an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is to be prescribed, safeguards to reduce the risk of pregnancy include:  

• prescribe a contraceptive with ≥35 µg of ethinyl estradiol  
• prescribe a contraceptive with the highest dose of progestin with a long half-life (drospirenone, desogestrel, levonorgestrel)  
• consider continuous hormonal contraception rather than 4 or 7 days off hormones and  
• recommend use of a barrier contraceptive in addition to the hormonal contraceptive. 

The effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception may also be reduced in WWE taking an enzyme-inducing AED. In these cases, some experts recommend a regimen of two doses of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg, separated by 12 hours.¹⁰ The effectiveness of progestin subdermal contraceptives may be reduced in women taking phenytoin. In one study of 9 WWE using a progestin subdermal implant, phenytoin reduced the circulating levonorgestrel level by approximately 40%.¹¹  

Continue to: 2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives...

2. Do not use lamotrigine with cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptives. 

Estrogens, but not progestins, are known to reduce the serum concentration of lamotrigine by about 50%.^12,13 This is a clinically significant pharmacologic interaction. Consequently, when a cyclic estrogen-progestin contraceptive is prescribed to a woman taking lamotrigine, oscillation in lamotrigine serum concentration can occur. When the woman is taking estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels decrease, which increases the risk of seizure. When the woman is not taking the estrogen-containing pills, lamotrigine levels increase, possibly causing such adverse effects as nausea and vomiting. If a woman taking lamotrigine insists on using an estrogen-progestin contraceptive, the medication should be prescribed in a continuous regimen and the neurologist alerted so that they can increase the dose of lamotrigine and intensify their monitoring of lamotrigine levels. Lamotrigine does not change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and has minimal impact on the metabolism of levonorgestrel.⁴  

3. Estrogen-progestin contraceptives require valproate dosage adjustment. 

A few studies report that estrogen-progestin contraceptives accelerate the metabolism of valproate and reduce circulating valproate concentration,^14,15 as noted in Table 2.In one study, estrogen-progestin contraceptive was associated with 18% and 29% decreases in total and unbound valproate concentrations, respectively.¹⁴ Valproate may induce polycystic ovary syndrome in women.¹⁶ Therefore, it is common that valproate and an estrogen-progestin contraceptive are co-prescribed. In these situations, the neurologist should be alerted prior to prescribing an estrogen-progestin contraceptive to WWE taking valproate so that dosage adjustment may occur, if indicated. Valproate does not appear to change the metabolism of ethinyl estradiol or levonorgestrel.⁵  

4. Preconception counseling: Before conception consider using an AED with low teratogenicity. 

Valproate is a potent teratogen, and consideration should be given to discontinuing valproate prior to conception. In a study of 1,788 pregnancies exposed to valproate, the risk of a major congenital malformation was 10% for valproate monotherapy, 11.3% for valproate combined with lamotrigine, and 11.7% for valproate combined with another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ At a valproate dose of ≥1,500 mg daily, the risk of major malformation was 24% for valproate monotherapy, 31% for valproate plus lamotrigine, and 19% for valproate plus another AED, but not lamotrigine.¹⁷ Valproate is reported to be associated with the following major congenital malformations: spina bifida, ventricular and atrial septal defects, pulmonary valve atresia, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, cleft palate, anorectal atresia, and hypospadias.¹⁸  

In a study of 7,555 pregnancies in women using a single AED, the risk of major congenital anomalies varied greatly among the AEDs, including: valproate (10.3%), phenobarbital (6.5%), phenytoin (6.4%), carbamazepine (5.5%), topiramate (3.9%), oxcarbazepine (3.0%), lamotrigine (2.9%), and levetiracetam (2.8%).¹⁹ For WWE considering pregnancy, many experts recommend use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine to minimize the risk of fetal anomalies.  

Continue to: 5. Folic acid...

5. Folic acid: Although the optimal dose for WWE taking an AED and planning to become pregnant is unknown, a high dose is reasonable. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that women planning pregnancy take 0.4 mg of folic acid daily, starting at least 1 month before pregnancy and continuing through at least the 12th week of gestation.²⁰ ACOG also recommends that women at high risk of a neural tube defect should take 4 mg of folic acid daily. WWE taking a teratogenic AED are known to be at increased risk for fetal malformations, including neural tube defects. Should these women take 4 mg of folic acid daily? ACOG notes that, for women taking valproate, the benefit of high-dose folic acid (4 mg daily) has not been definitively proven,²¹ and guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology do not recommend high-dose folic acid for women receiving AEDs.22 Hence, ACOG does not recommend that WWE taking an AED take high-dose folic acid.  

By contrast, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) recommends that all WWE planning a pregnancy take folic acid 5 mg daily, initiated 3 months before conception and continued through the first trimester of pregnancy.²³ The RCOG notes that among WWE taking an AED, intelligence quotient is greater in children whose mothers took folic acid during pregnancy.²⁴ Given the potential benefit of folic acid on long-term outcomes and the known safety of folic acid, it is reasonable to recommend high-dose folic acid for WWE. 

Final takeaways 

Surveys consistently report that WWE have a low-level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives and the teratogenicity of AEDs. For example, in a survey of 2,000 WWE, 45% who were taking an enzyme-inducing AED and an estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive reported that they had not been warned about the potential interaction between the medications.²⁵ Surprisingly, surveys of neurologists and obstetrician-gynecologists also report that there is a low level of awareness about the interaction between AEDs and hormonal contraceptives.²⁶ When providing contraceptive counseling for WWE, prioritize the use of a copper or levonorgestrel IUD. When providing preconception counseling for WWE, educate the patient about the high teratogenicity of valproate and the lower risk of malformations associated with the use of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine.  
 

Is it my imagination, or has there been a lot of discussion on leadership lately? In the past 3 years, all the meetings I have attended had at least 1 presentation on leadership or the traits of leaders. Sometimes—even in the oddest places—I have come across an article with “leadership” in the title. In fact, a serendipitous discovery of 2 publications is what inspired me to write this.

I spotted the first one in a reading basket when I was on vacation: It was an interview with Benjamin Zander, the conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra and the Boston Philharmonic Youth Orchestra.¹ I was especially interested to read this because when I was in graduate school, Benjamin (the father of one of my classmates) visited our campus to give a presentation on talent and self-confidence. I can still hear him conducting us to emphatically believe in ourselves and others. This was echoed in his interview: “Never doubt the capacity of the people you lead to accomplish whatever you dream for them.” What a powerful concept: Believe in the possibilities of someone!

The second was an American Legion Auxiliary column, which emphasized that “leadership is not a title, but a responsibility.”² This struck a chord with me because some prominent leaders don’t appear to ascribe to that assessment (although they should!).

After digesting these articles, I started thinking: What, exactly, is leadership? What do we even mean by leadership? How do we measure it? Is it measurable? How do we know when we see or experience good leadership? Can one learn to become a leader by simply reading a “how-to” article?

I think I can answer these questions with 2 principles that have guided me through my career as an NP: (1) Make use of another leader’s expertise to guide you, and (2) Continue to grow amid any setbacks.

For example, my transition from a full-time clinician to a Health Policy Coordinator or “policy wonk” did not have a distinct trajectory. Although my core set of clinical skills were essential, I knew early on that I had to expand by adapting specific organizational skills that would enable me to grow in my new role. But how was I to prioritize which skills to improve? More than a simple trial-and-error approach was required; I needed guidance. Fortunately, my new boss was willing to share her experience and the lessons she learned on the job. Key among them was to recognize the skills I already had—communicating and coordinating—and to develop those skills to be more effective in my new position.

Later in my career, I worked with colleagues to pursue legislation for NP prescriptive authority in Massachusetts. The political arena of Commonwealth’s health care laws was especially pivotal in changing how I saw setbacks. These weren’t to be accepted as a failure but as a challenge to figure out how to better succeed the next time. For several years, I was told “No” before we finally got a bill passed. But each round of my testimony was an opportunity to educate lawmakers and the public on the valuable role of NPs and the quality of care we provide. I try to share this story with new NPs as a good example of why they should persist through adversity.

Continue to: Over the next 3 weeks...

Over the next 3 weeks, join us on Thursdays as we continue to discuss what it means to be a leader—from the pitfalls to the victories. For those who are leaders or who work for one, please share your thoughts, experiences, and lessons learned. Maybe you can give a shoutout to someone who was a positive influence!

Is it my imagination, or has there been a lot of discussion on leadership lately? In the past 3 years, all the meetings I have attended had at least 1 presentation on leadership or the traits of leaders. Sometimes—even in the oddest places—I have come across an article with “leadership” in the title. In fact, a serendipitous discovery of 2 publications is what inspired me to write this.

I spotted the first one in a reading basket when I was on vacation: It was an interview with Benjamin Zander, the conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra and the Boston Philharmonic Youth Orchestra.¹ I was especially interested to read this because when I was in graduate school, Benjamin (the father of one of my classmates) visited our campus to give a presentation on talent and self-confidence. I can still hear him conducting us to emphatically believe in ourselves and others. This was echoed in his interview: “Never doubt the capacity of the people you lead to accomplish whatever you dream for them.” What a powerful concept: Believe in the possibilities of someone!

The second was an American Legion Auxiliary column, which emphasized that “leadership is not a title, but a responsibility.”² This struck a chord with me because some prominent leaders don’t appear to ascribe to that assessment (although they should!).

After digesting these articles, I started thinking: What, exactly, is leadership? What do we even mean by leadership? How do we measure it? Is it measurable? How do we know when we see or experience good leadership? Can one learn to become a leader by simply reading a “how-to” article?

I think I can answer these questions with 2 principles that have guided me through my career as an NP: (1) Make use of another leader’s expertise to guide you, and (2) Continue to grow amid any setbacks.

For example, my transition from a full-time clinician to a Health Policy Coordinator or “policy wonk” did not have a distinct trajectory. Although my core set of clinical skills were essential, I knew early on that I had to expand by adapting specific organizational skills that would enable me to grow in my new role. But how was I to prioritize which skills to improve? More than a simple trial-and-error approach was required; I needed guidance. Fortunately, my new boss was willing to share her experience and the lessons she learned on the job. Key among them was to recognize the skills I already had—communicating and coordinating—and to develop those skills to be more effective in my new position.

Later in my career, I worked with colleagues to pursue legislation for NP prescriptive authority in Massachusetts. The political arena of Commonwealth’s health care laws was especially pivotal in changing how I saw setbacks. These weren’t to be accepted as a failure but as a challenge to figure out how to better succeed the next time. For several years, I was told “No” before we finally got a bill passed. But each round of my testimony was an opportunity to educate lawmakers and the public on the valuable role of NPs and the quality of care we provide. I try to share this story with new NPs as a good example of why they should persist through adversity.

Continue to: Over the next 3 weeks...

Over the next 3 weeks, join us on Thursdays as we continue to discuss what it means to be a leader—from the pitfalls to the victories. For those who are leaders or who work for one, please share your thoughts, experiences, and lessons learned. Maybe you can give a shoutout to someone who was a positive influence!

Is it my imagination, or has there been a lot of discussion on leadership lately? In the past 3 years, all the meetings I have attended had at least 1 presentation on leadership or the traits of leaders. Sometimes—even in the oddest places—I have come across an article with “leadership” in the title. In fact, a serendipitous discovery of 2 publications is what inspired me to write this.

I spotted the first one in a reading basket when I was on vacation: It was an interview with Benjamin Zander, the conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra and the Boston Philharmonic Youth Orchestra.¹ I was especially interested to read this because when I was in graduate school, Benjamin (the father of one of my classmates) visited our campus to give a presentation on talent and self-confidence. I can still hear him conducting us to emphatically believe in ourselves and others. This was echoed in his interview: “Never doubt the capacity of the people you lead to accomplish whatever you dream for them.” What a powerful concept: Believe in the possibilities of someone!

The second was an American Legion Auxiliary column, which emphasized that “leadership is not a title, but a responsibility.”² This struck a chord with me because some prominent leaders don’t appear to ascribe to that assessment (although they should!).

After digesting these articles, I started thinking: What, exactly, is leadership? What do we even mean by leadership? How do we measure it? Is it measurable? How do we know when we see or experience good leadership? Can one learn to become a leader by simply reading a “how-to” article?

I think I can answer these questions with 2 principles that have guided me through my career as an NP: (1) Make use of another leader’s expertise to guide you, and (2) Continue to grow amid any setbacks.

For example, my transition from a full-time clinician to a Health Policy Coordinator or “policy wonk” did not have a distinct trajectory. Although my core set of clinical skills were essential, I knew early on that I had to expand by adapting specific organizational skills that would enable me to grow in my new role. But how was I to prioritize which skills to improve? More than a simple trial-and-error approach was required; I needed guidance. Fortunately, my new boss was willing to share her experience and the lessons she learned on the job. Key among them was to recognize the skills I already had—communicating and coordinating—and to develop those skills to be more effective in my new position.

Later in my career, I worked with colleagues to pursue legislation for NP prescriptive authority in Massachusetts. The political arena of Commonwealth’s health care laws was especially pivotal in changing how I saw setbacks. These weren’t to be accepted as a failure but as a challenge to figure out how to better succeed the next time. For several years, I was told “No” before we finally got a bill passed. But each round of my testimony was an opportunity to educate lawmakers and the public on the valuable role of NPs and the quality of care we provide. I try to share this story with new NPs as a good example of why they should persist through adversity.

Continue to: Over the next 3 weeks...

Over the next 3 weeks, join us on Thursdays as we continue to discuss what it means to be a leader—from the pitfalls to the victories. For those who are leaders or who work for one, please share your thoughts, experiences, and lessons learned. Maybe you can give a shoutout to someone who was a positive influence!

The Great Pox, the French Disease, Cupid’s Disease – syphilis has had many names throughout history.

Michail Jungierek/Ausstellungsstück des Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte/Creative Commons

Why should we care about the history of syphilis? Surely syphilis has reached the status of a nonentity disease – in-and-out of the doctor’s office with a course of antibiotics and farewell to the problem. And on the surface, that is certainly true. For now. In the developed world. For those with access to reasonable health care.

But that is all the shiny surface of modern medical triumph. Despite successes in prevention throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, syphilis is making comeback. A growing reservoir of syphilis, often untreated, lies hidden by the invisibility of poorer nations and increasingly in the lower economic strata of the developed world. And the danger is increased by the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of the disease.

Over the last decade, the European Union and several other high-income countries observed an increasing syphilis trend, according to a recent report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. And in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has expressed concern over “the rising tide of syphilis” and a “devastating surge in congenital syphilis.” Many reasons have been suggested for this resurgence of syphilis, including the prevalence of unprotected sex and the overall increase in multiple sexual partners in the sexually active population. This trend has been ascribed to a reduced fear of acquiring HIV from condomless sex because of the rise of antiretroviral therapies, which make HIV infection no longer a death sentence for those who have access to and can afford the drugs.

Men who have sex with men are the most affected population cited, which may in part be related to the trend in unprotected sex that has accompanied the decreasing fear of HIV. But in some countries, syphilis rates among heterosexual populations are on the increase as well. Even more troubling were the increases in syphilis diagnosed among pregnant women that were reported in high-income settings outside of the European Union, which led to increases in congenital syphilis infections.

According to a 2018 update on the global epidemiology of syphilis, each year an estimated 6 million new cases are diagnosed in people aged 15-49 years, with more than 300,000 fetal and neonatal deaths attributed to the disease. An additional 215,000 infants are at increased risk of early death because of prenatal infection.

For syphilis is indeed a nasty disease. But a remarkable one as well. It presents an almost textbook example of disease evolution and adaptation writ large. It is also a disease with equally remarkable properties – acute, systemic, latent, eruptive, and congenital in its various manifestations. As Sir William Osler, one of the brightest lights of medical education of his time, said in 1897: “I often tell my students that it [syphilis] is the only disease which they require to know thoroughly. Know syphilis in all its manifestations and relations, and all other things clinical will be added unto you.”

Syphilis is caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum and is generally acquired by sexual contact. Congenital syphilis infection occurs by transplacental transmission.

In its modern manifestation, the disease evolves through several stages – primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary, noncongenital infection is characterized by a lesion. This chancre, as it is called, occurs at the original site of infection, typically between 10 days and 3 months after exposure. The chancre usually appears on the genitals, but given the variety of sexual behaviors, chancres can also occur on the rectum, tongue, pharynx, breast, and so on. The myth of only choosing “a clean partner,” one without visible lesions, is misleading because vaginal and rectal lesions may not be easy to spot yet still remain profoundly infectious.

The secondary stage of an untreated infection occurs 2-3 months after the onset of chancre, and results in multisystem involvement as the spirochetes spread through the bloodstream. Symptoms include skin rash (involving the palms and the soles of the feet) and potentially a variety of other dermatologic manifestations. Fever and swollen lymph nodes may also be present before the disease moves into a latent stage, in which no clinical symptoms are evident. Following this, tertiary syphilis can occur 10-30 years after the initial infection in about 30% of the untreated population, resulting in neurosyphilis, cardiovascular syphilis, or late benign syphilis. Disease progression in tertiary syphilis can lead to dementia, disfigurement, and death.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But what we’ve just recounted is the relatively benign disease that modern syphilis has become. Syphilis began as a sweeping, lethal epidemic in the late 15th century spreading dread across the world from the Americas to Europe and then to Asia at a speed equal to the fastest sailing ships of the era.

Syphilis first appeared in Naples in its epidemic form in 1495. Recent anthropological and historical consensus has suggested that syphilis, as we know it today, like tobacco, potatoes, and maize is a product of the Americas that was brought to the Old World by the intrepid exploits of one Christopher Columbus in 1493. Just as the Spanish inadvertently brought smallpox to devastate the population of the New World, Christopher Columbus appears to have brought epidemic syphilis to the Old World in an ironic twist of fate.

Ruy Diaz de Isla, one of two Spanish physicians present when Christopher Columbus returned from his first voyage to America, wrote in a manuscript that Pinzon de Palos, the pilot of Columbus, and also other members of the crew already suffered from symptoms of what was likely syphilis on their return from the New World

Public domain

Although there has been some controversy regarding the origin of the syphilis epidemic, a recent molecular study using a large collection of pathogenic Treponema strains indicated that venereal syphilis arose relatively recently in human history, and that the closest related syphilis-causing strains were found in South America, providing support for the Columbian theory of syphilis’s origin.

Syphilis flamed across Europe like wildfire, lit by a series of small wars that started shortly after Columbus’s return. Soldiers throughout history have indulged themselves in activities well primed for the spread of venereal disease, and the doughty warriors of the late 15th century were no exception. And throughout the next 500-plus years, syphilis and war rode across the world in tandem, like the white and red horsemen of the Apocalypse.

In its initial launch, syphilis had the help of Charles VIII, the King of France, who had invaded Italy in early 1495 with an army of more than 30,000 mercenaries recruited from across Europe. His forces conquered Naples, which was primarily defended by Spanish mercenaries.

When Charles VIII broke up his army, “mercenaries, infected with a mysterious, serious disease, returned to their native lands or moved elsewhere to wage war, spreading the disease across Europe.” The “Great Pox” initially struck Italy, France, Germany, and Switzerland in 1495; then Holland and Greece in the following year, reaching England and Scotland by 1497; and then Hungary, Poland, and the Scandinavian countries by 1500.

As this period was the Age of Exploration, French, Dutch, and English sailors soon carried syphilis across the rest of an unsuspecting world, with the disease reaching India in 1498 before moving also to Africa and then throughout the rest of Asia in the early 16th century.

And yet, one of the most remarkable parts of the story is the rapid transformation of syphilis from a deadly virulent epidemic to a (comparatively) benign endemic status. Which will be the subject of my next posting.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Creative Commons

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner . He has a PhD in Plant Virology and a PhD in the History of Science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Washington, DC.

The Great Pox, the French Disease, Cupid’s Disease – syphilis has had many names throughout history.

Michail Jungierek/Ausstellungsstück des Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte/Creative Commons

Why should we care about the history of syphilis? Surely syphilis has reached the status of a nonentity disease – in-and-out of the doctor’s office with a course of antibiotics and farewell to the problem. And on the surface, that is certainly true. For now. In the developed world. For those with access to reasonable health care.

But that is all the shiny surface of modern medical triumph. Despite successes in prevention throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, syphilis is making comeback. A growing reservoir of syphilis, often untreated, lies hidden by the invisibility of poorer nations and increasingly in the lower economic strata of the developed world. And the danger is increased by the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of the disease.

Over the last decade, the European Union and several other high-income countries observed an increasing syphilis trend, according to a recent report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. And in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has expressed concern over “the rising tide of syphilis” and a “devastating surge in congenital syphilis.” Many reasons have been suggested for this resurgence of syphilis, including the prevalence of unprotected sex and the overall increase in multiple sexual partners in the sexually active population. This trend has been ascribed to a reduced fear of acquiring HIV from condomless sex because of the rise of antiretroviral therapies, which make HIV infection no longer a death sentence for those who have access to and can afford the drugs.

Men who have sex with men are the most affected population cited, which may in part be related to the trend in unprotected sex that has accompanied the decreasing fear of HIV. But in some countries, syphilis rates among heterosexual populations are on the increase as well. Even more troubling were the increases in syphilis diagnosed among pregnant women that were reported in high-income settings outside of the European Union, which led to increases in congenital syphilis infections.

According to a 2018 update on the global epidemiology of syphilis, each year an estimated 6 million new cases are diagnosed in people aged 15-49 years, with more than 300,000 fetal and neonatal deaths attributed to the disease. An additional 215,000 infants are at increased risk of early death because of prenatal infection.

For syphilis is indeed a nasty disease. But a remarkable one as well. It presents an almost textbook example of disease evolution and adaptation writ large. It is also a disease with equally remarkable properties – acute, systemic, latent, eruptive, and congenital in its various manifestations. As Sir William Osler, one of the brightest lights of medical education of his time, said in 1897: “I often tell my students that it [syphilis] is the only disease which they require to know thoroughly. Know syphilis in all its manifestations and relations, and all other things clinical will be added unto you.”

Syphilis is caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum and is generally acquired by sexual contact. Congenital syphilis infection occurs by transplacental transmission.

In its modern manifestation, the disease evolves through several stages – primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary, noncongenital infection is characterized by a lesion. This chancre, as it is called, occurs at the original site of infection, typically between 10 days and 3 months after exposure. The chancre usually appears on the genitals, but given the variety of sexual behaviors, chancres can also occur on the rectum, tongue, pharynx, breast, and so on. The myth of only choosing “a clean partner,” one without visible lesions, is misleading because vaginal and rectal lesions may not be easy to spot yet still remain profoundly infectious.

The secondary stage of an untreated infection occurs 2-3 months after the onset of chancre, and results in multisystem involvement as the spirochetes spread through the bloodstream. Symptoms include skin rash (involving the palms and the soles of the feet) and potentially a variety of other dermatologic manifestations. Fever and swollen lymph nodes may also be present before the disease moves into a latent stage, in which no clinical symptoms are evident. Following this, tertiary syphilis can occur 10-30 years after the initial infection in about 30% of the untreated population, resulting in neurosyphilis, cardiovascular syphilis, or late benign syphilis. Disease progression in tertiary syphilis can lead to dementia, disfigurement, and death.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But what we’ve just recounted is the relatively benign disease that modern syphilis has become. Syphilis began as a sweeping, lethal epidemic in the late 15th century spreading dread across the world from the Americas to Europe and then to Asia at a speed equal to the fastest sailing ships of the era.

Syphilis first appeared in Naples in its epidemic form in 1495. Recent anthropological and historical consensus has suggested that syphilis, as we know it today, like tobacco, potatoes, and maize is a product of the Americas that was brought to the Old World by the intrepid exploits of one Christopher Columbus in 1493. Just as the Spanish inadvertently brought smallpox to devastate the population of the New World, Christopher Columbus appears to have brought epidemic syphilis to the Old World in an ironic twist of fate.

Ruy Diaz de Isla, one of two Spanish physicians present when Christopher Columbus returned from his first voyage to America, wrote in a manuscript that Pinzon de Palos, the pilot of Columbus, and also other members of the crew already suffered from symptoms of what was likely syphilis on their return from the New World

Public domain

Although there has been some controversy regarding the origin of the syphilis epidemic, a recent molecular study using a large collection of pathogenic Treponema strains indicated that venereal syphilis arose relatively recently in human history, and that the closest related syphilis-causing strains were found in South America, providing support for the Columbian theory of syphilis’s origin.

Syphilis flamed across Europe like wildfire, lit by a series of small wars that started shortly after Columbus’s return. Soldiers throughout history have indulged themselves in activities well primed for the spread of venereal disease, and the doughty warriors of the late 15th century were no exception. And throughout the next 500-plus years, syphilis and war rode across the world in tandem, like the white and red horsemen of the Apocalypse.

In its initial launch, syphilis had the help of Charles VIII, the King of France, who had invaded Italy in early 1495 with an army of more than 30,000 mercenaries recruited from across Europe. His forces conquered Naples, which was primarily defended by Spanish mercenaries.

When Charles VIII broke up his army, “mercenaries, infected with a mysterious, serious disease, returned to their native lands or moved elsewhere to wage war, spreading the disease across Europe.” The “Great Pox” initially struck Italy, France, Germany, and Switzerland in 1495; then Holland and Greece in the following year, reaching England and Scotland by 1497; and then Hungary, Poland, and the Scandinavian countries by 1500.

As this period was the Age of Exploration, French, Dutch, and English sailors soon carried syphilis across the rest of an unsuspecting world, with the disease reaching India in 1498 before moving also to Africa and then throughout the rest of Asia in the early 16th century.

And yet, one of the most remarkable parts of the story is the rapid transformation of syphilis from a deadly virulent epidemic to a (comparatively) benign endemic status. Which will be the subject of my next posting.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Creative Commons

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner . He has a PhD in Plant Virology and a PhD in the History of Science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Washington, DC.

The Great Pox, the French Disease, Cupid’s Disease – syphilis has had many names throughout history.

Michail Jungierek/Ausstellungsstück des Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte/Creative Commons

Why should we care about the history of syphilis? Surely syphilis has reached the status of a nonentity disease – in-and-out of the doctor’s office with a course of antibiotics and farewell to the problem. And on the surface, that is certainly true. For now. In the developed world. For those with access to reasonable health care.

But that is all the shiny surface of modern medical triumph. Despite successes in prevention throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, syphilis is making comeback. A growing reservoir of syphilis, often untreated, lies hidden by the invisibility of poorer nations and increasingly in the lower economic strata of the developed world. And the danger is increased by the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of the disease.

Over the last decade, the European Union and several other high-income countries observed an increasing syphilis trend, according to a recent report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. And in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has expressed concern over “the rising tide of syphilis” and a “devastating surge in congenital syphilis.” Many reasons have been suggested for this resurgence of syphilis, including the prevalence of unprotected sex and the overall increase in multiple sexual partners in the sexually active population. This trend has been ascribed to a reduced fear of acquiring HIV from condomless sex because of the rise of antiretroviral therapies, which make HIV infection no longer a death sentence for those who have access to and can afford the drugs.

Men who have sex with men are the most affected population cited, which may in part be related to the trend in unprotected sex that has accompanied the decreasing fear of HIV. But in some countries, syphilis rates among heterosexual populations are on the increase as well. Even more troubling were the increases in syphilis diagnosed among pregnant women that were reported in high-income settings outside of the European Union, which led to increases in congenital syphilis infections.

According to a 2018 update on the global epidemiology of syphilis, each year an estimated 6 million new cases are diagnosed in people aged 15-49 years, with more than 300,000 fetal and neonatal deaths attributed to the disease. An additional 215,000 infants are at increased risk of early death because of prenatal infection.

For syphilis is indeed a nasty disease. But a remarkable one as well. It presents an almost textbook example of disease evolution and adaptation writ large. It is also a disease with equally remarkable properties – acute, systemic, latent, eruptive, and congenital in its various manifestations. As Sir William Osler, one of the brightest lights of medical education of his time, said in 1897: “I often tell my students that it [syphilis] is the only disease which they require to know thoroughly. Know syphilis in all its manifestations and relations, and all other things clinical will be added unto you.”

Syphilis is caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum and is generally acquired by sexual contact. Congenital syphilis infection occurs by transplacental transmission.

In its modern manifestation, the disease evolves through several stages – primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary, noncongenital infection is characterized by a lesion. This chancre, as it is called, occurs at the original site of infection, typically between 10 days and 3 months after exposure. The chancre usually appears on the genitals, but given the variety of sexual behaviors, chancres can also occur on the rectum, tongue, pharynx, breast, and so on. The myth of only choosing “a clean partner,” one without visible lesions, is misleading because vaginal and rectal lesions may not be easy to spot yet still remain profoundly infectious.

The secondary stage of an untreated infection occurs 2-3 months after the onset of chancre, and results in multisystem involvement as the spirochetes spread through the bloodstream. Symptoms include skin rash (involving the palms and the soles of the feet) and potentially a variety of other dermatologic manifestations. Fever and swollen lymph nodes may also be present before the disease moves into a latent stage, in which no clinical symptoms are evident. Following this, tertiary syphilis can occur 10-30 years after the initial infection in about 30% of the untreated population, resulting in neurosyphilis, cardiovascular syphilis, or late benign syphilis. Disease progression in tertiary syphilis can lead to dementia, disfigurement, and death.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But what we’ve just recounted is the relatively benign disease that modern syphilis has become. Syphilis began as a sweeping, lethal epidemic in the late 15th century spreading dread across the world from the Americas to Europe and then to Asia at a speed equal to the fastest sailing ships of the era.

Syphilis first appeared in Naples in its epidemic form in 1495. Recent anthropological and historical consensus has suggested that syphilis, as we know it today, like tobacco, potatoes, and maize is a product of the Americas that was brought to the Old World by the intrepid exploits of one Christopher Columbus in 1493. Just as the Spanish inadvertently brought smallpox to devastate the population of the New World, Christopher Columbus appears to have brought epidemic syphilis to the Old World in an ironic twist of fate.

Ruy Diaz de Isla, one of two Spanish physicians present when Christopher Columbus returned from his first voyage to America, wrote in a manuscript that Pinzon de Palos, the pilot of Columbus, and also other members of the crew already suffered from symptoms of what was likely syphilis on their return from the New World

Public domain

Although there has been some controversy regarding the origin of the syphilis epidemic, a recent molecular study using a large collection of pathogenic Treponema strains indicated that venereal syphilis arose relatively recently in human history, and that the closest related syphilis-causing strains were found in South America, providing support for the Columbian theory of syphilis’s origin.

Syphilis flamed across Europe like wildfire, lit by a series of small wars that started shortly after Columbus’s return. Soldiers throughout history have indulged themselves in activities well primed for the spread of venereal disease, and the doughty warriors of the late 15th century were no exception. And throughout the next 500-plus years, syphilis and war rode across the world in tandem, like the white and red horsemen of the Apocalypse.

In its initial launch, syphilis had the help of Charles VIII, the King of France, who had invaded Italy in early 1495 with an army of more than 30,000 mercenaries recruited from across Europe. His forces conquered Naples, which was primarily defended by Spanish mercenaries.

When Charles VIII broke up his army, “mercenaries, infected with a mysterious, serious disease, returned to their native lands or moved elsewhere to wage war, spreading the disease across Europe.” The “Great Pox” initially struck Italy, France, Germany, and Switzerland in 1495; then Holland and Greece in the following year, reaching England and Scotland by 1497; and then Hungary, Poland, and the Scandinavian countries by 1500.

As this period was the Age of Exploration, French, Dutch, and English sailors soon carried syphilis across the rest of an unsuspecting world, with the disease reaching India in 1498 before moving also to Africa and then throughout the rest of Asia in the early 16th century.

And yet, one of the most remarkable parts of the story is the rapid transformation of syphilis from a deadly virulent epidemic to a (comparatively) benign endemic status. Which will be the subject of my next posting.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Creative Commons

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner . He has a PhD in Plant Virology and a PhD in the History of Science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Washington, DC.

Impressive progress has been made in recent years in the management and treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) and its comorbidities; however, there is a major need for state-of-the-art, evidence-based, multidisciplinary education for AD management. To address this need, the first Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Conference was held in April 2019 in Chicago, Illinois, featuring cutting-edge research presented by globally recognized experts in dermatology, allergy and immunology, sleep medicine, ophthalmology, and nursing care. The following is a recap of the latest topics in AD research presented at the conference.

Diagnosis and Assessment of AD: Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH

Although diagnosis of AD typically is straightforward in children, it can be challenging in adults, even for expert clinicians. These challenges stem from the different lesional distribution and morphology of AD in adults vs children.^1,2 Additionally, the conditions included in the differential diagnosis of AD (eg, allergic contact dermatitis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, psoriasis) are far more common in adults than in children. Formal diagnostic criteria can be useful to improve the diagnosis of AD in clinical practice.³ It is important to note that flexural lesions and early disease onset are diagnostic criteria in AD; nevertheless, neither are essential nor sufficient on their own to make the diagnosis.

Patch Testing: Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, DmSci, and Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, NEA-BC

Patch testing can be used in AD patients to rule out contact dermatitis as an alternative or comorbid diagnosis.^4-6 Because contact dermatitis can mimic AD, patch testing is recommended for all patients with adolescent and adult-onset AD.⁵ Additionally, refractory cases of AD across all ages, especially prior to initiation of systemic therapy, warrant patch testing. The unique challenges of patch testing in AD patients were reviewed.

Patient Panel

Atopic dermatitis can be a considerable disease burden on both patients and society in general. At the 2019 RAD Conference, a panel of patients bravely shared their AD journeys. Their eye-opening stories highlighted opportunities for improving real-world assessment and management of AD. Some key takeaways included the importance of adequately assessing the symptom burden of AD and not merely relying on visual inspection of the skin. The need for long-term treatment approaches beyond quick fixes with steroids also was discussed.

Pathogenesis of AD: Mark Boguniewicz, MD

There have been many advances in our understanding of the complex pathogenesis of AD,^7-11 which is characterized by an altered skin barrier and immune dysregulation. Filaggrin deficiency in the skin has structural and biophysical consequences. A subset of patients with AD has filaggrin loss-of-function genetic polymorphisms inherited in an autosomal-semidominant pattern; however, many other genetic polymorphisms have been identified that affect different components of the skin architecture and immune system. Many cytokine pathways have been found to be upregulated in AD lesions, including IL-13, IL-4, IL-31, and IL-5 in acute and chronic lesions, and IFN-γ and other helper T cell (T_H1) cytokines in chronic lesions. IL-4 and IL-13 (T_H2 cytokines) have been shown to decrease epidermal expression of filaggrin and lead to lipid abnormalities in the skin of patients with AD. Even normal-appearing, nonlesional skin has substantial immune activation and barrier abnormalities in patients with moderate to severe AD. Activation of different immune pathways may contribute to the heterogeneous clinical presentation of AD. There also is an increasingly recognized role of superantigen-producing Staphylococcus aureus and decreased microbial diversity in AD.

Therapies for AD

The advances in our understanding of AD pathophysiology have led to the development of 2 recently approved therapeutic agents.^7-10 Crisaborole ointment 2% is a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016 for treatment of mild to moderate AD. Treatment with crisaborole ointment 2% demonstrated improvement in lesion severity, itch, and quality of life in children and adults with AD. Dupilumab, an injectable biologic therapy that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for adults and in 2019 for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with moderate to severe AD. The expert panel of speakers at the 2019 RAD Conference discussed many practical clinical pearls regarding patient education, optimization of both short- and long-term efficacy, and prevention and management of treatment-related adverse events. The discussion included evidence-based guidelines for bathing practices and topical therapy in AD, as well as practical pearls for patient and provider education in AD, reviewed by Dr. Nicol. Evidence-based guidelines for use of phototherapy and systemic and biologic therapy for AD also were highlighted by Dr. Silverberg.

After decades of limited therapeutic options, there is a large therapeutic pipeline of topical, oral, and biologic agents in development for the treatment AD.^7-9 Dr. Boguniewicz reviewed the state-of-the-art treatments that are the furthest advanced in development. Many of these agents may be approved within the next couple of years and look promising in terms of their potential to improve the care of patients with AD.

Comorbidities of AD

The impact of AD is not just skin deep. Atopic dermatitis is associated with myriad comorbid health conditions.^12-16 Dr. Boguniewicz reviewed the relationship between AD and atopic comorbidities, including asthma, hay fever, and food allergies, which are common across all AD patients. In addition, a subset of children with AD demonstrated the atopic march, in which AD first appears early in life followed by the development of other atopic comorbidities in later childhood or adulthood. In particular, children with filaggrin null mutations were found to be at increased risk of early-onset, severe, persistent AD with asthma and allergic sensitization.¹⁷ More recently, eosinophilic esophagitis was demonstrated to be a late-onset comorbidity of the atopic march.¹⁸ The allergy guidelines for which patients are appropriate candidates for food and/or aeroallergen testing were discussed,¹⁹ and it was emphasized that patients with AD should not routinely receive this testing.

Atopic dermatitis is associated with many other comorbidities, including sleep disturbances. Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, provided a brilliant review of circadian regulation of physiology and the immune system. Sleep is one of the most important determinants of patients’ health and well-being. Atopic dermatitis is associated with disturbances of sleep and circadian rhythms. Sleep disturbances are gaining recognition as an important end point to assess for improvement in clinical practice and trials.

Patients with AD have long been recognized to have increased ophthalmic comorbidities, including allergic conjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, and cataracts. More recently, conjunctivitis has emerged as an important adverse event with dupilumab treatment.²⁰ Jeanine Baqai, MD, reviewed the various ophthalmic comorbidities and shared numerous clinical signs of ophthalmic comorbidities that dermatologists can assess with the naked eye (no slit-lamp examination needed). Pearls to manage dupilumab-related conjunctivitis shared by Dr. Baqai and the speaker panel included elimination of eye rubbing, cold compresses, avoidance of exacerbating factors, artificial tears, and timely referral to an ophthalmologist. Medications discussed were mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, and corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors.

Final Thoughts

There has been an explosion of new research that has increased our understanding of all aspects of AD, and the standard of care is truly being revolutionized. Clinicians should stay tuned to a wealth of new evidence-based recommendations coming down the pike.

Impressive progress has been made in recent years in the management and treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) and its comorbidities; however, there is a major need for state-of-the-art, evidence-based, multidisciplinary education for AD management. To address this need, the first Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Conference was held in April 2019 in Chicago, Illinois, featuring cutting-edge research presented by globally recognized experts in dermatology, allergy and immunology, sleep medicine, ophthalmology, and nursing care. The following is a recap of the latest topics in AD research presented at the conference.

Diagnosis and Assessment of AD: Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH

Although diagnosis of AD typically is straightforward in children, it can be challenging in adults, even for expert clinicians. These challenges stem from the different lesional distribution and morphology of AD in adults vs children.^1,2 Additionally, the conditions included in the differential diagnosis of AD (eg, allergic contact dermatitis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, psoriasis) are far more common in adults than in children. Formal diagnostic criteria can be useful to improve the diagnosis of AD in clinical practice.³ It is important to note that flexural lesions and early disease onset are diagnostic criteria in AD; nevertheless, neither are essential nor sufficient on their own to make the diagnosis.

Patch Testing: Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, DmSci, and Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, NEA-BC

Patch testing can be used in AD patients to rule out contact dermatitis as an alternative or comorbid diagnosis.^4-6 Because contact dermatitis can mimic AD, patch testing is recommended for all patients with adolescent and adult-onset AD.⁵ Additionally, refractory cases of AD across all ages, especially prior to initiation of systemic therapy, warrant patch testing. The unique challenges of patch testing in AD patients were reviewed.

Patient Panel

Atopic dermatitis can be a considerable disease burden on both patients and society in general. At the 2019 RAD Conference, a panel of patients bravely shared their AD journeys. Their eye-opening stories highlighted opportunities for improving real-world assessment and management of AD. Some key takeaways included the importance of adequately assessing the symptom burden of AD and not merely relying on visual inspection of the skin. The need for long-term treatment approaches beyond quick fixes with steroids also was discussed.

Pathogenesis of AD: Mark Boguniewicz, MD

There have been many advances in our understanding of the complex pathogenesis of AD,^7-11 which is characterized by an altered skin barrier and immune dysregulation. Filaggrin deficiency in the skin has structural and biophysical consequences. A subset of patients with AD has filaggrin loss-of-function genetic polymorphisms inherited in an autosomal-semidominant pattern; however, many other genetic polymorphisms have been identified that affect different components of the skin architecture and immune system. Many cytokine pathways have been found to be upregulated in AD lesions, including IL-13, IL-4, IL-31, and IL-5 in acute and chronic lesions, and IFN-γ and other helper T cell (T_H1) cytokines in chronic lesions. IL-4 and IL-13 (T_H2 cytokines) have been shown to decrease epidermal expression of filaggrin and lead to lipid abnormalities in the skin of patients with AD. Even normal-appearing, nonlesional skin has substantial immune activation and barrier abnormalities in patients with moderate to severe AD. Activation of different immune pathways may contribute to the heterogeneous clinical presentation of AD. There also is an increasingly recognized role of superantigen-producing Staphylococcus aureus and decreased microbial diversity in AD.

Therapies for AD

The advances in our understanding of AD pathophysiology have led to the development of 2 recently approved therapeutic agents.^7-10 Crisaborole ointment 2% is a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016 for treatment of mild to moderate AD. Treatment with crisaborole ointment 2% demonstrated improvement in lesion severity, itch, and quality of life in children and adults with AD. Dupilumab, an injectable biologic therapy that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for adults and in 2019 for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with moderate to severe AD. The expert panel of speakers at the 2019 RAD Conference discussed many practical clinical pearls regarding patient education, optimization of both short- and long-term efficacy, and prevention and management of treatment-related adverse events. The discussion included evidence-based guidelines for bathing practices and topical therapy in AD, as well as practical pearls for patient and provider education in AD, reviewed by Dr. Nicol. Evidence-based guidelines for use of phototherapy and systemic and biologic therapy for AD also were highlighted by Dr. Silverberg.

After decades of limited therapeutic options, there is a large therapeutic pipeline of topical, oral, and biologic agents in development for the treatment AD.^7-9 Dr. Boguniewicz reviewed the state-of-the-art treatments that are the furthest advanced in development. Many of these agents may be approved within the next couple of years and look promising in terms of their potential to improve the care of patients with AD.

Comorbidities of AD

The impact of AD is not just skin deep. Atopic dermatitis is associated with myriad comorbid health conditions.^12-16 Dr. Boguniewicz reviewed the relationship between AD and atopic comorbidities, including asthma, hay fever, and food allergies, which are common across all AD patients. In addition, a subset of children with AD demonstrated the atopic march, in which AD first appears early in life followed by the development of other atopic comorbidities in later childhood or adulthood. In particular, children with filaggrin null mutations were found to be at increased risk of early-onset, severe, persistent AD with asthma and allergic sensitization.¹⁷ More recently, eosinophilic esophagitis was demonstrated to be a late-onset comorbidity of the atopic march.¹⁸ The allergy guidelines for which patients are appropriate candidates for food and/or aeroallergen testing were discussed,¹⁹ and it was emphasized that patients with AD should not routinely receive this testing.

Atopic dermatitis is associated with many other comorbidities, including sleep disturbances. Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, provided a brilliant review of circadian regulation of physiology and the immune system. Sleep is one of the most important determinants of patients’ health and well-being. Atopic dermatitis is associated with disturbances of sleep and circadian rhythms. Sleep disturbances are gaining recognition as an important end point to assess for improvement in clinical practice and trials.

Patients with AD have long been recognized to have increased ophthalmic comorbidities, including allergic conjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, and cataracts. More recently, conjunctivitis has emerged as an important adverse event with dupilumab treatment.²⁰ Jeanine Baqai, MD, reviewed the various ophthalmic comorbidities and shared numerous clinical signs of ophthalmic comorbidities that dermatologists can assess with the naked eye (no slit-lamp examination needed). Pearls to manage dupilumab-related conjunctivitis shared by Dr. Baqai and the speaker panel included elimination of eye rubbing, cold compresses, avoidance of exacerbating factors, artificial tears, and timely referral to an ophthalmologist. Medications discussed were mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, and corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors.

Final Thoughts

There has been an explosion of new research that has increased our understanding of all aspects of AD, and the standard of care is truly being revolutionized. Clinicians should stay tuned to a wealth of new evidence-based recommendations coming down the pike.

Impressive progress has been made in recent years in the management and treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) and its comorbidities; however, there is a major need for state-of-the-art, evidence-based, multidisciplinary education for AD management. To address this need, the first Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Conference was held in April 2019 in Chicago, Illinois, featuring cutting-edge research presented by globally recognized experts in dermatology, allergy and immunology, sleep medicine, ophthalmology, and nursing care. The following is a recap of the latest topics in AD research presented at the conference.

Diagnosis and Assessment of AD: Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH

Although diagnosis of AD typically is straightforward in children, it can be challenging in adults, even for expert clinicians. These challenges stem from the different lesional distribution and morphology of AD in adults vs children.^1,2 Additionally, the conditions included in the differential diagnosis of AD (eg, allergic contact dermatitis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, psoriasis) are far more common in adults than in children. Formal diagnostic criteria can be useful to improve the diagnosis of AD in clinical practice.³ It is important to note that flexural lesions and early disease onset are diagnostic criteria in AD; nevertheless, neither are essential nor sufficient on their own to make the diagnosis.

Patch Testing: Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, DmSci, and Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, NEA-BC

Patch testing can be used in AD patients to rule out contact dermatitis as an alternative or comorbid diagnosis.^4-6 Because contact dermatitis can mimic AD, patch testing is recommended for all patients with adolescent and adult-onset AD.⁵ Additionally, refractory cases of AD across all ages, especially prior to initiation of systemic therapy, warrant patch testing. The unique challenges of patch testing in AD patients were reviewed.

Patient Panel

Atopic dermatitis can be a considerable disease burden on both patients and society in general. At the 2019 RAD Conference, a panel of patients bravely shared their AD journeys. Their eye-opening stories highlighted opportunities for improving real-world assessment and management of AD. Some key takeaways included the importance of adequately assessing the symptom burden of AD and not merely relying on visual inspection of the skin. The need for long-term treatment approaches beyond quick fixes with steroids also was discussed.

Pathogenesis of AD: Mark Boguniewicz, MD

There have been many advances in our understanding of the complex pathogenesis of AD,^7-11 which is characterized by an altered skin barrier and immune dysregulation. Filaggrin deficiency in the skin has structural and biophysical consequences. A subset of patients with AD has filaggrin loss-of-function genetic polymorphisms inherited in an autosomal-semidominant pattern; however, many other genetic polymorphisms have been identified that affect different components of the skin architecture and immune system. Many cytokine pathways have been found to be upregulated in AD lesions, including IL-13, IL-4, IL-31, and IL-5 in acute and chronic lesions, and IFN-γ and other helper T cell (T_H1) cytokines in chronic lesions. IL-4 and IL-13 (T_H2 cytokines) have been shown to decrease epidermal expression of filaggrin and lead to lipid abnormalities in the skin of patients with AD. Even normal-appearing, nonlesional skin has substantial immune activation and barrier abnormalities in patients with moderate to severe AD. Activation of different immune pathways may contribute to the heterogeneous clinical presentation of AD. There also is an increasingly recognized role of superantigen-producing Staphylococcus aureus and decreased microbial diversity in AD.

Therapies for AD

The advances in our understanding of AD pathophysiology have led to the development of 2 recently approved therapeutic agents.^7-10 Crisaborole ointment 2% is a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016 for treatment of mild to moderate AD. Treatment with crisaborole ointment 2% demonstrated improvement in lesion severity, itch, and quality of life in children and adults with AD. Dupilumab, an injectable biologic therapy that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for adults and in 2019 for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with moderate to severe AD. The expert panel of speakers at the 2019 RAD Conference discussed many practical clinical pearls regarding patient education, optimization of both short- and long-term efficacy, and prevention and management of treatment-related adverse events. The discussion included evidence-based guidelines for bathing practices and topical therapy in AD, as well as practical pearls for patient and provider education in AD, reviewed by Dr. Nicol. Evidence-based guidelines for use of phototherapy and systemic and biologic therapy for AD also were highlighted by Dr. Silverberg.

After decades of limited therapeutic options, there is a large therapeutic pipeline of topical, oral, and biologic agents in development for the treatment AD.^7-9 Dr. Boguniewicz reviewed the state-of-the-art treatments that are the furthest advanced in development. Many of these agents may be approved within the next couple of years and look promising in terms of their potential to improve the care of patients with AD.

Comorbidities of AD

The impact of AD is not just skin deep. Atopic dermatitis is associated with myriad comorbid health conditions.^12-16 Dr. Boguniewicz reviewed the relationship between AD and atopic comorbidities, including asthma, hay fever, and food allergies, which are common across all AD patients. In addition, a subset of children with AD demonstrated the atopic march, in which AD first appears early in life followed by the development of other atopic comorbidities in later childhood or adulthood. In particular, children with filaggrin null mutations were found to be at increased risk of early-onset, severe, persistent AD with asthma and allergic sensitization.¹⁷ More recently, eosinophilic esophagitis was demonstrated to be a late-onset comorbidity of the atopic march.¹⁸ The allergy guidelines for which patients are appropriate candidates for food and/or aeroallergen testing were discussed,¹⁹ and it was emphasized that patients with AD should not routinely receive this testing.

Atopic dermatitis is associated with many other comorbidities, including sleep disturbances. Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, provided a brilliant review of circadian regulation of physiology and the immune system. Sleep is one of the most important determinants of patients’ health and well-being. Atopic dermatitis is associated with disturbances of sleep and circadian rhythms. Sleep disturbances are gaining recognition as an important end point to assess for improvement in clinical practice and trials.

Patients with AD have long been recognized to have increased ophthalmic comorbidities, including allergic conjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, and cataracts. More recently, conjunctivitis has emerged as an important adverse event with dupilumab treatment.²⁰ Jeanine Baqai, MD, reviewed the various ophthalmic comorbidities and shared numerous clinical signs of ophthalmic comorbidities that dermatologists can assess with the naked eye (no slit-lamp examination needed). Pearls to manage dupilumab-related conjunctivitis shared by Dr. Baqai and the speaker panel included elimination of eye rubbing, cold compresses, avoidance of exacerbating factors, artificial tears, and timely referral to an ophthalmologist. Medications discussed were mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, and corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors.

Final Thoughts

There has been an explosion of new research that has increased our understanding of all aspects of AD, and the standard of care is truly being revolutionized. Clinicians should stay tuned to a wealth of new evidence-based recommendations coming down the pike.

*This version has been corrected. In the original version the first sentence incorrectly referred to moral injury instead of burnout.

For more than a decade, the term burnout has been used to describe clinician distress.^1,2 Although some clinicians in federal health care systems may be protected from some of the drivers of burnout, other federal practitioners suffer from rule-driven health care practices and distant, top-down administration. The demand for health care is expanding, driven by the aging of the US population.³ Massive information technology investments, which promised efficiency for health care providers,⁴ have instead delivered a triple blow: They have diverted capital resources that might have been used to hire additional caregivers,⁵ diverted the time and attention of those already engaged in patient care,⁶ and done little to improve patient outcomes.⁷ Reimbursements are falling, and the only way for health systems to maintain their revenue is to increase the number of patients each clinician sees per day.⁸ As the resources of time and attention shrink, and as spending continues with no improvement in patient outcomes, clinician distress is on the rise.⁹ It will be important to understand exactly what the drivers of the problem are for federal clinicians so that solutions can be appropriately targeted. The first step in addressing the epidemic of physician distress is using the most accurate terminology to describe it.

Freudenberger defined burnout in 1975 as a constellation of symptoms—malaise, fatigue, frustration, cynicism, and inefficacy—that arise from “making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources” in the workplace.¹⁰ The term was borrowed from other fields and applied to health care in the hopes of readily transferring the solutions that had worked in other industries to address a growing crisis among physicians. Unfortunately, the crisis in health care has proven resistant to solutions that have worked elsewhere, and many clinicians have resisted being characterized as burned out, citing a subtle, elusive disconnect between what they have experienced and what burnout encapsulates.

In July 2018, the conversation about clinician distress shifted with an article we wrote in STAT that described the moral injury of health care.¹¹ The concept of moral injury was first described in service members who returned from the Vietnam War with symptoms that loosely fit a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but which did not respond to standard PTSD treatment and contained symptoms outside the PTSD constellation.¹² On closer assessment, what these service members were experiencing had a different driver. Whereas those with PTSD experienced a real and imminent threat to their mortality and had come back deeply concerned for their individual, physical safety, those with this different presentation experienced repeated insults to their morality and had returned questioning whether they were still, at their core, moral beings. They had been forced, in some way, to act contrary to what their beliefs dictated was right by killing civilians on orders from their superiors, for example. This was a different category of psychological injury that required different treatment.

Moral injury occurs when we perpetrate, bear witness to, or fail to prevent an act that transgresses our deeply held moral beliefs. In the health care context, that deeply held moral belief is the oath each of us took when embarking on our paths as health care providers: Put the needs of patients first. That oath is the lynchpin of our working lives and our guiding principle when searching for the right course of action. But as clinicians, we are increasingly forced to consider the demands of other stakeholders—the electronic medical record (EMR), the insurers, the hospital, the health care system, even our own financial security—before the needs of our patients. Every time we are forced to make a decision that contravenes our patients’ best interests, we feel a sting of moral injustice. Over time, these repetitive insults amass into moral injury.

The difference between burnout and moral injury is important because using different terminology reframes the problem and the solutions. Burnout suggests that the problem resides within the individual, who is in some way deficient. It implies that the individual lacks the resources or resilience to withstand the work environment. Since the problem is in the individual, the solutions to burnout must be in the individual, too, and therefore, it is the individual’s responsibility to find and implement them. Many of the solutions to physician distress posited to date revolve around this conception; hence, the focus on yoga, mindfulness, wellness retreats, and meditation.¹³ While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those practices, it is absurd to believe that yoga will solve the problems of treating a cancer patient with a declined preauthorization for chemotherapy, having no time to discuss a complex diagnosis, or relying on a computer system that places metrics ahead of communication. These problems are not the result of some failing on the part of the individual clinician.

Moral injury, on the other hand, describes the challenge of simultaneously knowing what care patients need but being unable to provide it due to constraints that are beyond our control. Moral injury is the consequence of the ever-present double binds in health care: Do we take care of our patient, the hospital, the insurer, the EMR, the health care system, or our productivity metrics first? There should be only 1 answer to that question, but the current business framework of medicine pressures us to serve all these masters at once. Moral injury locates the source of distress in a broken system, not a broken individual, and allows us to direct solutions at the causes of distress. And in the end, addressing the drivers of moral injury on a large scale may be the most effective preventive treatment for its cumulative effects among health care providers.

The long-term solutions to moral injury demand changes in the business framework of health care. The solutions reside not in promoting mindfulness or resilience among individual physicians, but in creating a health care environment that finally acknowledges the value of the time clinicians and patients spend together developing the trust, understanding, and compassion that accompany a true relationship. The long-term solutions to moral injury include a health care system that prioritizes healing over profit and that trusts its clinicians to always put their patients’ best interests first.

Treating moral injury will not be simple. It cannot happen quickly, and it will not happen without widespread clinician engagement. Change can begin when clinicians identify the double binds they face every day and convey those challenges to their administrators. If administrators and clinicians are willing to work together to resolve these double binds, health care will improve for everyone.

The following are our recommendations for how you can bring change both locally and on a broader scale.

Bring together the 2 sides of the health care house: administrators and clinicians. Invite administrators to join you on rounds, in clinic, or in the operating room. Ask them to follow you during a night of call or to spend an overnight shift with you in the emergency department. The majority of people, including health care administrators, have had only glancing encounters with the medical system. They see their primary care doctor, have regular screening procedures, and maybe get treated for a routine illness or injury. None of those encounters expose them to the depth of challenge in the system.

It takes exposure over a longer duration, or with greater intensity, to appreciate the tensions and double binds that patients and clinicians face regularly.^14,15 Whether or not the administrators accept your invitation, you must also ask to see the challenges from their side. Block out an afternoon, a day, or a week to follow them and learn where they struggle in their work. Only when we understand the other party’s perspective can we truly begin to empathize and communicate meaningfully. That profound understanding is the place where commonality and compromises are found.

Make clinician satisfaction a financial priority. Although care team well-being is now part of the quadruple aim (patient experience, population health, reducing costs, and provider experience), organizations must be held accountable to ensure it is a priority. If we choose to link patient satisfaction with clinician compensation, why not link clinician satisfaction with executive compensation?

Make sure every physician leader has and uses the cell phone number of his or her legislators. Hospitals and big pharma have nearly bottomless lobbying budgets, which makes competing with them for lawmakers’ attention a formidable prospect. Despite this, physician leaders (ie, chief wellness officer, department chairperson, medical society president, etc) have a responsibility to communicate with legislators about the needs of patients (their constituents) and what role our legislators can play in fulfilling those needs. We must understand how policy, regulation, and legislation work, and we need to find seats at every table where the decisions that impact clinical care are made. The first step is opening lines of communication with those who have the power to enact large-scale change.

Reestablish a sense of community among clinicians. Too often clinicians are pitted against one another as resources shrink. Doctors compete with each other for referrals, advanced practitioners and nurses compete with doctors, and everyone feels overstressed. What we tend to forget is that we are all working toward the same goal: To give patients the best care possible. It’s time to view each other with the presumption of charity and to have each other’s backs. Uniting for support, camaraderie, mentorship, and activism is a necessary step in making change.

*This version has been corrected. In the original version the first sentence incorrectly referred to moral injury instead of burnout.

For more than a decade, the term burnout has been used to describe clinician distress.^1,2 Although some clinicians in federal health care systems may be protected from some of the drivers of burnout, other federal practitioners suffer from rule-driven health care practices and distant, top-down administration. The demand for health care is expanding, driven by the aging of the US population.³ Massive information technology investments, which promised efficiency for health care providers,⁴ have instead delivered a triple blow: They have diverted capital resources that might have been used to hire additional caregivers,⁵ diverted the time and attention of those already engaged in patient care,⁶ and done little to improve patient outcomes.⁷ Reimbursements are falling, and the only way for health systems to maintain their revenue is to increase the number of patients each clinician sees per day.⁸ As the resources of time and attention shrink, and as spending continues with no improvement in patient outcomes, clinician distress is on the rise.⁹ It will be important to understand exactly what the drivers of the problem are for federal clinicians so that solutions can be appropriately targeted. The first step in addressing the epidemic of physician distress is using the most accurate terminology to describe it.

Freudenberger defined burnout in 1975 as a constellation of symptoms—malaise, fatigue, frustration, cynicism, and inefficacy—that arise from “making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources” in the workplace.¹⁰ The term was borrowed from other fields and applied to health care in the hopes of readily transferring the solutions that had worked in other industries to address a growing crisis among physicians. Unfortunately, the crisis in health care has proven resistant to solutions that have worked elsewhere, and many clinicians have resisted being characterized as burned out, citing a subtle, elusive disconnect between what they have experienced and what burnout encapsulates.

In July 2018, the conversation about clinician distress shifted with an article we wrote in STAT that described the moral injury of health care.¹¹ The concept of moral injury was first described in service members who returned from the Vietnam War with symptoms that loosely fit a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but which did not respond to standard PTSD treatment and contained symptoms outside the PTSD constellation.¹² On closer assessment, what these service members were experiencing had a different driver. Whereas those with PTSD experienced a real and imminent threat to their mortality and had come back deeply concerned for their individual, physical safety, those with this different presentation experienced repeated insults to their morality and had returned questioning whether they were still, at their core, moral beings. They had been forced, in some way, to act contrary to what their beliefs dictated was right by killing civilians on orders from their superiors, for example. This was a different category of psychological injury that required different treatment.

Moral injury occurs when we perpetrate, bear witness to, or fail to prevent an act that transgresses our deeply held moral beliefs. In the health care context, that deeply held moral belief is the oath each of us took when embarking on our paths as health care providers: Put the needs of patients first. That oath is the lynchpin of our working lives and our guiding principle when searching for the right course of action. But as clinicians, we are increasingly forced to consider the demands of other stakeholders—the electronic medical record (EMR), the insurers, the hospital, the health care system, even our own financial security—before the needs of our patients. Every time we are forced to make a decision that contravenes our patients’ best interests, we feel a sting of moral injustice. Over time, these repetitive insults amass into moral injury.

The difference between burnout and moral injury is important because using different terminology reframes the problem and the solutions. Burnout suggests that the problem resides within the individual, who is in some way deficient. It implies that the individual lacks the resources or resilience to withstand the work environment. Since the problem is in the individual, the solutions to burnout must be in the individual, too, and therefore, it is the individual’s responsibility to find and implement them. Many of the solutions to physician distress posited to date revolve around this conception; hence, the focus on yoga, mindfulness, wellness retreats, and meditation.¹³ While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those practices, it is absurd to believe that yoga will solve the problems of treating a cancer patient with a declined preauthorization for chemotherapy, having no time to discuss a complex diagnosis, or relying on a computer system that places metrics ahead of communication. These problems are not the result of some failing on the part of the individual clinician.

Moral injury, on the other hand, describes the challenge of simultaneously knowing what care patients need but being unable to provide it due to constraints that are beyond our control. Moral injury is the consequence of the ever-present double binds in health care: Do we take care of our patient, the hospital, the insurer, the EMR, the health care system, or our productivity metrics first? There should be only 1 answer to that question, but the current business framework of medicine pressures us to serve all these masters at once. Moral injury locates the source of distress in a broken system, not a broken individual, and allows us to direct solutions at the causes of distress. And in the end, addressing the drivers of moral injury on a large scale may be the most effective preventive treatment for its cumulative effects among health care providers.

The long-term solutions to moral injury demand changes in the business framework of health care. The solutions reside not in promoting mindfulness or resilience among individual physicians, but in creating a health care environment that finally acknowledges the value of the time clinicians and patients spend together developing the trust, understanding, and compassion that accompany a true relationship. The long-term solutions to moral injury include a health care system that prioritizes healing over profit and that trusts its clinicians to always put their patients’ best interests first.

Treating moral injury will not be simple. It cannot happen quickly, and it will not happen without widespread clinician engagement. Change can begin when clinicians identify the double binds they face every day and convey those challenges to their administrators. If administrators and clinicians are willing to work together to resolve these double binds, health care will improve for everyone.

The following are our recommendations for how you can bring change both locally and on a broader scale.

Bring together the 2 sides of the health care house: administrators and clinicians. Invite administrators to join you on rounds, in clinic, or in the operating room. Ask them to follow you during a night of call or to spend an overnight shift with you in the emergency department. The majority of people, including health care administrators, have had only glancing encounters with the medical system. They see their primary care doctor, have regular screening procedures, and maybe get treated for a routine illness or injury. None of those encounters expose them to the depth of challenge in the system.

It takes exposure over a longer duration, or with greater intensity, to appreciate the tensions and double binds that patients and clinicians face regularly.^14,15 Whether or not the administrators accept your invitation, you must also ask to see the challenges from their side. Block out an afternoon, a day, or a week to follow them and learn where they struggle in their work. Only when we understand the other party’s perspective can we truly begin to empathize and communicate meaningfully. That profound understanding is the place where commonality and compromises are found.

Make clinician satisfaction a financial priority. Although care team well-being is now part of the quadruple aim (patient experience, population health, reducing costs, and provider experience), organizations must be held accountable to ensure it is a priority. If we choose to link patient satisfaction with clinician compensation, why not link clinician satisfaction with executive compensation?

Make sure every physician leader has and uses the cell phone number of his or her legislators. Hospitals and big pharma have nearly bottomless lobbying budgets, which makes competing with them for lawmakers’ attention a formidable prospect. Despite this, physician leaders (ie, chief wellness officer, department chairperson, medical society president, etc) have a responsibility to communicate with legislators about the needs of patients (their constituents) and what role our legislators can play in fulfilling those needs. We must understand how policy, regulation, and legislation work, and we need to find seats at every table where the decisions that impact clinical care are made. The first step is opening lines of communication with those who have the power to enact large-scale change.

Reestablish a sense of community among clinicians. Too often clinicians are pitted against one another as resources shrink. Doctors compete with each other for referrals, advanced practitioners and nurses compete with doctors, and everyone feels overstressed. What we tend to forget is that we are all working toward the same goal: To give patients the best care possible. It’s time to view each other with the presumption of charity and to have each other’s backs. Uniting for support, camaraderie, mentorship, and activism is a necessary step in making change.

*This version has been corrected. In the original version the first sentence incorrectly referred to moral injury instead of burnout.

For more than a decade, the term burnout has been used to describe clinician distress.^1,2 Although some clinicians in federal health care systems may be protected from some of the drivers of burnout, other federal practitioners suffer from rule-driven health care practices and distant, top-down administration. The demand for health care is expanding, driven by the aging of the US population.³ Massive information technology investments, which promised efficiency for health care providers,⁴ have instead delivered a triple blow: They have diverted capital resources that might have been used to hire additional caregivers,⁵ diverted the time and attention of those already engaged in patient care,⁶ and done little to improve patient outcomes.⁷ Reimbursements are falling, and the only way for health systems to maintain their revenue is to increase the number of patients each clinician sees per day.⁸ As the resources of time and attention shrink, and as spending continues with no improvement in patient outcomes, clinician distress is on the rise.⁹ It will be important to understand exactly what the drivers of the problem are for federal clinicians so that solutions can be appropriately targeted. The first step in addressing the epidemic of physician distress is using the most accurate terminology to describe it.

Freudenberger defined burnout in 1975 as a constellation of symptoms—malaise, fatigue, frustration, cynicism, and inefficacy—that arise from “making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources” in the workplace.¹⁰ The term was borrowed from other fields and applied to health care in the hopes of readily transferring the solutions that had worked in other industries to address a growing crisis among physicians. Unfortunately, the crisis in health care has proven resistant to solutions that have worked elsewhere, and many clinicians have resisted being characterized as burned out, citing a subtle, elusive disconnect between what they have experienced and what burnout encapsulates.

In July 2018, the conversation about clinician distress shifted with an article we wrote in STAT that described the moral injury of health care.¹¹ The concept of moral injury was first described in service members who returned from the Vietnam War with symptoms that loosely fit a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but which did not respond to standard PTSD treatment and contained symptoms outside the PTSD constellation.¹² On closer assessment, what these service members were experiencing had a different driver. Whereas those with PTSD experienced a real and imminent threat to their mortality and had come back deeply concerned for their individual, physical safety, those with this different presentation experienced repeated insults to their morality and had returned questioning whether they were still, at their core, moral beings. They had been forced, in some way, to act contrary to what their beliefs dictated was right by killing civilians on orders from their superiors, for example. This was a different category of psychological injury that required different treatment.

Moral injury occurs when we perpetrate, bear witness to, or fail to prevent an act that transgresses our deeply held moral beliefs. In the health care context, that deeply held moral belief is the oath each of us took when embarking on our paths as health care providers: Put the needs of patients first. That oath is the lynchpin of our working lives and our guiding principle when searching for the right course of action. But as clinicians, we are increasingly forced to consider the demands of other stakeholders—the electronic medical record (EMR), the insurers, the hospital, the health care system, even our own financial security—before the needs of our patients. Every time we are forced to make a decision that contravenes our patients’ best interests, we feel a sting of moral injustice. Over time, these repetitive insults amass into moral injury.

The difference between burnout and moral injury is important because using different terminology reframes the problem and the solutions. Burnout suggests that the problem resides within the individual, who is in some way deficient. It implies that the individual lacks the resources or resilience to withstand the work environment. Since the problem is in the individual, the solutions to burnout must be in the individual, too, and therefore, it is the individual’s responsibility to find and implement them. Many of the solutions to physician distress posited to date revolve around this conception; hence, the focus on yoga, mindfulness, wellness retreats, and meditation.¹³ While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those practices, it is absurd to believe that yoga will solve the problems of treating a cancer patient with a declined preauthorization for chemotherapy, having no time to discuss a complex diagnosis, or relying on a computer system that places metrics ahead of communication. These problems are not the result of some failing on the part of the individual clinician.

Moral injury, on the other hand, describes the challenge of simultaneously knowing what care patients need but being unable to provide it due to constraints that are beyond our control. Moral injury is the consequence of the ever-present double binds in health care: Do we take care of our patient, the hospital, the insurer, the EMR, the health care system, or our productivity metrics first? There should be only 1 answer to that question, but the current business framework of medicine pressures us to serve all these masters at once. Moral injury locates the source of distress in a broken system, not a broken individual, and allows us to direct solutions at the causes of distress. And in the end, addressing the drivers of moral injury on a large scale may be the most effective preventive treatment for its cumulative effects among health care providers.

The long-term solutions to moral injury demand changes in the business framework of health care. The solutions reside not in promoting mindfulness or resilience among individual physicians, but in creating a health care environment that finally acknowledges the value of the time clinicians and patients spend together developing the trust, understanding, and compassion that accompany a true relationship. The long-term solutions to moral injury include a health care system that prioritizes healing over profit and that trusts its clinicians to always put their patients’ best interests first.

Treating moral injury will not be simple. It cannot happen quickly, and it will not happen without widespread clinician engagement. Change can begin when clinicians identify the double binds they face every day and convey those challenges to their administrators. If administrators and clinicians are willing to work together to resolve these double binds, health care will improve for everyone.

The following are our recommendations for how you can bring change both locally and on a broader scale.

Bring together the 2 sides of the health care house: administrators and clinicians. Invite administrators to join you on rounds, in clinic, or in the operating room. Ask them to follow you during a night of call or to spend an overnight shift with you in the emergency department. The majority of people, including health care administrators, have had only glancing encounters with the medical system. They see their primary care doctor, have regular screening procedures, and maybe get treated for a routine illness or injury. None of those encounters expose them to the depth of challenge in the system.

It takes exposure over a longer duration, or with greater intensity, to appreciate the tensions and double binds that patients and clinicians face regularly.^14,15 Whether or not the administrators accept your invitation, you must also ask to see the challenges from their side. Block out an afternoon, a day, or a week to follow them and learn where they struggle in their work. Only when we understand the other party’s perspective can we truly begin to empathize and communicate meaningfully. That profound understanding is the place where commonality and compromises are found.

Make clinician satisfaction a financial priority. Although care team well-being is now part of the quadruple aim (patient experience, population health, reducing costs, and provider experience), organizations must be held accountable to ensure it is a priority. If we choose to link patient satisfaction with clinician compensation, why not link clinician satisfaction with executive compensation?

Make sure every physician leader has and uses the cell phone number of his or her legislators. Hospitals and big pharma have nearly bottomless lobbying budgets, which makes competing with them for lawmakers’ attention a formidable prospect. Despite this, physician leaders (ie, chief wellness officer, department chairperson, medical society president, etc) have a responsibility to communicate with legislators about the needs of patients (their constituents) and what role our legislators can play in fulfilling those needs. We must understand how policy, regulation, and legislation work, and we need to find seats at every table where the decisions that impact clinical care are made. The first step is opening lines of communication with those who have the power to enact large-scale change.

Reestablish a sense of community among clinicians. Too often clinicians are pitted against one another as resources shrink. Doctors compete with each other for referrals, advanced practitioners and nurses compete with doctors, and everyone feels overstressed. What we tend to forget is that we are all working toward the same goal: To give patients the best care possible. It’s time to view each other with the presumption of charity and to have each other’s backs. Uniting for support, camaraderie, mentorship, and activism is a necessary step in making change.

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

This month’s Letter from the Editor is guest authored by Dr. Megan A. Adams, GI & Hepatology News Associate Editor

September is a month of new beginnings, as summer transitions to fall, kids go back to school, and we return to more consistent work routines, refreshed and reinvigorated after some well-deserved time off with family and friends. Among our cover stories this month is a study showing a novel application of deep learning to inform clinical care of patients with pancreatic cysts. We also feature several high-impact studies from AGA’s journals, including a large randomized controlled trial by Dr. Paul Moayyedi and colleagues, demonstrating that PPI therapy may be unnecessary in the majority of patients on oral anticoagulants, despite current guideline recommendations. This study has the potential to substantially change clinical practice, particularly in the context of the current discussion regarding PPI benefits and harms, and our transition to value-based care.

We also highlight a proof-of-concept study demonstrating a potential role for probiotics (specifically Bifidobacteria) in reducing the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal bleeding, and another study showing a possible role for clopidogrel in chemoprevention of colorectal cancer. Both articles are accompanied by expert commentaries highlighting their potential effect on clinical practice.

Our September issue also emphasizes the importance of professional advocacy by chronicling the participation of four AGA leaders (Dr. Carr, Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Ketwaroo, and Dr. Mathews) in the 2019 Alliance of Specialty Medicine Fly In, a multisociety effort to lobby legislators on key issues such as reducing prior authorization burdens and minimizing the strict constraints of step-therapy protocols. We also are pleased to acknowledge the future leaders of gastroenterology by recognizing the 17 exceptional fellows who demonstrated their passion for advancing GI clinical care by presenting their institutional quality improvement projects at a special session at DDW^® 2019. We hope you find these stories to be thought provoking, inspiring, and directly relevant to your clinical practice – thank you for reading!
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Associate Editor

This month’s Letter from the Editor is guest authored by Dr. Megan A. Adams, GI & Hepatology News Associate Editor

September is a month of new beginnings, as summer transitions to fall, kids go back to school, and we return to more consistent work routines, refreshed and reinvigorated after some well-deserved time off with family and friends. Among our cover stories this month is a study showing a novel application of deep learning to inform clinical care of patients with pancreatic cysts. We also feature several high-impact studies from AGA’s journals, including a large randomized controlled trial by Dr. Paul Moayyedi and colleagues, demonstrating that PPI therapy may be unnecessary in the majority of patients on oral anticoagulants, despite current guideline recommendations. This study has the potential to substantially change clinical practice, particularly in the context of the current discussion regarding PPI benefits and harms, and our transition to value-based care.

We also highlight a proof-of-concept study demonstrating a potential role for probiotics (specifically Bifidobacteria) in reducing the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal bleeding, and another study showing a possible role for clopidogrel in chemoprevention of colorectal cancer. Both articles are accompanied by expert commentaries highlighting their potential effect on clinical practice.

Our September issue also emphasizes the importance of professional advocacy by chronicling the participation of four AGA leaders (Dr. Carr, Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Ketwaroo, and Dr. Mathews) in the 2019 Alliance of Specialty Medicine Fly In, a multisociety effort to lobby legislators on key issues such as reducing prior authorization burdens and minimizing the strict constraints of step-therapy protocols. We also are pleased to acknowledge the future leaders of gastroenterology by recognizing the 17 exceptional fellows who demonstrated their passion for advancing GI clinical care by presenting their institutional quality improvement projects at a special session at DDW^® 2019. We hope you find these stories to be thought provoking, inspiring, and directly relevant to your clinical practice – thank you for reading!
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Associate Editor

This month’s Letter from the Editor is guest authored by Dr. Megan A. Adams, GI & Hepatology News Associate Editor

September is a month of new beginnings, as summer transitions to fall, kids go back to school, and we return to more consistent work routines, refreshed and reinvigorated after some well-deserved time off with family and friends. Among our cover stories this month is a study showing a novel application of deep learning to inform clinical care of patients with pancreatic cysts. We also feature several high-impact studies from AGA’s journals, including a large randomized controlled trial by Dr. Paul Moayyedi and colleagues, demonstrating that PPI therapy may be unnecessary in the majority of patients on oral anticoagulants, despite current guideline recommendations. This study has the potential to substantially change clinical practice, particularly in the context of the current discussion regarding PPI benefits and harms, and our transition to value-based care.

We also highlight a proof-of-concept study demonstrating a potential role for probiotics (specifically Bifidobacteria) in reducing the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal bleeding, and another study showing a possible role for clopidogrel in chemoprevention of colorectal cancer. Both articles are accompanied by expert commentaries highlighting their potential effect on clinical practice.

Our September issue also emphasizes the importance of professional advocacy by chronicling the participation of four AGA leaders (Dr. Carr, Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Ketwaroo, and Dr. Mathews) in the 2019 Alliance of Specialty Medicine Fly In, a multisociety effort to lobby legislators on key issues such as reducing prior authorization burdens and minimizing the strict constraints of step-therapy protocols. We also are pleased to acknowledge the future leaders of gastroenterology by recognizing the 17 exceptional fellows who demonstrated their passion for advancing GI clinical care by presenting their institutional quality improvement projects at a special session at DDW^® 2019. We hope you find these stories to be thought provoking, inspiring, and directly relevant to your clinical practice – thank you for reading!
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Associate Editor

For a patient with a major mental illness, the road to wellness is long and uncertain. The medications commonly used to treat mood and thought disorders can take weeks to months to start providing benefits, and they carry significant risks for adverse effects, such as weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and movement disorders. Patients often have to take psychotropic medications for the rest of their lives. In addition to these downsides, there is no guarantee that these medications will provide complete or even partial relief.^2,3

Recently, there has been growing excitement about new treatments that might be “miracle cures” for patients with mental illness, particularly for individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Two of these treatments—ketamine-related compounds, and hallucinogenic drugs—seem to promise therapeutic effects that are vastly different from those of other psychiatric medications: They appear to improve patients’ symptoms very quickly, and their effects may persist long after these drugs have been cleared from the body.

Intravenous ketamine is an older generic drug used in anesthesia; recently, it has been used off-label for TRD and other mental illnesses. On March 5, 2019, the FDA approved an intranasal formulation of esketamine—the S-enantiomer of ketamine—for TRD.⁴ Hallucinogens have also been tested in small studies and have seemingly significant effects in alleviating depression in patients with terminal illnesses⁵ and reducing smoking behavior in patients with tobacco use disorder.^6,7

These miracle cures are becoming increasingly available to patients and continue to gain credibility among clinicians and researchers. How should we evaluate the usefulness of these new treatments? And how should we talk to our patients about them? To answer these questions, this article:

• explores our duty to our patients, ourselves, and our colleagues
• describes the dilemma
• discusses ways to evaluate claims made about these new miracle cures.

Duty: Protecting and helping our patients

The physician–patient relationship is a fiduciary relationship. According to both common law and medical ethics, a physician who enters into a treatment relationship with a patient creates a bond of special trust and confidence. Such a relationship requires a physician to act in good faith and in the patient’s best interests.⁸ As physicians, we have a duty to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new treatments that are available for our patients, whether or not they are FDA-approved.

We should also protect our patients from the adverse consequences of relatively untested drugs. For example, ketamine and hallucinogens both produce dissociative effects, and may carry high risks for patients who have a predisposition to psychosis.⁹ We should protect our patients from any false hopes that might lead them to abandon their current treatment regimens due to adverse effects and imperfect results. At the same time, we also have a duty to acknowledge our patients’ suffering and to recognize that they might be desperate for new treatment options. We should remain open-minded about new treatments, and acknowledge that they might work. Finally, we have a duty to be mindful of any financial benefits that we may derive from the development, marketing, and administration of these medications.

Dilemma: The need for new treatments

This is not the first time that novel treatments in mental health have seemed to hold incredible promise. In the late 1800s, Sigmund Freud began to regularly use a compound that led him to feel “the normal euphoria of a healthy person.” He wrote that this substance produced:

…exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which does not differ in any way from the normal euphoria of a healthy person. The feeling of excitement which accompanies stimulus by alcohol is completely lacking; the characteristic urge for immediate activity which alcohol produces is also absent. One senses an increase of self-control and feels more vigorous and more capable of work; on the other hand, if one works, one misses that heightening of the mental powers which alcohol, tea, or coffee induce. One is simply normal, and soon finds it difficult to believe that one is under the influence of any drug at all.¹

Continue to: The compound Freud was describing...

The compound Freud was describing is cocaine, which we now know is an addictive and dangerous drug that can in fact worsen depression.¹⁰ Another treatment regarded as a miracle cure in its time involved placing patients with schizophrenia into an insulin-induced coma to treat their symptoms; this therapy was used from 1933 to 1960.¹¹ We now recognize that this practice is unacceptably dangerous.

The past is filled with cautionary tales of the enthusiastic adoption of treatments for mental illness that later turned out to be ineffective, counterproductive, dangerous, or inhumane. Yet, the long, arduous journeys our patients go through continue to weigh heavily on us. We would love to offer our patients newer, more efficacious, and longer-lasting treatments with fewer adverse effects.

Discussion: How to best evaluate miracle cures

To help quickly assess a new treatment, the following 5 categories can help guide and organize our thought process.

1. Evidence

What type of evidence do we have that a new treatment is safe and effective? Psychiatric research may be even more susceptible to a placebo effect than other medical research, particularly for illnesses with subjective symptoms, such as depression.¹² Double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies, such as the IV ketamine trial conducted by Singh et al,¹³ are the gold standard for separating a substance’s actual biologic effect from a placebo effect. Studies that do not include a control group should not be regarded as providing scientific evidence of efficacy.

2. Mechanism

If a new compound appears to have a beneficial effect on mental health, it is important to consider the potential mechanism underlying this effect to determine if it is biologically plausible. A compound that is claimed to be a panacea for every symptom of every mental illness should be heavily scrutinized. For example, based on available research, ketamine’s long-lasting effects seem to come from 2 mechanisms^14,15:

• Activation of endogenous opioid receptors, which is also responsible for the euphoria induced by heroin and oxycodone.
• Blockade of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor activation is a key mechanism by which learning and memory function in the brain, and blocking these receptors may increase brain plasticity.

Continue to: Therefore, it seems plausible...

Therefore, it seems plausible that ketamine could produce both short- and long-term improvements in mood. Hallucinogenic drugs are thought to profoundly alter brain function through several mechanisms, including activating serotonin receptors, enhancing brain plasticity, and increasing brain connectivity.¹⁶

3. Reinforcement

Psychiatric medications that are acutely reinforcing have significant potential for abuse. Antidepressants and mood stabilizers are not acutely rewarding. They don’t make patients feel good right away. Medications such as stimulants and opioids do, and must be used with extreme care because of their abuse potential. The problem with acutely reinforcing medications is that in the long run, they can worsen depression by decreasing the brain’s ability to produce endogenous opioids.¹⁷

4. No single solution?

A mental disorder is unlikely to have a single solution. Rather than regarding a new treatment as capable of rapidly alleviating every symptom of a patient’s illness, it should be viewed as a tool that can be helpful when used in combination with other treatments and lifestyle practices. In an interview with the web site STAT, Cristina Cusin, MD, co-director of the Intravenous Ketamine Clinic for Depression at Massachusetts General Hospital, said, “You don’t treat an advanced disease with just an infusion and a ‘see you next time.’ If [doctors] replace your knee but [you] don’t do physical therapy, you don’t walk again.”¹⁸ To sustain the benefits of a novel medication, patients with serious mental illnesses need to maintain strong social supports, see a mental health care provider regularly, and abstain from illicit drug and alcohol use.

5. Context matters

For a medication to obtain approval to treat a specific indication, the FDA usually require 2 trials that demonstrate efficacy. Off-label use of generic medications such as ketamine may have benefits, but it is unlikely that a generic drug would be put through a costly FDA-approval process.¹⁹

When learning about new medications, remember that patients might assume that these agents have undergone a thorough review process for safety and effectiveness. When our patients request such treatments—whether FDA-approved or off-label—it is our responsibility as physicians to educate them about the benefits, risks, effectiveness, and limitations of these treatments, as well as to evaluate the appropriateness of a treatment for a specific patient’s symptoms.

Continue to: Tempering excitement with caution

 

 

Tempering excitement with caution

Our patients are not the only ones desperate for a miracle cure. As psychiatrists, many of us are desperate, too. New compounds may ultimately change the way we treat mental illness. However, we have an obligation to temper our excitement with caution by remembering past mistakes, and systematically evaluating new miracle cures to determine if they are safe and effective.

For a patient with a major mental illness, the road to wellness is long and uncertain. The medications commonly used to treat mood and thought disorders can take weeks to months to start providing benefits, and they carry significant risks for adverse effects, such as weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and movement disorders. Patients often have to take psychotropic medications for the rest of their lives. In addition to these downsides, there is no guarantee that these medications will provide complete or even partial relief.^2,3

Recently, there has been growing excitement about new treatments that might be “miracle cures” for patients with mental illness, particularly for individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Two of these treatments—ketamine-related compounds, and hallucinogenic drugs—seem to promise therapeutic effects that are vastly different from those of other psychiatric medications: They appear to improve patients’ symptoms very quickly, and their effects may persist long after these drugs have been cleared from the body.

Intravenous ketamine is an older generic drug used in anesthesia; recently, it has been used off-label for TRD and other mental illnesses. On March 5, 2019, the FDA approved an intranasal formulation of esketamine—the S-enantiomer of ketamine—for TRD.⁴ Hallucinogens have also been tested in small studies and have seemingly significant effects in alleviating depression in patients with terminal illnesses⁵ and reducing smoking behavior in patients with tobacco use disorder.^6,7

These miracle cures are becoming increasingly available to patients and continue to gain credibility among clinicians and researchers. How should we evaluate the usefulness of these new treatments? And how should we talk to our patients about them? To answer these questions, this article:

• explores our duty to our patients, ourselves, and our colleagues
• describes the dilemma
• discusses ways to evaluate claims made about these new miracle cures.

Duty: Protecting and helping our patients

The physician–patient relationship is a fiduciary relationship. According to both common law and medical ethics, a physician who enters into a treatment relationship with a patient creates a bond of special trust and confidence. Such a relationship requires a physician to act in good faith and in the patient’s best interests.⁸ As physicians, we have a duty to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new treatments that are available for our patients, whether or not they are FDA-approved.

We should also protect our patients from the adverse consequences of relatively untested drugs. For example, ketamine and hallucinogens both produce dissociative effects, and may carry high risks for patients who have a predisposition to psychosis.⁹ We should protect our patients from any false hopes that might lead them to abandon their current treatment regimens due to adverse effects and imperfect results. At the same time, we also have a duty to acknowledge our patients’ suffering and to recognize that they might be desperate for new treatment options. We should remain open-minded about new treatments, and acknowledge that they might work. Finally, we have a duty to be mindful of any financial benefits that we may derive from the development, marketing, and administration of these medications.

Dilemma: The need for new treatments

This is not the first time that novel treatments in mental health have seemed to hold incredible promise. In the late 1800s, Sigmund Freud began to regularly use a compound that led him to feel “the normal euphoria of a healthy person.” He wrote that this substance produced:

…exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which does not differ in any way from the normal euphoria of a healthy person. The feeling of excitement which accompanies stimulus by alcohol is completely lacking; the characteristic urge for immediate activity which alcohol produces is also absent. One senses an increase of self-control and feels more vigorous and more capable of work; on the other hand, if one works, one misses that heightening of the mental powers which alcohol, tea, or coffee induce. One is simply normal, and soon finds it difficult to believe that one is under the influence of any drug at all.¹

Continue to: The compound Freud was describing...

The compound Freud was describing is cocaine, which we now know is an addictive and dangerous drug that can in fact worsen depression.¹⁰ Another treatment regarded as a miracle cure in its time involved placing patients with schizophrenia into an insulin-induced coma to treat their symptoms; this therapy was used from 1933 to 1960.¹¹ We now recognize that this practice is unacceptably dangerous.

The past is filled with cautionary tales of the enthusiastic adoption of treatments for mental illness that later turned out to be ineffective, counterproductive, dangerous, or inhumane. Yet, the long, arduous journeys our patients go through continue to weigh heavily on us. We would love to offer our patients newer, more efficacious, and longer-lasting treatments with fewer adverse effects.

Discussion: How to best evaluate miracle cures

To help quickly assess a new treatment, the following 5 categories can help guide and organize our thought process.

1. Evidence

What type of evidence do we have that a new treatment is safe and effective? Psychiatric research may be even more susceptible to a placebo effect than other medical research, particularly for illnesses with subjective symptoms, such as depression.¹² Double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies, such as the IV ketamine trial conducted by Singh et al,¹³ are the gold standard for separating a substance’s actual biologic effect from a placebo effect. Studies that do not include a control group should not be regarded as providing scientific evidence of efficacy.

2. Mechanism

If a new compound appears to have a beneficial effect on mental health, it is important to consider the potential mechanism underlying this effect to determine if it is biologically plausible. A compound that is claimed to be a panacea for every symptom of every mental illness should be heavily scrutinized. For example, based on available research, ketamine’s long-lasting effects seem to come from 2 mechanisms^14,15:

• Activation of endogenous opioid receptors, which is also responsible for the euphoria induced by heroin and oxycodone.
• Blockade of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor activation is a key mechanism by which learning and memory function in the brain, and blocking these receptors may increase brain plasticity.

Continue to: Therefore, it seems plausible...

Therefore, it seems plausible that ketamine could produce both short- and long-term improvements in mood. Hallucinogenic drugs are thought to profoundly alter brain function through several mechanisms, including activating serotonin receptors, enhancing brain plasticity, and increasing brain connectivity.¹⁶

3. Reinforcement

Psychiatric medications that are acutely reinforcing have significant potential for abuse. Antidepressants and mood stabilizers are not acutely rewarding. They don’t make patients feel good right away. Medications such as stimulants and opioids do, and must be used with extreme care because of their abuse potential. The problem with acutely reinforcing medications is that in the long run, they can worsen depression by decreasing the brain’s ability to produce endogenous opioids.¹⁷

4. No single solution?

A mental disorder is unlikely to have a single solution. Rather than regarding a new treatment as capable of rapidly alleviating every symptom of a patient’s illness, it should be viewed as a tool that can be helpful when used in combination with other treatments and lifestyle practices. In an interview with the web site STAT, Cristina Cusin, MD, co-director of the Intravenous Ketamine Clinic for Depression at Massachusetts General Hospital, said, “You don’t treat an advanced disease with just an infusion and a ‘see you next time.’ If [doctors] replace your knee but [you] don’t do physical therapy, you don’t walk again.”¹⁸ To sustain the benefits of a novel medication, patients with serious mental illnesses need to maintain strong social supports, see a mental health care provider regularly, and abstain from illicit drug and alcohol use.

5. Context matters

For a medication to obtain approval to treat a specific indication, the FDA usually require 2 trials that demonstrate efficacy. Off-label use of generic medications such as ketamine may have benefits, but it is unlikely that a generic drug would be put through a costly FDA-approval process.¹⁹

When learning about new medications, remember that patients might assume that these agents have undergone a thorough review process for safety and effectiveness. When our patients request such treatments—whether FDA-approved or off-label—it is our responsibility as physicians to educate them about the benefits, risks, effectiveness, and limitations of these treatments, as well as to evaluate the appropriateness of a treatment for a specific patient’s symptoms.

Continue to: Tempering excitement with caution

 

 

Tempering excitement with caution

Our patients are not the only ones desperate for a miracle cure. As psychiatrists, many of us are desperate, too. New compounds may ultimately change the way we treat mental illness. However, we have an obligation to temper our excitement with caution by remembering past mistakes, and systematically evaluating new miracle cures to determine if they are safe and effective.

For a patient with a major mental illness, the road to wellness is long and uncertain. The medications commonly used to treat mood and thought disorders can take weeks to months to start providing benefits, and they carry significant risks for adverse effects, such as weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and movement disorders. Patients often have to take psychotropic medications for the rest of their lives. In addition to these downsides, there is no guarantee that these medications will provide complete or even partial relief.^2,3

Recently, there has been growing excitement about new treatments that might be “miracle cures” for patients with mental illness, particularly for individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Two of these treatments—ketamine-related compounds, and hallucinogenic drugs—seem to promise therapeutic effects that are vastly different from those of other psychiatric medications: They appear to improve patients’ symptoms very quickly, and their effects may persist long after these drugs have been cleared from the body.

Intravenous ketamine is an older generic drug used in anesthesia; recently, it has been used off-label for TRD and other mental illnesses. On March 5, 2019, the FDA approved an intranasal formulation of esketamine—the S-enantiomer of ketamine—for TRD.⁴ Hallucinogens have also been tested in small studies and have seemingly significant effects in alleviating depression in patients with terminal illnesses⁵ and reducing smoking behavior in patients with tobacco use disorder.^6,7

These miracle cures are becoming increasingly available to patients and continue to gain credibility among clinicians and researchers. How should we evaluate the usefulness of these new treatments? And how should we talk to our patients about them? To answer these questions, this article:

• explores our duty to our patients, ourselves, and our colleagues
• describes the dilemma
• discusses ways to evaluate claims made about these new miracle cures.

Duty: Protecting and helping our patients

The physician–patient relationship is a fiduciary relationship. According to both common law and medical ethics, a physician who enters into a treatment relationship with a patient creates a bond of special trust and confidence. Such a relationship requires a physician to act in good faith and in the patient’s best interests.⁸ As physicians, we have a duty to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new treatments that are available for our patients, whether or not they are FDA-approved.

We should also protect our patients from the adverse consequences of relatively untested drugs. For example, ketamine and hallucinogens both produce dissociative effects, and may carry high risks for patients who have a predisposition to psychosis.⁹ We should protect our patients from any false hopes that might lead them to abandon their current treatment regimens due to adverse effects and imperfect results. At the same time, we also have a duty to acknowledge our patients’ suffering and to recognize that they might be desperate for new treatment options. We should remain open-minded about new treatments, and acknowledge that they might work. Finally, we have a duty to be mindful of any financial benefits that we may derive from the development, marketing, and administration of these medications.

Dilemma: The need for new treatments

This is not the first time that novel treatments in mental health have seemed to hold incredible promise. In the late 1800s, Sigmund Freud began to regularly use a compound that led him to feel “the normal euphoria of a healthy person.” He wrote that this substance produced:

…exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which does not differ in any way from the normal euphoria of a healthy person. The feeling of excitement which accompanies stimulus by alcohol is completely lacking; the characteristic urge for immediate activity which alcohol produces is also absent. One senses an increase of self-control and feels more vigorous and more capable of work; on the other hand, if one works, one misses that heightening of the mental powers which alcohol, tea, or coffee induce. One is simply normal, and soon finds it difficult to believe that one is under the influence of any drug at all.¹

Continue to: The compound Freud was describing...

The compound Freud was describing is cocaine, which we now know is an addictive and dangerous drug that can in fact worsen depression.¹⁰ Another treatment regarded as a miracle cure in its time involved placing patients with schizophrenia into an insulin-induced coma to treat their symptoms; this therapy was used from 1933 to 1960.¹¹ We now recognize that this practice is unacceptably dangerous.

The past is filled with cautionary tales of the enthusiastic adoption of treatments for mental illness that later turned out to be ineffective, counterproductive, dangerous, or inhumane. Yet, the long, arduous journeys our patients go through continue to weigh heavily on us. We would love to offer our patients newer, more efficacious, and longer-lasting treatments with fewer adverse effects.

Discussion: How to best evaluate miracle cures

To help quickly assess a new treatment, the following 5 categories can help guide and organize our thought process.

1. Evidence

What type of evidence do we have that a new treatment is safe and effective? Psychiatric research may be even more susceptible to a placebo effect than other medical research, particularly for illnesses with subjective symptoms, such as depression.¹² Double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies, such as the IV ketamine trial conducted by Singh et al,¹³ are the gold standard for separating a substance’s actual biologic effect from a placebo effect. Studies that do not include a control group should not be regarded as providing scientific evidence of efficacy.

2. Mechanism

If a new compound appears to have a beneficial effect on mental health, it is important to consider the potential mechanism underlying this effect to determine if it is biologically plausible. A compound that is claimed to be a panacea for every symptom of every mental illness should be heavily scrutinized. For example, based on available research, ketamine’s long-lasting effects seem to come from 2 mechanisms^14,15:

• Activation of endogenous opioid receptors, which is also responsible for the euphoria induced by heroin and oxycodone.
• Blockade of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor activation is a key mechanism by which learning and memory function in the brain, and blocking these receptors may increase brain plasticity.

Continue to: Therefore, it seems plausible...

Therefore, it seems plausible that ketamine could produce both short- and long-term improvements in mood. Hallucinogenic drugs are thought to profoundly alter brain function through several mechanisms, including activating serotonin receptors, enhancing brain plasticity, and increasing brain connectivity.¹⁶

3. Reinforcement

Psychiatric medications that are acutely reinforcing have significant potential for abuse. Antidepressants and mood stabilizers are not acutely rewarding. They don’t make patients feel good right away. Medications such as stimulants and opioids do, and must be used with extreme care because of their abuse potential. The problem with acutely reinforcing medications is that in the long run, they can worsen depression by decreasing the brain’s ability to produce endogenous opioids.¹⁷

4. No single solution?

A mental disorder is unlikely to have a single solution. Rather than regarding a new treatment as capable of rapidly alleviating every symptom of a patient’s illness, it should be viewed as a tool that can be helpful when used in combination with other treatments and lifestyle practices. In an interview with the web site STAT, Cristina Cusin, MD, co-director of the Intravenous Ketamine Clinic for Depression at Massachusetts General Hospital, said, “You don’t treat an advanced disease with just an infusion and a ‘see you next time.’ If [doctors] replace your knee but [you] don’t do physical therapy, you don’t walk again.”¹⁸ To sustain the benefits of a novel medication, patients with serious mental illnesses need to maintain strong social supports, see a mental health care provider regularly, and abstain from illicit drug and alcohol use.

5. Context matters

For a medication to obtain approval to treat a specific indication, the FDA usually require 2 trials that demonstrate efficacy. Off-label use of generic medications such as ketamine may have benefits, but it is unlikely that a generic drug would be put through a costly FDA-approval process.¹⁹

When learning about new medications, remember that patients might assume that these agents have undergone a thorough review process for safety and effectiveness. When our patients request such treatments—whether FDA-approved or off-label—it is our responsibility as physicians to educate them about the benefits, risks, effectiveness, and limitations of these treatments, as well as to evaluate the appropriateness of a treatment for a specific patient’s symptoms.

Continue to: Tempering excitement with caution

 

 

Tempering excitement with caution

Our patients are not the only ones desperate for a miracle cure. As psychiatrists, many of us are desperate, too. New compounds may ultimately change the way we treat mental illness. However, we have an obligation to temper our excitement with caution by remembering past mistakes, and systematically evaluating new miracle cures to determine if they are safe and effective.