Commentary

The recent Practice Alert by Dr. Campos-Outcalt, “How to proceed when it comes to vitamin D” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:289-292) claimed that the value of vitamin D supplements for prevention is nil or still unknown.¹ Most of the references cited in support of this statement were centered on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on vitamin D dose rather than achieved 25-­hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration. Since the health effects of vitamin D supplementation are correlated with 25(OH)D concentration, the latter should be used to evaluate the results of vitamin D RCTs—a point I made in my 2018 article on the topic.²

For example, in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study, in which participants in the treatment arm received 4000 IU/d vitamin D₃, there was no reduced rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes. However, when 25(OH)D concentrations were analyzed for those in the vitamin D arm during the trial, the risk was found to be reduced by 25% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82) per 10 ng/mL increase in 25(OH)D.³

There are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Another trial, the Harvard-led VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), enrolled more than 25,000 participants, with the treatment arm receiving 2000 IU/d vitamin D₃.⁴ There were no significant reductions in incidence of either cancer or cardiovascular disease for the entire group. The mean baseline 25(OH)D concentration for those for whom values were provided was 31 ng/mL (32.2 ng/mL for White participants, 24.9 ng/mL for Black participants). However, there were ~25% reductions in cancer risk among Black participants (who had lower 25(OH)D concentrations than White participants) and those with a body mass index < 25. A posthoc analysis suggested a possible benefit related to the rate of total cancer deaths.

A recent article reported the results of long-term vitamin D supplementation among Veterans Health Administration patients who had an initial 25(OH)D concentration of < 20 ng/mL.⁵ For those who were treated with vitamin D and achieved a 25(OH)D concentration of > 30 ng/mL (compared to those who were untreated and had an average concentration of < 20 ng/mL), the risk of myocardial infarction was 27% lower (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96) and the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 39% (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67).

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positivity examined data for more than 190,000 patients in the United States who had serum 25(OH)D concentration measurements taken up to 1 year prior to their SARS-CoV-2 test. Positivity rates were 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.8%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration < 20 ng/mL vs 5.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-6.4%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration ≥55 ng/mL.⁶

Thus, there are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Continue to: Author's Response

Author's response

I appreciate the letter from Dr. Grant in response to my previous Practice Alert, as it provides an opportunity to make some important points about assessment of scientific evidence and drawing conclusions based on sound methodology. There is an overabundance of scientific literature published, much of which is of questionable quality, meaning a “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) published a series of recommendations on how trustworthy recommendations and guidelines should be produced.^1,2 Key among the steps recommended is a full assessment of the totality of the literature on the subject by an independent, nonconflicted panel. This should be based on a systematic review that includes standard search methods to find all pertinent articles, an assessment of the quality of each study using standardized tools, and an overall assessment of the quality of the evidence. A high-quality systematic review meeting these standards was the basis for my review article on vitamin D.³

A “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

To challenge the findings of the unproven benefits of vitamin D, Dr. Grant cited 4 studies to support the purported benefit of achieving a specific serum 25(OH)D level to prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and COVID-19. After reading these studies, I would not consider any of them a “game changer.”

The first study was restricted to those with prediabetes, had limited follow-up (mean of 2.5 years), and found different results for those with the same 25(OH)D concentrations in the placebo and treatment groups.⁴ The second study was a large, well-conducted clinical trial that found no benefit of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease.⁵ While Dr. Grant claims that benefits were found for some subgroups, I could locate only the statistics on cancer incidence in Black participants, and the confidence intervals showed no statistically significant benefit. It is always questionable to look at multiple outcomes in multiple subgroups without a prior hypothesis because of the likely occurrence of chance findings in so many comparisons. The third was a retrospective observational study with all the potential biases and challenges to validity that such studies present.⁶ A single study, especially 1 with observational methods, almost never conclusively settles a point.

The role of vitamin D in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 is an aspect that was not covered in the systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The study on this issuecited by Dr. Grant was a large retrospective observational study that found an inverse relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates.⁷ This is 1 observational study with interesting results. However, I believe the conclusion of the National Institutes of Health is currently still the correct one: “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”⁸

With time and further research, Dr. Grant may eventually prove to be correct on specific points. However, when challenging a high-quality systematic review, one must assess the quality of the studies used while also placing them in context of the totality of the literature.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA
Phoenix, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. The National Academy Press, 2011.

2. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. The National Academy Press, 2011.

3. Kahwati LC, LeBlanc E, Weber RP, et al. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults; updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325:1443-1463. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26498

4. Dawson-Hughes B, Staten MA, Knowler WC, et al. Intratrial exposure to vitamin D and new-onset diabetes among adults with prediabetes: a secondary analysis from the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:2916-2922. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1765

5. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:33-44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809944

6. Acharya P, Dalia T, Ranka S, et al. The effects of vitamin D supplementation and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5:bvab124. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvab124

7. Kaufman HW, Niles JK, Kroll MH, et al. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0239252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239252

8. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin D. COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Updated April 21, 2021. Accessed November 18, 2021. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/

The recent Practice Alert by Dr. Campos-Outcalt, “How to proceed when it comes to vitamin D” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:289-292) claimed that the value of vitamin D supplements for prevention is nil or still unknown.¹ Most of the references cited in support of this statement were centered on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on vitamin D dose rather than achieved 25-­hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration. Since the health effects of vitamin D supplementation are correlated with 25(OH)D concentration, the latter should be used to evaluate the results of vitamin D RCTs—a point I made in my 2018 article on the topic.²

For example, in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study, in which participants in the treatment arm received 4000 IU/d vitamin D₃, there was no reduced rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes. However, when 25(OH)D concentrations were analyzed for those in the vitamin D arm during the trial, the risk was found to be reduced by 25% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82) per 10 ng/mL increase in 25(OH)D.³

There are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Another trial, the Harvard-led VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), enrolled more than 25,000 participants, with the treatment arm receiving 2000 IU/d vitamin D₃.⁴ There were no significant reductions in incidence of either cancer or cardiovascular disease for the entire group. The mean baseline 25(OH)D concentration for those for whom values were provided was 31 ng/mL (32.2 ng/mL for White participants, 24.9 ng/mL for Black participants). However, there were ~25% reductions in cancer risk among Black participants (who had lower 25(OH)D concentrations than White participants) and those with a body mass index < 25. A posthoc analysis suggested a possible benefit related to the rate of total cancer deaths.

A recent article reported the results of long-term vitamin D supplementation among Veterans Health Administration patients who had an initial 25(OH)D concentration of < 20 ng/mL.⁵ For those who were treated with vitamin D and achieved a 25(OH)D concentration of > 30 ng/mL (compared to those who were untreated and had an average concentration of < 20 ng/mL), the risk of myocardial infarction was 27% lower (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96) and the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 39% (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67).

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positivity examined data for more than 190,000 patients in the United States who had serum 25(OH)D concentration measurements taken up to 1 year prior to their SARS-CoV-2 test. Positivity rates were 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.8%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration < 20 ng/mL vs 5.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-6.4%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration ≥55 ng/mL.⁶

Thus, there are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Continue to: Author's Response

Author's response

I appreciate the letter from Dr. Grant in response to my previous Practice Alert, as it provides an opportunity to make some important points about assessment of scientific evidence and drawing conclusions based on sound methodology. There is an overabundance of scientific literature published, much of which is of questionable quality, meaning a “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) published a series of recommendations on how trustworthy recommendations and guidelines should be produced.^1,2 Key among the steps recommended is a full assessment of the totality of the literature on the subject by an independent, nonconflicted panel. This should be based on a systematic review that includes standard search methods to find all pertinent articles, an assessment of the quality of each study using standardized tools, and an overall assessment of the quality of the evidence. A high-quality systematic review meeting these standards was the basis for my review article on vitamin D.³

A “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

To challenge the findings of the unproven benefits of vitamin D, Dr. Grant cited 4 studies to support the purported benefit of achieving a specific serum 25(OH)D level to prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and COVID-19. After reading these studies, I would not consider any of them a “game changer.”

The first study was restricted to those with prediabetes, had limited follow-up (mean of 2.5 years), and found different results for those with the same 25(OH)D concentrations in the placebo and treatment groups.⁴ The second study was a large, well-conducted clinical trial that found no benefit of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease.⁵ While Dr. Grant claims that benefits were found for some subgroups, I could locate only the statistics on cancer incidence in Black participants, and the confidence intervals showed no statistically significant benefit. It is always questionable to look at multiple outcomes in multiple subgroups without a prior hypothesis because of the likely occurrence of chance findings in so many comparisons. The third was a retrospective observational study with all the potential biases and challenges to validity that such studies present.⁶ A single study, especially 1 with observational methods, almost never conclusively settles a point.

The role of vitamin D in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 is an aspect that was not covered in the systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The study on this issuecited by Dr. Grant was a large retrospective observational study that found an inverse relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates.⁷ This is 1 observational study with interesting results. However, I believe the conclusion of the National Institutes of Health is currently still the correct one: “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”⁸

With time and further research, Dr. Grant may eventually prove to be correct on specific points. However, when challenging a high-quality systematic review, one must assess the quality of the studies used while also placing them in context of the totality of the literature.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA
Phoenix, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. The National Academy Press, 2011.

2. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. The National Academy Press, 2011.

3. Kahwati LC, LeBlanc E, Weber RP, et al. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults; updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325:1443-1463. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26498

4. Dawson-Hughes B, Staten MA, Knowler WC, et al. Intratrial exposure to vitamin D and new-onset diabetes among adults with prediabetes: a secondary analysis from the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:2916-2922. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1765

5. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:33-44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809944

6. Acharya P, Dalia T, Ranka S, et al. The effects of vitamin D supplementation and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5:bvab124. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvab124

7. Kaufman HW, Niles JK, Kroll MH, et al. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0239252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239252

8. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin D. COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Updated April 21, 2021. Accessed November 18, 2021. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/

The recent Practice Alert by Dr. Campos-Outcalt, “How to proceed when it comes to vitamin D” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:289-292) claimed that the value of vitamin D supplements for prevention is nil or still unknown.¹ Most of the references cited in support of this statement were centered on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on vitamin D dose rather than achieved 25-­hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration. Since the health effects of vitamin D supplementation are correlated with 25(OH)D concentration, the latter should be used to evaluate the results of vitamin D RCTs—a point I made in my 2018 article on the topic.²

For example, in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study, in which participants in the treatment arm received 4000 IU/d vitamin D₃, there was no reduced rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes. However, when 25(OH)D concentrations were analyzed for those in the vitamin D arm during the trial, the risk was found to be reduced by 25% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82) per 10 ng/mL increase in 25(OH)D.³

There are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Another trial, the Harvard-led VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), enrolled more than 25,000 participants, with the treatment arm receiving 2000 IU/d vitamin D₃.⁴ There were no significant reductions in incidence of either cancer or cardiovascular disease for the entire group. The mean baseline 25(OH)D concentration for those for whom values were provided was 31 ng/mL (32.2 ng/mL for White participants, 24.9 ng/mL for Black participants). However, there were ~25% reductions in cancer risk among Black participants (who had lower 25(OH)D concentrations than White participants) and those with a body mass index < 25. A posthoc analysis suggested a possible benefit related to the rate of total cancer deaths.

A recent article reported the results of long-term vitamin D supplementation among Veterans Health Administration patients who had an initial 25(OH)D concentration of < 20 ng/mL.⁵ For those who were treated with vitamin D and achieved a 25(OH)D concentration of > 30 ng/mL (compared to those who were untreated and had an average concentration of < 20 ng/mL), the risk of myocardial infarction was 27% lower (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96) and the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 39% (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67).

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positivity examined data for more than 190,000 patients in the United States who had serum 25(OH)D concentration measurements taken up to 1 year prior to their SARS-CoV-2 test. Positivity rates were 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.8%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration < 20 ng/mL vs 5.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-6.4%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration ≥55 ng/mL.⁶

Thus, there are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Continue to: Author's Response

Author's response

I appreciate the letter from Dr. Grant in response to my previous Practice Alert, as it provides an opportunity to make some important points about assessment of scientific evidence and drawing conclusions based on sound methodology. There is an overabundance of scientific literature published, much of which is of questionable quality, meaning a “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) published a series of recommendations on how trustworthy recommendations and guidelines should be produced.^1,2 Key among the steps recommended is a full assessment of the totality of the literature on the subject by an independent, nonconflicted panel. This should be based on a systematic review that includes standard search methods to find all pertinent articles, an assessment of the quality of each study using standardized tools, and an overall assessment of the quality of the evidence. A high-quality systematic review meeting these standards was the basis for my review article on vitamin D.³

A “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

To challenge the findings of the unproven benefits of vitamin D, Dr. Grant cited 4 studies to support the purported benefit of achieving a specific serum 25(OH)D level to prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and COVID-19. After reading these studies, I would not consider any of them a “game changer.”

The first study was restricted to those with prediabetes, had limited follow-up (mean of 2.5 years), and found different results for those with the same 25(OH)D concentrations in the placebo and treatment groups.⁴ The second study was a large, well-conducted clinical trial that found no benefit of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease.⁵ While Dr. Grant claims that benefits were found for some subgroups, I could locate only the statistics on cancer incidence in Black participants, and the confidence intervals showed no statistically significant benefit. It is always questionable to look at multiple outcomes in multiple subgroups without a prior hypothesis because of the likely occurrence of chance findings in so many comparisons. The third was a retrospective observational study with all the potential biases and challenges to validity that such studies present.⁶ A single study, especially 1 with observational methods, almost never conclusively settles a point.

The role of vitamin D in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 is an aspect that was not covered in the systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The study on this issuecited by Dr. Grant was a large retrospective observational study that found an inverse relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates.⁷ This is 1 observational study with interesting results. However, I believe the conclusion of the National Institutes of Health is currently still the correct one: “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”⁸

With time and further research, Dr. Grant may eventually prove to be correct on specific points. However, when challenging a high-quality systematic review, one must assess the quality of the studies used while also placing them in context of the totality of the literature.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA
Phoenix, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. The National Academy Press, 2011.

2. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. The National Academy Press, 2011.

3. Kahwati LC, LeBlanc E, Weber RP, et al. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults; updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325:1443-1463. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26498

4. Dawson-Hughes B, Staten MA, Knowler WC, et al. Intratrial exposure to vitamin D and new-onset diabetes among adults with prediabetes: a secondary analysis from the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:2916-2922. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1765

5. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:33-44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809944

6. Acharya P, Dalia T, Ranka S, et al. The effects of vitamin D supplementation and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5:bvab124. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvab124

7. Kaufman HW, Niles JK, Kroll MH, et al. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0239252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239252

8. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin D. COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Updated April 21, 2021. Accessed November 18, 2021. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/

I have been wrong about the COVID-19 pandemic any number of times. During the early days of the pandemic, a colleague asked me if he should book his airline ticket to Chicago for our annual Essential Evidence conference. I told him to go ahead. The country shut down the next week.

In September of this year, I was ready to book my flight to Phoenix for a presentation at the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians annual meeting. I thought ­COVID-19 activity was winding down. I was wrong again. The conference was changed to virtual presentations.

And now, as I write this editorial late in November, I find myself wrong a third time. I figured the smoldering COVID-19 activity in Michigan, where I live, would wind down before Thanksgiving. But it is expanding wildly throughout the Midwest.

Wrong again, and again.

There is no question that everyone in the United States— and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it.

I figured most everyone would be vaccinated as soon as vaccines were available, given the dangerous nature of the virus and the benign nature of the vaccines. But here we are, more than 750,000 deaths later and, as a country, we still have not learned our lesson. I won’t get into the disinformation campaign against the existence of the pandemic and the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines; this disinformation campaign seems to be designed to kill as many Americans as possible.

The COVID-19 epidemic is personal for all of us. Not one of us has been immune to its effects. All of us have had a relative or friend die of COVID-19 infection. All of us have had to wear masks and be cautious about contacts with others. All of us have cancelled or restricted travel. My wife and I are debating whether or not we should gather for the holidays with our children and grandchildren in Michigan, despite the fact that all of us have been immunized. One of my sons has a mother-in-law with pulmonary fibrosis; he and his family will all be doing home testing for COVID-19 the day before visiting her.

When will this nightmare end? There is no question that everyone in the United States—and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it. We must continue urging everyone to make the smart, safe choice and get vaccinated.

There are still hundreds of thousands of lives to be saved.

I have been wrong about the COVID-19 pandemic any number of times. During the early days of the pandemic, a colleague asked me if he should book his airline ticket to Chicago for our annual Essential Evidence conference. I told him to go ahead. The country shut down the next week.

In September of this year, I was ready to book my flight to Phoenix for a presentation at the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians annual meeting. I thought ­COVID-19 activity was winding down. I was wrong again. The conference was changed to virtual presentations.

And now, as I write this editorial late in November, I find myself wrong a third time. I figured the smoldering COVID-19 activity in Michigan, where I live, would wind down before Thanksgiving. But it is expanding wildly throughout the Midwest.

Wrong again, and again.

There is no question that everyone in the United States— and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it.

I figured most everyone would be vaccinated as soon as vaccines were available, given the dangerous nature of the virus and the benign nature of the vaccines. But here we are, more than 750,000 deaths later and, as a country, we still have not learned our lesson. I won’t get into the disinformation campaign against the existence of the pandemic and the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines; this disinformation campaign seems to be designed to kill as many Americans as possible.

The COVID-19 epidemic is personal for all of us. Not one of us has been immune to its effects. All of us have had a relative or friend die of COVID-19 infection. All of us have had to wear masks and be cautious about contacts with others. All of us have cancelled or restricted travel. My wife and I are debating whether or not we should gather for the holidays with our children and grandchildren in Michigan, despite the fact that all of us have been immunized. One of my sons has a mother-in-law with pulmonary fibrosis; he and his family will all be doing home testing for COVID-19 the day before visiting her.

When will this nightmare end? There is no question that everyone in the United States—and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it. We must continue urging everyone to make the smart, safe choice and get vaccinated.

There are still hundreds of thousands of lives to be saved.

I have been wrong about the COVID-19 pandemic any number of times. During the early days of the pandemic, a colleague asked me if he should book his airline ticket to Chicago for our annual Essential Evidence conference. I told him to go ahead. The country shut down the next week.

In September of this year, I was ready to book my flight to Phoenix for a presentation at the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians annual meeting. I thought ­COVID-19 activity was winding down. I was wrong again. The conference was changed to virtual presentations.

And now, as I write this editorial late in November, I find myself wrong a third time. I figured the smoldering COVID-19 activity in Michigan, where I live, would wind down before Thanksgiving. But it is expanding wildly throughout the Midwest.

Wrong again, and again.

There is no question that everyone in the United States— and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it.

I figured most everyone would be vaccinated as soon as vaccines were available, given the dangerous nature of the virus and the benign nature of the vaccines. But here we are, more than 750,000 deaths later and, as a country, we still have not learned our lesson. I won’t get into the disinformation campaign against the existence of the pandemic and the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines; this disinformation campaign seems to be designed to kill as many Americans as possible.

The COVID-19 epidemic is personal for all of us. Not one of us has been immune to its effects. All of us have had a relative or friend die of COVID-19 infection. All of us have had to wear masks and be cautious about contacts with others. All of us have cancelled or restricted travel. My wife and I are debating whether or not we should gather for the holidays with our children and grandchildren in Michigan, despite the fact that all of us have been immunized. One of my sons has a mother-in-law with pulmonary fibrosis; he and his family will all be doing home testing for COVID-19 the day before visiting her.

When will this nightmare end? There is no question that everyone in the United States—and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it. We must continue urging everyone to make the smart, safe choice and get vaccinated.

There are still hundreds of thousands of lives to be saved.

Motivated, calm, and high-functioning. On the surface, you are the epitome of success. You arrive at work early. You are driven, meet all deadlines and, in fact, excel at tasks. Not only are you successful in your work, but also you appear well put-together – not a single hair out of place. You have a busy social life, always smiling, laughing, or generally in an uplifting mood. On the surface, you have everything together. 

Inside, you’re drowning. You’re in constant survival mode – always overthinking, ruminating, and fearful. Your need for self-preservation is in overdrive. You use your anxiety and fear as motivation. You are a people pleaser, need constant reassurance, and are unable to enjoy the present moment. You have an inability to say no regardless of your overloaded schedule. You are mentally and physically fatigued and overworked beyond the brink of exhaustion. You need to take time off but can’t bring yourself to do so. Others wouldn’t see you in this light because you always appear to be doing well.

The portraits I’ve painted here sound like two different people, but in fact are representative of one. High-functioning anxiety, while not a formal health diagnosis, is a term that broadly encapsulates individuals who experience anxiety but also function well in their day-to-day lives. On the surface, individuals with high-functioning anxiety appear to be “perfect” but in actuality are under constant stress and anxiety in fear of disappointing others. They are perceived as overachievers, but this perception fails to recognize and acknowledge the mental health toll required to achieve at such a high level.

I came across this concept when a friend sent me a post on social media. It was a completely new but oddly familiar concept when I first read about high-functioning anxiety. In fact, I related to this concept almost immediately based on interactions with friends and colleagues, and their recollection of stressors over the years in high-stress, high-functioning environments. 

In addition to personal interactions, I’ve seen anxiety and mental health at large become more “normalized” on various platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok) over the years. Interestingly, normalizing these concepts could be beneficial. For example, they increase awareness, encourage conversations (e.g., creating communities), and minimize the barriers toward understanding and respecting individuals who experience high-functioning anxiety. However, social media also has the potential to be harmful (e.g., “humorizing” the concept or turning it into memes, diminishing the experience).

However, the question that nagged at my mind even further was: What reasons are there, if any, for why high-functioning anxiety is not recognized as a formal diagnosis? Is this concept too new? Difficult to diagnose? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that high-functioning anxiety is debilitating and impairs one’s quality of life. There appears to be a need to formally recognize this subtype of anxiety and invest more time and research. Increasing the sphere of knowledge may bring more good than harm, as a way to let others know that it’s okay.

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto and is with the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, also in Toronto. She reported receiving income from Braxia Scientific.

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

Motivated, calm, and high-functioning. On the surface, you are the epitome of success. You arrive at work early. You are driven, meet all deadlines and, in fact, excel at tasks. Not only are you successful in your work, but also you appear well put-together – not a single hair out of place. You have a busy social life, always smiling, laughing, or generally in an uplifting mood. On the surface, you have everything together. 

Inside, you’re drowning. You’re in constant survival mode – always overthinking, ruminating, and fearful. Your need for self-preservation is in overdrive. You use your anxiety and fear as motivation. You are a people pleaser, need constant reassurance, and are unable to enjoy the present moment. You have an inability to say no regardless of your overloaded schedule. You are mentally and physically fatigued and overworked beyond the brink of exhaustion. You need to take time off but can’t bring yourself to do so. Others wouldn’t see you in this light because you always appear to be doing well.

The portraits I’ve painted here sound like two different people, but in fact are representative of one. High-functioning anxiety, while not a formal health diagnosis, is a term that broadly encapsulates individuals who experience anxiety but also function well in their day-to-day lives. On the surface, individuals with high-functioning anxiety appear to be “perfect” but in actuality are under constant stress and anxiety in fear of disappointing others. They are perceived as overachievers, but this perception fails to recognize and acknowledge the mental health toll required to achieve at such a high level.

I came across this concept when a friend sent me a post on social media. It was a completely new but oddly familiar concept when I first read about high-functioning anxiety. In fact, I related to this concept almost immediately based on interactions with friends and colleagues, and their recollection of stressors over the years in high-stress, high-functioning environments. 

In addition to personal interactions, I’ve seen anxiety and mental health at large become more “normalized” on various platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok) over the years. Interestingly, normalizing these concepts could be beneficial. For example, they increase awareness, encourage conversations (e.g., creating communities), and minimize the barriers toward understanding and respecting individuals who experience high-functioning anxiety. However, social media also has the potential to be harmful (e.g., “humorizing” the concept or turning it into memes, diminishing the experience).

However, the question that nagged at my mind even further was: What reasons are there, if any, for why high-functioning anxiety is not recognized as a formal diagnosis? Is this concept too new? Difficult to diagnose? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that high-functioning anxiety is debilitating and impairs one’s quality of life. There appears to be a need to formally recognize this subtype of anxiety and invest more time and research. Increasing the sphere of knowledge may bring more good than harm, as a way to let others know that it’s okay.

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto and is with the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, also in Toronto. She reported receiving income from Braxia Scientific.

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

Motivated, calm, and high-functioning. On the surface, you are the epitome of success. You arrive at work early. You are driven, meet all deadlines and, in fact, excel at tasks. Not only are you successful in your work, but also you appear well put-together – not a single hair out of place. You have a busy social life, always smiling, laughing, or generally in an uplifting mood. On the surface, you have everything together. 

Inside, you’re drowning. You’re in constant survival mode – always overthinking, ruminating, and fearful. Your need for self-preservation is in overdrive. You use your anxiety and fear as motivation. You are a people pleaser, need constant reassurance, and are unable to enjoy the present moment. You have an inability to say no regardless of your overloaded schedule. You are mentally and physically fatigued and overworked beyond the brink of exhaustion. You need to take time off but can’t bring yourself to do so. Others wouldn’t see you in this light because you always appear to be doing well.

The portraits I’ve painted here sound like two different people, but in fact are representative of one. High-functioning anxiety, while not a formal health diagnosis, is a term that broadly encapsulates individuals who experience anxiety but also function well in their day-to-day lives. On the surface, individuals with high-functioning anxiety appear to be “perfect” but in actuality are under constant stress and anxiety in fear of disappointing others. They are perceived as overachievers, but this perception fails to recognize and acknowledge the mental health toll required to achieve at such a high level.

I came across this concept when a friend sent me a post on social media. It was a completely new but oddly familiar concept when I first read about high-functioning anxiety. In fact, I related to this concept almost immediately based on interactions with friends and colleagues, and their recollection of stressors over the years in high-stress, high-functioning environments. 

In addition to personal interactions, I’ve seen anxiety and mental health at large become more “normalized” on various platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok) over the years. Interestingly, normalizing these concepts could be beneficial. For example, they increase awareness, encourage conversations (e.g., creating communities), and minimize the barriers toward understanding and respecting individuals who experience high-functioning anxiety. However, social media also has the potential to be harmful (e.g., “humorizing” the concept or turning it into memes, diminishing the experience).

However, the question that nagged at my mind even further was: What reasons are there, if any, for why high-functioning anxiety is not recognized as a formal diagnosis? Is this concept too new? Difficult to diagnose? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that high-functioning anxiety is debilitating and impairs one’s quality of life. There appears to be a need to formally recognize this subtype of anxiety and invest more time and research. Increasing the sphere of knowledge may bring more good than harm, as a way to let others know that it’s okay.

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto and is with the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, also in Toronto. She reported receiving income from Braxia Scientific.

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

As pediatricians, we are acutely aware of the increase in depression in our teen patients. Lifetime prevalence is now approaching 20%, and we are doing our best to help.

The Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC, 2018) has advice on screening and primary care provider (PCP) management, verifying our role in care. But GLAD-PC also advises “referral to a mental health specialist” in patient scenarios we see multiple times per week. Even when patients are willing and able to go, mental health specialists are in short supply or have months-long waiting lists. What should we do to help the more severely depressed adolescent when immediate referral is not possible? What should we expect of specialist care for what is called treatment-resistant or treatment-refractory depression (TRD)?

To know what to do for a youth with TRD, first you need to know what constitutes an adequate trial of treatment. After diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) from a validated screening tool or an interview based on DSM-5 criteria and an appropriate assessment (as described in GLAD-PC), patients and parents need education on symptoms, course, prognosis including suicide risk, and treatment options. Known TRD risk factors, besides longer or greater depression severity, anhedonia, and poor global functioning, can benefit from being specifically addressed: trauma, bullying, comorbid anxiety or substance use, subsyndromal mania, insomnia, hypothyroidism, nutritional deficiencies from eating disorders, certain genetic variants, LGBTQ identification, family conflict, and parental depression. Screening and assessment for suicidal ideation/attempts is needed initially and in follow-up as MDD increases risk of suicide 30 times.

PCPs can manage mild depression with regular visits every 1-2 weeks for active support for 6-8 weeks. Advise all depressed youth on healthy eating, adequate sleep and exercise, pleasurable activities, and refraining from substance use. With a full response (50%+ reduction in symptom score from baseline), monthly monitoring for symptoms, suicidality, and stressors (phone/televisits suffice) should continue for 6-24 months as half recur. Monitoring with ratings by both youth and parent are recommended and may be required by insurers. Scores below cutoff suggest “remission,” although functioning must be considered. Youth report symptoms best but parents may better report improved functioning and affect that can precede symptom reduction.

If there is no initial response (< 25% decrease in symptom score) or a partial response (25%-49% decrease), PCPs should begin treatment as for moderate depression with either a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or psychotherapy. Use of both has the best evidence; cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy for adolescents are equally effective.

Side effects from SSRIs are almost universal with GI upset, headaches, and sexual dysfunction most common, but activation (increased agitation or irritability) may occur. Educate patients about these and encourage tolerating them as they tend to subside in weeks, allowing continuation of these most effective medicines. Activation rarely indicates true mania, which would require stopping and referral.

Moderate depression with only comorbid anxiety may be addressed by PCPs with problem-focused supportive counseling and SSRIs, but mental health consultation or referral also are appropriate. Fluoxetine starting at 5-10 mg/day has best evidence and Food and Drug Administration approval for MDD from age 8. Starting at a higher dose may increase risk of suicidal ideation. Alternatively, escitalopram is FDA approved for MDD at age 12 starting at 10 mg/day, although meta-analyses do not distinguish effectiveness within the SSRI class. Although benefit usually appears within 2 weeks, a trial of at least 4 weeks should be used to assess effect.

If after 4 weeks, the SSRI is tolerated but has little or no response, reassess the diagnosis, try a different SSRI, e.g. sertraline, and add CBT (combined SSRI+CBT has an advantage). To switch SSRIs, reduce the first every 1-2 weeks (by 10-20 mg for fluoxetine; 5-10 for escitalopram) to reduce side effects. If overlapping, the replacement SSRI may start midway in the wean at low dose with patients educated about serotonin syndrome. If instead there was a partial response to the initial SSRI, progressively increase the dose (by 10 mg for fluoxetine or 5 mg for escitalopram monthly) as indicated by symptom change up to the maximum (60-80 mg fluoxetine or 20 mg escitalopram), if needed, and maintain for another 4 weeks. Alternatively, or in addition, start psychotherapy or ask to change current therapy, as therapy focus makes a difference in effect. Initial CBT focus on anxiety acts fastest when anxiety is comorbid.

Once a regimen produces a response, maintain it for 16-20 weeks, the longer for more severe depression. Although three-fourths of mildly to moderately depressed youth are late responders, emerging near 6 weeks, a rapid initial response is associated with better outcome. The recommended 8 weeks on a final tolerated dose constituting an adequate trial before changing may be shortened to 6 weeks in severe unremitting cases. Youth not remitting by 12 weeks should be offered alternative treatment. Referral is recommended for moderately severe depression with comorbidity or severe depression but also for unresponsive moderate depression or by family or clinician preference.

Treatment-resistant depression is defined as “clinically impairing depression symptoms despite an adequate trial of an evidence-based psychotherapy and an antidepressant with grade A evidence (fluoxetine, escitalopram, or sertraline),” sequentially or together; treatment-refractory depression comprises the above with failure on at least two antidepressants, with at least one being grade A. Unfortunately, TRD occurs in 30%-40% of children and remission is only 30%. Low adherence based on pill counts (> 30% missed) or with therapy (fewer than nine visits) should be considered in treatment failures.

With manageable factors addressed, the next step for TRD is treatment augmentation. The best evidence-based augmentation for TRD is CBT; 55% of those receiving CBT responded within 12 weeks. TRD augmentations and interventions with evidence in adults have either no evidence of effect in children (SNRIs, lithium), no randomized controlled trials, or support only from small suggestive studies, e.g., antipsychotics, 16 g/day omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, folic acid supplementation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, or ketamine. Prompt referral to a child psychiatrist is essential for youth classified as TRD as earlier more aggressive treatment may avoid the long-term morbidity of chronic depression.

Fortunately, a meta-analysis of studies showed that PCP medication management visits with monitoring could improve outcomes, even for TRD.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Reference

Dwyer J et al. Annual research review: Defining and treating pediatric treatment-resistant depression. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020 March;61(3):312-32.

As pediatricians, we are acutely aware of the increase in depression in our teen patients. Lifetime prevalence is now approaching 20%, and we are doing our best to help.

The Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC, 2018) has advice on screening and primary care provider (PCP) management, verifying our role in care. But GLAD-PC also advises “referral to a mental health specialist” in patient scenarios we see multiple times per week. Even when patients are willing and able to go, mental health specialists are in short supply or have months-long waiting lists. What should we do to help the more severely depressed adolescent when immediate referral is not possible? What should we expect of specialist care for what is called treatment-resistant or treatment-refractory depression (TRD)?

To know what to do for a youth with TRD, first you need to know what constitutes an adequate trial of treatment. After diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) from a validated screening tool or an interview based on DSM-5 criteria and an appropriate assessment (as described in GLAD-PC), patients and parents need education on symptoms, course, prognosis including suicide risk, and treatment options. Known TRD risk factors, besides longer or greater depression severity, anhedonia, and poor global functioning, can benefit from being specifically addressed: trauma, bullying, comorbid anxiety or substance use, subsyndromal mania, insomnia, hypothyroidism, nutritional deficiencies from eating disorders, certain genetic variants, LGBTQ identification, family conflict, and parental depression. Screening and assessment for suicidal ideation/attempts is needed initially and in follow-up as MDD increases risk of suicide 30 times.

PCPs can manage mild depression with regular visits every 1-2 weeks for active support for 6-8 weeks. Advise all depressed youth on healthy eating, adequate sleep and exercise, pleasurable activities, and refraining from substance use. With a full response (50%+ reduction in symptom score from baseline), monthly monitoring for symptoms, suicidality, and stressors (phone/televisits suffice) should continue for 6-24 months as half recur. Monitoring with ratings by both youth and parent are recommended and may be required by insurers. Scores below cutoff suggest “remission,” although functioning must be considered. Youth report symptoms best but parents may better report improved functioning and affect that can precede symptom reduction.

If there is no initial response (< 25% decrease in symptom score) or a partial response (25%-49% decrease), PCPs should begin treatment as for moderate depression with either a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or psychotherapy. Use of both has the best evidence; cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy for adolescents are equally effective.

Side effects from SSRIs are almost universal with GI upset, headaches, and sexual dysfunction most common, but activation (increased agitation or irritability) may occur. Educate patients about these and encourage tolerating them as they tend to subside in weeks, allowing continuation of these most effective medicines. Activation rarely indicates true mania, which would require stopping and referral.

Moderate depression with only comorbid anxiety may be addressed by PCPs with problem-focused supportive counseling and SSRIs, but mental health consultation or referral also are appropriate. Fluoxetine starting at 5-10 mg/day has best evidence and Food and Drug Administration approval for MDD from age 8. Starting at a higher dose may increase risk of suicidal ideation. Alternatively, escitalopram is FDA approved for MDD at age 12 starting at 10 mg/day, although meta-analyses do not distinguish effectiveness within the SSRI class. Although benefit usually appears within 2 weeks, a trial of at least 4 weeks should be used to assess effect.

If after 4 weeks, the SSRI is tolerated but has little or no response, reassess the diagnosis, try a different SSRI, e.g. sertraline, and add CBT (combined SSRI+CBT has an advantage). To switch SSRIs, reduce the first every 1-2 weeks (by 10-20 mg for fluoxetine; 5-10 for escitalopram) to reduce side effects. If overlapping, the replacement SSRI may start midway in the wean at low dose with patients educated about serotonin syndrome. If instead there was a partial response to the initial SSRI, progressively increase the dose (by 10 mg for fluoxetine or 5 mg for escitalopram monthly) as indicated by symptom change up to the maximum (60-80 mg fluoxetine or 20 mg escitalopram), if needed, and maintain for another 4 weeks. Alternatively, or in addition, start psychotherapy or ask to change current therapy, as therapy focus makes a difference in effect. Initial CBT focus on anxiety acts fastest when anxiety is comorbid.

Once a regimen produces a response, maintain it for 16-20 weeks, the longer for more severe depression. Although three-fourths of mildly to moderately depressed youth are late responders, emerging near 6 weeks, a rapid initial response is associated with better outcome. The recommended 8 weeks on a final tolerated dose constituting an adequate trial before changing may be shortened to 6 weeks in severe unremitting cases. Youth not remitting by 12 weeks should be offered alternative treatment. Referral is recommended for moderately severe depression with comorbidity or severe depression but also for unresponsive moderate depression or by family or clinician preference.

Treatment-resistant depression is defined as “clinically impairing depression symptoms despite an adequate trial of an evidence-based psychotherapy and an antidepressant with grade A evidence (fluoxetine, escitalopram, or sertraline),” sequentially or together; treatment-refractory depression comprises the above with failure on at least two antidepressants, with at least one being grade A. Unfortunately, TRD occurs in 30%-40% of children and remission is only 30%. Low adherence based on pill counts (> 30% missed) or with therapy (fewer than nine visits) should be considered in treatment failures.

With manageable factors addressed, the next step for TRD is treatment augmentation. The best evidence-based augmentation for TRD is CBT; 55% of those receiving CBT responded within 12 weeks. TRD augmentations and interventions with evidence in adults have either no evidence of effect in children (SNRIs, lithium), no randomized controlled trials, or support only from small suggestive studies, e.g., antipsychotics, 16 g/day omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, folic acid supplementation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, or ketamine. Prompt referral to a child psychiatrist is essential for youth classified as TRD as earlier more aggressive treatment may avoid the long-term morbidity of chronic depression.

Fortunately, a meta-analysis of studies showed that PCP medication management visits with monitoring could improve outcomes, even for TRD.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Reference

Dwyer J et al. Annual research review: Defining and treating pediatric treatment-resistant depression. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020 March;61(3):312-32.

As pediatricians, we are acutely aware of the increase in depression in our teen patients. Lifetime prevalence is now approaching 20%, and we are doing our best to help.

The Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC, 2018) has advice on screening and primary care provider (PCP) management, verifying our role in care. But GLAD-PC also advises “referral to a mental health specialist” in patient scenarios we see multiple times per week. Even when patients are willing and able to go, mental health specialists are in short supply or have months-long waiting lists. What should we do to help the more severely depressed adolescent when immediate referral is not possible? What should we expect of specialist care for what is called treatment-resistant or treatment-refractory depression (TRD)?

To know what to do for a youth with TRD, first you need to know what constitutes an adequate trial of treatment. After diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) from a validated screening tool or an interview based on DSM-5 criteria and an appropriate assessment (as described in GLAD-PC), patients and parents need education on symptoms, course, prognosis including suicide risk, and treatment options. Known TRD risk factors, besides longer or greater depression severity, anhedonia, and poor global functioning, can benefit from being specifically addressed: trauma, bullying, comorbid anxiety or substance use, subsyndromal mania, insomnia, hypothyroidism, nutritional deficiencies from eating disorders, certain genetic variants, LGBTQ identification, family conflict, and parental depression. Screening and assessment for suicidal ideation/attempts is needed initially and in follow-up as MDD increases risk of suicide 30 times.

PCPs can manage mild depression with regular visits every 1-2 weeks for active support for 6-8 weeks. Advise all depressed youth on healthy eating, adequate sleep and exercise, pleasurable activities, and refraining from substance use. With a full response (50%+ reduction in symptom score from baseline), monthly monitoring for symptoms, suicidality, and stressors (phone/televisits suffice) should continue for 6-24 months as half recur. Monitoring with ratings by both youth and parent are recommended and may be required by insurers. Scores below cutoff suggest “remission,” although functioning must be considered. Youth report symptoms best but parents may better report improved functioning and affect that can precede symptom reduction.

If there is no initial response (< 25% decrease in symptom score) or a partial response (25%-49% decrease), PCPs should begin treatment as for moderate depression with either a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or psychotherapy. Use of both has the best evidence; cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy for adolescents are equally effective.

Side effects from SSRIs are almost universal with GI upset, headaches, and sexual dysfunction most common, but activation (increased agitation or irritability) may occur. Educate patients about these and encourage tolerating them as they tend to subside in weeks, allowing continuation of these most effective medicines. Activation rarely indicates true mania, which would require stopping and referral.

Moderate depression with only comorbid anxiety may be addressed by PCPs with problem-focused supportive counseling and SSRIs, but mental health consultation or referral also are appropriate. Fluoxetine starting at 5-10 mg/day has best evidence and Food and Drug Administration approval for MDD from age 8. Starting at a higher dose may increase risk of suicidal ideation. Alternatively, escitalopram is FDA approved for MDD at age 12 starting at 10 mg/day, although meta-analyses do not distinguish effectiveness within the SSRI class. Although benefit usually appears within 2 weeks, a trial of at least 4 weeks should be used to assess effect.

If after 4 weeks, the SSRI is tolerated but has little or no response, reassess the diagnosis, try a different SSRI, e.g. sertraline, and add CBT (combined SSRI+CBT has an advantage). To switch SSRIs, reduce the first every 1-2 weeks (by 10-20 mg for fluoxetine; 5-10 for escitalopram) to reduce side effects. If overlapping, the replacement SSRI may start midway in the wean at low dose with patients educated about serotonin syndrome. If instead there was a partial response to the initial SSRI, progressively increase the dose (by 10 mg for fluoxetine or 5 mg for escitalopram monthly) as indicated by symptom change up to the maximum (60-80 mg fluoxetine or 20 mg escitalopram), if needed, and maintain for another 4 weeks. Alternatively, or in addition, start psychotherapy or ask to change current therapy, as therapy focus makes a difference in effect. Initial CBT focus on anxiety acts fastest when anxiety is comorbid.

Once a regimen produces a response, maintain it for 16-20 weeks, the longer for more severe depression. Although three-fourths of mildly to moderately depressed youth are late responders, emerging near 6 weeks, a rapid initial response is associated with better outcome. The recommended 8 weeks on a final tolerated dose constituting an adequate trial before changing may be shortened to 6 weeks in severe unremitting cases. Youth not remitting by 12 weeks should be offered alternative treatment. Referral is recommended for moderately severe depression with comorbidity or severe depression but also for unresponsive moderate depression or by family or clinician preference.

Treatment-resistant depression is defined as “clinically impairing depression symptoms despite an adequate trial of an evidence-based psychotherapy and an antidepressant with grade A evidence (fluoxetine, escitalopram, or sertraline),” sequentially or together; treatment-refractory depression comprises the above with failure on at least two antidepressants, with at least one being grade A. Unfortunately, TRD occurs in 30%-40% of children and remission is only 30%. Low adherence based on pill counts (> 30% missed) or with therapy (fewer than nine visits) should be considered in treatment failures.

With manageable factors addressed, the next step for TRD is treatment augmentation. The best evidence-based augmentation for TRD is CBT; 55% of those receiving CBT responded within 12 weeks. TRD augmentations and interventions with evidence in adults have either no evidence of effect in children (SNRIs, lithium), no randomized controlled trials, or support only from small suggestive studies, e.g., antipsychotics, 16 g/day omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, folic acid supplementation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, or ketamine. Prompt referral to a child psychiatrist is essential for youth classified as TRD as earlier more aggressive treatment may avoid the long-term morbidity of chronic depression.

Fortunately, a meta-analysis of studies showed that PCP medication management visits with monitoring could improve outcomes, even for TRD.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Reference

Dwyer J et al. Annual research review: Defining and treating pediatric treatment-resistant depression. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020 March;61(3):312-32.

I write a lot about watershed moments in my career, things that proved to be moments of tremendous growth, as a person and as a doctor.

One of these occurred early in my career when I met a new patient with ovarian cancer. When I walked into the exam room, I made eye contact with the woman who was accompanied by a man. I assumed they were married, so I went to her first. I introduced myself, stating that I was here to talk about how best to treat her cancer. She stopped me quickly. “Doctor, I am not the patient,” she said. “He is.”

It was the first time I had cared for a transgender man with ovarian cancer. I recall how awkward the following moments were – for all of us. It was the first time I realized that cancer does not have a gender. Men can get breast cancer. Trans women can get prostate cancer. Trans men can get ovarian cancer.

But even many years later, we are not much further along in how prepared we are as a medical community to care for LGBTQ persons. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are not part of the normal medical school curriculum. For most medical students, LGBTQ health is still approached as an aside – perhaps during an infectious disease clerkship, while learning about STDs and HIV. Students do not learn how to approach the male couple seeking to become parents, STD risk reduction for gays and lesbians, or the trans man with ovarian cancer.

But they should, particularly in light of a 2015 study evaluating bias among U.S. medical students. The analysis found that about 45% of medical students exhibited explicit bias against LGBTQ individuals and 8 in 10 held an implicit bias. Fewer than 20% showed no evidence of bias. This lack of preparedness to treat LGBTQ individuals against a backdrop of bias in the medical community often leads patients to mistrust medicine.

To gain perspective outside of oncology, I spoke to Michelle Forcier (she/they), MD, MPH, assistant dean of admissions and professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Forcier agreed that “LGBTQ/rainbow health has been harmfully treated by the system, by both intention and by ignorance.”

“I have had patients who report that EMTs have tried to look under their clothes to determine their gender and transgender patients who have asked point blank to show a provider the results of gender reassignment surgery, not because it was relevant to the issue at hand, but purely out of curiosity,” Dr. Forcier continued. “Then there are the patients who are addressed by the name on their legal record rather than the name that reflects their actual lived experience and identity. These experiences foster this anticipation that is pervasive in this community, that something will be said or done that doesn’t fit who they are, and that ultimately will out them as ‘other.’ ”

I have also felt this sense of being “other” – something I thought I would be immune to as a physician. I have been asked on multiple occasions what my wife does for a living. Moments like this are always awkward. I’m either forced to come out of the closet yet again, or answer vaguely, as if I should be ashamed of my sexuality.

So, how can we move toward equity? Dr. Forcier explained how she lays the groundwork early. “I love pediatrics because kids know when you are being authentic,” she said. “I say who I am, I use she/they pronouns. I also teach by example. If there are more than just my patient in a room, I say, ‘Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves’ so all have a chance to tell me who they are and how they have come together. If it’s not clear to me, sometimes I prod: ‘How are you here to support [the patient]?’ ”

The point, according to Dr. Forcier: Don’t make assumptions about relationships when you walk into a room with more than one person. Don’t even make assumptions about who the patient is.

But bringing up gender and sexuality can be awkward. Even I sometimes have a hard time. In oncology, patients are there to talk about their cancer and what can be done about it.

“I think it’s really about how it’s framed,” Dr. Forcier said. “In pediatrics, I might start by prefacing it with ‘I am going to ask you some personal questions, and it might seem invasive, but it’s important for your health care. How do you see yourself in the world? What gender identity fits you the best? Who are you attracted to?’ And then I shut up. Doctors need to learn how to stop and wait, provide the space to answer.”

I can see why understanding our patients more deeply is important. We treat people with cancer, not cancer people. As such, understanding someone more fully includes being cognizant of how they identify.

“I am continuously inspired by my LGBTQ patients who have fought to realize who they are and become their truer selves,” Dr. Forcier said. “They know who they are, and they know what they need. They have learned to demand it, to demand that their rights be respected – both civil and human rights.”

As we look toward a future in medicine where diversity, equity, and inclusion have gained prominence and urgency, I think there is reason to be hopeful. In oncology, one institutional study published in 2017 found that, although only about a third of practicing clinicians surveyed were comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, 92% of them acknowledged our unique needs, 78% wanted more education on how to appropriately care for our community, and 64% wanted to be listed as an LGBTQ-friendly provider.

“As an optimist, I believe that those struggling with homophobia/transphobia are open to doing things better,” Dr. Forcier said. “After all, we all strive to be better doctors. Whether explicit or implicit bias is at play, turning moments where colleagues are being inappropriate and showing them an alternative, more inclusive way to handle things is one mechanism to educate, rather than to shame. The bottom line is simple: You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to try.”

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence. He is also a professor of medicine at Brown University. His research interests are in novel treatments of women’s cancers and issues related to survivorship, particularly as they relate to sexual health after cancer for both men and women.

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

I write a lot about watershed moments in my career, things that proved to be moments of tremendous growth, as a person and as a doctor.

One of these occurred early in my career when I met a new patient with ovarian cancer. When I walked into the exam room, I made eye contact with the woman who was accompanied by a man. I assumed they were married, so I went to her first. I introduced myself, stating that I was here to talk about how best to treat her cancer. She stopped me quickly. “Doctor, I am not the patient,” she said. “He is.”

It was the first time I had cared for a transgender man with ovarian cancer. I recall how awkward the following moments were – for all of us. It was the first time I realized that cancer does not have a gender. Men can get breast cancer. Trans women can get prostate cancer. Trans men can get ovarian cancer.

But even many years later, we are not much further along in how prepared we are as a medical community to care for LGBTQ persons. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are not part of the normal medical school curriculum. For most medical students, LGBTQ health is still approached as an aside – perhaps during an infectious disease clerkship, while learning about STDs and HIV. Students do not learn how to approach the male couple seeking to become parents, STD risk reduction for gays and lesbians, or the trans man with ovarian cancer.

But they should, particularly in light of a 2015 study evaluating bias among U.S. medical students. The analysis found that about 45% of medical students exhibited explicit bias against LGBTQ individuals and 8 in 10 held an implicit bias. Fewer than 20% showed no evidence of bias. This lack of preparedness to treat LGBTQ individuals against a backdrop of bias in the medical community often leads patients to mistrust medicine.

To gain perspective outside of oncology, I spoke to Michelle Forcier (she/they), MD, MPH, assistant dean of admissions and professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Forcier agreed that “LGBTQ/rainbow health has been harmfully treated by the system, by both intention and by ignorance.”

“I have had patients who report that EMTs have tried to look under their clothes to determine their gender and transgender patients who have asked point blank to show a provider the results of gender reassignment surgery, not because it was relevant to the issue at hand, but purely out of curiosity,” Dr. Forcier continued. “Then there are the patients who are addressed by the name on their legal record rather than the name that reflects their actual lived experience and identity. These experiences foster this anticipation that is pervasive in this community, that something will be said or done that doesn’t fit who they are, and that ultimately will out them as ‘other.’ ”

I have also felt this sense of being “other” – something I thought I would be immune to as a physician. I have been asked on multiple occasions what my wife does for a living. Moments like this are always awkward. I’m either forced to come out of the closet yet again, or answer vaguely, as if I should be ashamed of my sexuality.

So, how can we move toward equity? Dr. Forcier explained how she lays the groundwork early. “I love pediatrics because kids know when you are being authentic,” she said. “I say who I am, I use she/they pronouns. I also teach by example. If there are more than just my patient in a room, I say, ‘Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves’ so all have a chance to tell me who they are and how they have come together. If it’s not clear to me, sometimes I prod: ‘How are you here to support [the patient]?’ ”

The point, according to Dr. Forcier: Don’t make assumptions about relationships when you walk into a room with more than one person. Don’t even make assumptions about who the patient is.

But bringing up gender and sexuality can be awkward. Even I sometimes have a hard time. In oncology, patients are there to talk about their cancer and what can be done about it.

“I think it’s really about how it’s framed,” Dr. Forcier said. “In pediatrics, I might start by prefacing it with ‘I am going to ask you some personal questions, and it might seem invasive, but it’s important for your health care. How do you see yourself in the world? What gender identity fits you the best? Who are you attracted to?’ And then I shut up. Doctors need to learn how to stop and wait, provide the space to answer.”

I can see why understanding our patients more deeply is important. We treat people with cancer, not cancer people. As such, understanding someone more fully includes being cognizant of how they identify.

“I am continuously inspired by my LGBTQ patients who have fought to realize who they are and become their truer selves,” Dr. Forcier said. “They know who they are, and they know what they need. They have learned to demand it, to demand that their rights be respected – both civil and human rights.”

As we look toward a future in medicine where diversity, equity, and inclusion have gained prominence and urgency, I think there is reason to be hopeful. In oncology, one institutional study published in 2017 found that, although only about a third of practicing clinicians surveyed were comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, 92% of them acknowledged our unique needs, 78% wanted more education on how to appropriately care for our community, and 64% wanted to be listed as an LGBTQ-friendly provider.

“As an optimist, I believe that those struggling with homophobia/transphobia are open to doing things better,” Dr. Forcier said. “After all, we all strive to be better doctors. Whether explicit or implicit bias is at play, turning moments where colleagues are being inappropriate and showing them an alternative, more inclusive way to handle things is one mechanism to educate, rather than to shame. The bottom line is simple: You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to try.”

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence. He is also a professor of medicine at Brown University. His research interests are in novel treatments of women’s cancers and issues related to survivorship, particularly as they relate to sexual health after cancer for both men and women.

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

I write a lot about watershed moments in my career, things that proved to be moments of tremendous growth, as a person and as a doctor.

One of these occurred early in my career when I met a new patient with ovarian cancer. When I walked into the exam room, I made eye contact with the woman who was accompanied by a man. I assumed they were married, so I went to her first. I introduced myself, stating that I was here to talk about how best to treat her cancer. She stopped me quickly. “Doctor, I am not the patient,” she said. “He is.”

It was the first time I had cared for a transgender man with ovarian cancer. I recall how awkward the following moments were – for all of us. It was the first time I realized that cancer does not have a gender. Men can get breast cancer. Trans women can get prostate cancer. Trans men can get ovarian cancer.

But even many years later, we are not much further along in how prepared we are as a medical community to care for LGBTQ persons. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are not part of the normal medical school curriculum. For most medical students, LGBTQ health is still approached as an aside – perhaps during an infectious disease clerkship, while learning about STDs and HIV. Students do not learn how to approach the male couple seeking to become parents, STD risk reduction for gays and lesbians, or the trans man with ovarian cancer.

But they should, particularly in light of a 2015 study evaluating bias among U.S. medical students. The analysis found that about 45% of medical students exhibited explicit bias against LGBTQ individuals and 8 in 10 held an implicit bias. Fewer than 20% showed no evidence of bias. This lack of preparedness to treat LGBTQ individuals against a backdrop of bias in the medical community often leads patients to mistrust medicine.

To gain perspective outside of oncology, I spoke to Michelle Forcier (she/they), MD, MPH, assistant dean of admissions and professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Forcier agreed that “LGBTQ/rainbow health has been harmfully treated by the system, by both intention and by ignorance.”

“I have had patients who report that EMTs have tried to look under their clothes to determine their gender and transgender patients who have asked point blank to show a provider the results of gender reassignment surgery, not because it was relevant to the issue at hand, but purely out of curiosity,” Dr. Forcier continued. “Then there are the patients who are addressed by the name on their legal record rather than the name that reflects their actual lived experience and identity. These experiences foster this anticipation that is pervasive in this community, that something will be said or done that doesn’t fit who they are, and that ultimately will out them as ‘other.’ ”

I have also felt this sense of being “other” – something I thought I would be immune to as a physician. I have been asked on multiple occasions what my wife does for a living. Moments like this are always awkward. I’m either forced to come out of the closet yet again, or answer vaguely, as if I should be ashamed of my sexuality.

So, how can we move toward equity? Dr. Forcier explained how she lays the groundwork early. “I love pediatrics because kids know when you are being authentic,” she said. “I say who I am, I use she/they pronouns. I also teach by example. If there are more than just my patient in a room, I say, ‘Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves’ so all have a chance to tell me who they are and how they have come together. If it’s not clear to me, sometimes I prod: ‘How are you here to support [the patient]?’ ”

The point, according to Dr. Forcier: Don’t make assumptions about relationships when you walk into a room with more than one person. Don’t even make assumptions about who the patient is.

But bringing up gender and sexuality can be awkward. Even I sometimes have a hard time. In oncology, patients are there to talk about their cancer and what can be done about it.

“I think it’s really about how it’s framed,” Dr. Forcier said. “In pediatrics, I might start by prefacing it with ‘I am going to ask you some personal questions, and it might seem invasive, but it’s important for your health care. How do you see yourself in the world? What gender identity fits you the best? Who are you attracted to?’ And then I shut up. Doctors need to learn how to stop and wait, provide the space to answer.”

I can see why understanding our patients more deeply is important. We treat people with cancer, not cancer people. As such, understanding someone more fully includes being cognizant of how they identify.

“I am continuously inspired by my LGBTQ patients who have fought to realize who they are and become their truer selves,” Dr. Forcier said. “They know who they are, and they know what they need. They have learned to demand it, to demand that their rights be respected – both civil and human rights.”

As we look toward a future in medicine where diversity, equity, and inclusion have gained prominence and urgency, I think there is reason to be hopeful. In oncology, one institutional study published in 2017 found that, although only about a third of practicing clinicians surveyed were comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, 92% of them acknowledged our unique needs, 78% wanted more education on how to appropriately care for our community, and 64% wanted to be listed as an LGBTQ-friendly provider.

“As an optimist, I believe that those struggling with homophobia/transphobia are open to doing things better,” Dr. Forcier said. “After all, we all strive to be better doctors. Whether explicit or implicit bias is at play, turning moments where colleagues are being inappropriate and showing them an alternative, more inclusive way to handle things is one mechanism to educate, rather than to shame. The bottom line is simple: You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to try.”

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence. He is also a professor of medicine at Brown University. His research interests are in novel treatments of women’s cancers and issues related to survivorship, particularly as they relate to sexual health after cancer for both men and women.

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

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

The personal connection between patients and physicians has evolved over the last decade with advances in medicine, technology, and the overwhelming impact of electronic medical records (EMRs). The average primary care physician spends 5.9 hours of their 11.4-hour workday doing various tasks in the EMR.¹ With approximately half of a physician’s workday dedicated to writing patient notes, billing, and managing their inbox, the other half of the day needs to be sparingly allotted across their total patient load.

This progression of increased EMR time demands and reduced time interacting with patients has led to the development of various advantageous strategies to minimize the physician’s workload and shift the focus back to the patient. Two paramount examples that can maximize the physician’s time and the patient’s individualized care are the use of medical scribes as well as technology to write notes and accomplish various office tasks. Both reduce the physician’s workload and allow for more patient-focused interactions but via different methods. When considering which practice to employ, a physician must weigh the positive and negative aspects of both modalities, particularly dermatologists who utilize these options to streamline high patient loads.

Medical Scribes in Dermatology

A scribe is defined as a staff member who records patient-physician interactions in real time and functions as the “physician’s partner in the clinical encounter.”² A variety of staff members can serve as scribes, such as medical assistants and registered nurses (RNs), but the majority of scribes are prehealth students (eg, premedical, prenursing, pre–physician assistant).³ In this modality of patient information recording, the physician brings the scribe into the examination room and introduces them to the patient, and the scribe proceeds to record the encounter directly into the EMR. After the encounter, the physician then is able to review the completed notes and make the necessary changes before finalized submission. This process drastically reduces the physician’s workload and also may have a lasting impact on the scribe. Aside from financial compensation, scribes also are offered a very in-depth clinical experience. Especially for prehealth students, scribing can be an eye-opening phase of their progression toward a future career in medicine. These students are able to immerse themselves in the clinical setting and truly experience the medical field through active participation in patient care. Robert et al² commented on the professional development of prehealth students through scribing and self-reflection on their clinical experiences involving human suffering, empathy, power dynamics, and social inequality. Scribing allows prehealth students to begin to develop the critical skills necessary to succeed in the medical field at an earlier stage of their career development through real-time clinical engagement. This can be a motivational learning experience and can help these students to become more empathetic, understanding, and well-rounded providers in their future careers.

It is important to consider that human scribes currently are the status quo. They have been used reliably in the clinical setting for more than a decade, and it has been proven that their use is advantageous for physicians. Overall, the increased productivity and long-term effects of the immersive experiences that scribes encounter on a daily basis are important considerations when physicians decide to seek assistance in reducing their workload.

Virtual Technology and Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology

Another way to reduce the physician’s daily workload is through virtual technology and artificial intelligence (AI)–based programs. There have been many varieties of technology developed over the last decade to coincide with the rising EMR work requirements. Virtual technology allows for a wide variety of utilization in the medical clinic that can vary from virtual assistants who record patient encounters, such as Hello Rache (Temark International, Inc), to audio programs such as DeepScribe (DeepScribe Inc) that listen to the patient-physician interaction and utilize an AI-based machine to concurrently convert the audio to written documentation in the EMR.

Among the available options, the most similar to the scribe method seems to be programs such as Hello Rache that provide a virtual assistant—often an RN—who can assist in completing a multitude of tasks, such as referrals, telephone calls, transcription of dictation, and other office needs. Similar to scribing, the virtual assistant can be brought into the room to chart the notes from the visit in real time into the EMR. Although this seems similar to conventional scribing, there are 3 glaring differences in the virtual approach. The first is that the use of a tablet, computer, or other technology source is required to bring the virtual assistant in the room to listen and observe the patient interaction. This increases ease of use and allows the physician to move seamlessly between patient encounters. However, the utilization of technology also adds a layer of potential problems to the physician’s workflow, such as unreliable Internet connection, the need for battery power, and data storage requirements. The second major difference is the fact that the virtual assistant recording the notes into the EMR is not physically present and therefore is unable to move around the room to observe the physical examination. Lastly, the population of virtual assistants employed by Hello Rache seems to be restricted to specifically trained RNs in the Philippines. These virtual assistants are specially vetted for working in the medical field, and their position as a virtual assistant is their career, which provides a specialized workforce to help physicians be more effective in their work. It also shows stark contrast to the prehealth professionals that make up the majority of conventional scribes for whom scribing is a stepping stone into the medical field rather than a career path. This offers a more comprehensive approach to reducing the physician’s workload but also contributes to a more detached clinical experience for the virtual assistant.

Final Thoughts

Both conventional and virtual scribing modalities provide assistance to maximize efficiency and reduce the physician’s workload.³ Both methods achieve the same goal, but they have unique long-term impact on the physician, scribe, and most importantly the patient. Artificial intelligence provides an intriguing approach to minimizing work in the medical setting, but it does not have the successful history of utilization and longitudinal clinical impact on the scribe that is achieved through traditional scribing. It is important to consider the personal and professional growth that early clinical experiences provide for scribes, especially because the majority pursue a career in the medical field. Human scribes will continue to be the status quo when opposing the increased requirements of the EMR, but the implementation of AI sparks the need for more in-depth research and comparisons. Lastly, it is essential to uncover what the patient may prefer. Conventional scribing has been successfully utilized and accepted by patients in the clinical setting for years, but investigations of the efficacy and satisfaction of virtual scribing are still needed. Although both provide an advantageous approach to maximizing the patient-physician time in the dermatology clinic, one cannot say for certain that AI will be welcomed the same way as modern-day human scribes.

The personal connection between patients and physicians has evolved over the last decade with advances in medicine, technology, and the overwhelming impact of electronic medical records (EMRs). The average primary care physician spends 5.9 hours of their 11.4-hour workday doing various tasks in the EMR.¹ With approximately half of a physician’s workday dedicated to writing patient notes, billing, and managing their inbox, the other half of the day needs to be sparingly allotted across their total patient load.

This progression of increased EMR time demands and reduced time interacting with patients has led to the development of various advantageous strategies to minimize the physician’s workload and shift the focus back to the patient. Two paramount examples that can maximize the physician’s time and the patient’s individualized care are the use of medical scribes as well as technology to write notes and accomplish various office tasks. Both reduce the physician’s workload and allow for more patient-focused interactions but via different methods. When considering which practice to employ, a physician must weigh the positive and negative aspects of both modalities, particularly dermatologists who utilize these options to streamline high patient loads.

Medical Scribes in Dermatology

A scribe is defined as a staff member who records patient-physician interactions in real time and functions as the “physician’s partner in the clinical encounter.”² A variety of staff members can serve as scribes, such as medical assistants and registered nurses (RNs), but the majority of scribes are prehealth students (eg, premedical, prenursing, pre–physician assistant).³ In this modality of patient information recording, the physician brings the scribe into the examination room and introduces them to the patient, and the scribe proceeds to record the encounter directly into the EMR. After the encounter, the physician then is able to review the completed notes and make the necessary changes before finalized submission. This process drastically reduces the physician’s workload and also may have a lasting impact on the scribe. Aside from financial compensation, scribes also are offered a very in-depth clinical experience. Especially for prehealth students, scribing can be an eye-opening phase of their progression toward a future career in medicine. These students are able to immerse themselves in the clinical setting and truly experience the medical field through active participation in patient care. Robert et al² commented on the professional development of prehealth students through scribing and self-reflection on their clinical experiences involving human suffering, empathy, power dynamics, and social inequality. Scribing allows prehealth students to begin to develop the critical skills necessary to succeed in the medical field at an earlier stage of their career development through real-time clinical engagement. This can be a motivational learning experience and can help these students to become more empathetic, understanding, and well-rounded providers in their future careers.

It is important to consider that human scribes currently are the status quo. They have been used reliably in the clinical setting for more than a decade, and it has been proven that their use is advantageous for physicians. Overall, the increased productivity and long-term effects of the immersive experiences that scribes encounter on a daily basis are important considerations when physicians decide to seek assistance in reducing their workload.

Virtual Technology and Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology

Another way to reduce the physician’s daily workload is through virtual technology and artificial intelligence (AI)–based programs. There have been many varieties of technology developed over the last decade to coincide with the rising EMR work requirements. Virtual technology allows for a wide variety of utilization in the medical clinic that can vary from virtual assistants who record patient encounters, such as Hello Rache (Temark International, Inc), to audio programs such as DeepScribe (DeepScribe Inc) that listen to the patient-physician interaction and utilize an AI-based machine to concurrently convert the audio to written documentation in the EMR.

Among the available options, the most similar to the scribe method seems to be programs such as Hello Rache that provide a virtual assistant—often an RN—who can assist in completing a multitude of tasks, such as referrals, telephone calls, transcription of dictation, and other office needs. Similar to scribing, the virtual assistant can be brought into the room to chart the notes from the visit in real time into the EMR. Although this seems similar to conventional scribing, there are 3 glaring differences in the virtual approach. The first is that the use of a tablet, computer, or other technology source is required to bring the virtual assistant in the room to listen and observe the patient interaction. This increases ease of use and allows the physician to move seamlessly between patient encounters. However, the utilization of technology also adds a layer of potential problems to the physician’s workflow, such as unreliable Internet connection, the need for battery power, and data storage requirements. The second major difference is the fact that the virtual assistant recording the notes into the EMR is not physically present and therefore is unable to move around the room to observe the physical examination. Lastly, the population of virtual assistants employed by Hello Rache seems to be restricted to specifically trained RNs in the Philippines. These virtual assistants are specially vetted for working in the medical field, and their position as a virtual assistant is their career, which provides a specialized workforce to help physicians be more effective in their work. It also shows stark contrast to the prehealth professionals that make up the majority of conventional scribes for whom scribing is a stepping stone into the medical field rather than a career path. This offers a more comprehensive approach to reducing the physician’s workload but also contributes to a more detached clinical experience for the virtual assistant.

Final Thoughts

Both conventional and virtual scribing modalities provide assistance to maximize efficiency and reduce the physician’s workload.³ Both methods achieve the same goal, but they have unique long-term impact on the physician, scribe, and most importantly the patient. Artificial intelligence provides an intriguing approach to minimizing work in the medical setting, but it does not have the successful history of utilization and longitudinal clinical impact on the scribe that is achieved through traditional scribing. It is important to consider the personal and professional growth that early clinical experiences provide for scribes, especially because the majority pursue a career in the medical field. Human scribes will continue to be the status quo when opposing the increased requirements of the EMR, but the implementation of AI sparks the need for more in-depth research and comparisons. Lastly, it is essential to uncover what the patient may prefer. Conventional scribing has been successfully utilized and accepted by patients in the clinical setting for years, but investigations of the efficacy and satisfaction of virtual scribing are still needed. Although both provide an advantageous approach to maximizing the patient-physician time in the dermatology clinic, one cannot say for certain that AI will be welcomed the same way as modern-day human scribes.

The personal connection between patients and physicians has evolved over the last decade with advances in medicine, technology, and the overwhelming impact of electronic medical records (EMRs). The average primary care physician spends 5.9 hours of their 11.4-hour workday doing various tasks in the EMR.¹ With approximately half of a physician’s workday dedicated to writing patient notes, billing, and managing their inbox, the other half of the day needs to be sparingly allotted across their total patient load.

This progression of increased EMR time demands and reduced time interacting with patients has led to the development of various advantageous strategies to minimize the physician’s workload and shift the focus back to the patient. Two paramount examples that can maximize the physician’s time and the patient’s individualized care are the use of medical scribes as well as technology to write notes and accomplish various office tasks. Both reduce the physician’s workload and allow for more patient-focused interactions but via different methods. When considering which practice to employ, a physician must weigh the positive and negative aspects of both modalities, particularly dermatologists who utilize these options to streamline high patient loads.

Medical Scribes in Dermatology

A scribe is defined as a staff member who records patient-physician interactions in real time and functions as the “physician’s partner in the clinical encounter.”² A variety of staff members can serve as scribes, such as medical assistants and registered nurses (RNs), but the majority of scribes are prehealth students (eg, premedical, prenursing, pre–physician assistant).³ In this modality of patient information recording, the physician brings the scribe into the examination room and introduces them to the patient, and the scribe proceeds to record the encounter directly into the EMR. After the encounter, the physician then is able to review the completed notes and make the necessary changes before finalized submission. This process drastically reduces the physician’s workload and also may have a lasting impact on the scribe. Aside from financial compensation, scribes also are offered a very in-depth clinical experience. Especially for prehealth students, scribing can be an eye-opening phase of their progression toward a future career in medicine. These students are able to immerse themselves in the clinical setting and truly experience the medical field through active participation in patient care. Robert et al² commented on the professional development of prehealth students through scribing and self-reflection on their clinical experiences involving human suffering, empathy, power dynamics, and social inequality. Scribing allows prehealth students to begin to develop the critical skills necessary to succeed in the medical field at an earlier stage of their career development through real-time clinical engagement. This can be a motivational learning experience and can help these students to become more empathetic, understanding, and well-rounded providers in their future careers.

It is important to consider that human scribes currently are the status quo. They have been used reliably in the clinical setting for more than a decade, and it has been proven that their use is advantageous for physicians. Overall, the increased productivity and long-term effects of the immersive experiences that scribes encounter on a daily basis are important considerations when physicians decide to seek assistance in reducing their workload.

Virtual Technology and Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology

Another way to reduce the physician’s daily workload is through virtual technology and artificial intelligence (AI)–based programs. There have been many varieties of technology developed over the last decade to coincide with the rising EMR work requirements. Virtual technology allows for a wide variety of utilization in the medical clinic that can vary from virtual assistants who record patient encounters, such as Hello Rache (Temark International, Inc), to audio programs such as DeepScribe (DeepScribe Inc) that listen to the patient-physician interaction and utilize an AI-based machine to concurrently convert the audio to written documentation in the EMR.

Among the available options, the most similar to the scribe method seems to be programs such as Hello Rache that provide a virtual assistant—often an RN—who can assist in completing a multitude of tasks, such as referrals, telephone calls, transcription of dictation, and other office needs. Similar to scribing, the virtual assistant can be brought into the room to chart the notes from the visit in real time into the EMR. Although this seems similar to conventional scribing, there are 3 glaring differences in the virtual approach. The first is that the use of a tablet, computer, or other technology source is required to bring the virtual assistant in the room to listen and observe the patient interaction. This increases ease of use and allows the physician to move seamlessly between patient encounters. However, the utilization of technology also adds a layer of potential problems to the physician’s workflow, such as unreliable Internet connection, the need for battery power, and data storage requirements. The second major difference is the fact that the virtual assistant recording the notes into the EMR is not physically present and therefore is unable to move around the room to observe the physical examination. Lastly, the population of virtual assistants employed by Hello Rache seems to be restricted to specifically trained RNs in the Philippines. These virtual assistants are specially vetted for working in the medical field, and their position as a virtual assistant is their career, which provides a specialized workforce to help physicians be more effective in their work. It also shows stark contrast to the prehealth professionals that make up the majority of conventional scribes for whom scribing is a stepping stone into the medical field rather than a career path. This offers a more comprehensive approach to reducing the physician’s workload but also contributes to a more detached clinical experience for the virtual assistant.

Final Thoughts

Both conventional and virtual scribing modalities provide assistance to maximize efficiency and reduce the physician’s workload.³ Both methods achieve the same goal, but they have unique long-term impact on the physician, scribe, and most importantly the patient. Artificial intelligence provides an intriguing approach to minimizing work in the medical setting, but it does not have the successful history of utilization and longitudinal clinical impact on the scribe that is achieved through traditional scribing. It is important to consider the personal and professional growth that early clinical experiences provide for scribes, especially because the majority pursue a career in the medical field. Human scribes will continue to be the status quo when opposing the increased requirements of the EMR, but the implementation of AI sparks the need for more in-depth research and comparisons. Lastly, it is essential to uncover what the patient may prefer. Conventional scribing has been successfully utilized and accepted by patients in the clinical setting for years, but investigations of the efficacy and satisfaction of virtual scribing are still needed. Although both provide an advantageous approach to maximizing the patient-physician time in the dermatology clinic, one cannot say for certain that AI will be welcomed the same way as modern-day human scribes.

According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center and a report by the National Women’s Law Center, women were earning approximately $0.83-$0.84 for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts in 2020. Accordingly, women would need to work an additional 42 days to receive compensation for earnings by men during that year. Moreover, these gaps exist with respect to race inequalities. For example, Black and Latinx women who are working full-time were reported to earn approximately $0.64 and $0.57, respectively, for every $1.00 compared with their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts. Striking, isn’t it?

The gender pay gap also affects physicians. A 2021 Medscape survey found that male physicians earn 35% more than female physicians. The biggest gap seems to be between male and female specialists, with men earning $376,000 and women $283,000.
 

Gender inequality and COVID-19

In addition to workplace responsibilities, women are more likely to take on unpaid positions in the informal care economy – examples of these tasks include cleaning, grocery shopping, and child care. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the burden of unpaid care work among women, which often incurs a significant impact on their participation in the paid economy.

A study in the United States evaluating the impact of gender inequality during COVID-19 suggested that the rise in unemployment among women during this time may be related to decreased occupational flexibility. Accordingly, the closure of schools and caregiving facilities has translated into increased responsibilities as the informal caregiver, and a decreased ability to fulfill work obligations. Consequently, women may be overwhelmed and unable to maintain their employment status, are limited in their work opportunities, and/or are furloughed or passed over for promotions.
 

Gendered pay gaps affect mental health

A study by Platt and colleagues investigated the relationship between gendered wage gaps and gendered disparities in depression and anxiety disorders. Researchers found that females with a lower income compared with their matched male counterparts were more likely to experience depression and generalized anxiety disorders (i.e., they were 2.4 times more likely to experience depression and 4 times more likely to experience anxiety), while women who earned more than men did not report a significant difference in depression there were reduced gaps in the prevalence of anxiety disorders. As such, it has been suggested that wage gap inequalities are a contributing factor to gendered mental health disparities.

Reduced pay is not only a signifier of reduced returns on human capital. It may also have implications for one’s role in the care economy (e.g., greater time allocation as a result of reduced return), and may result in a higher likelihood for relocation as it relates to a partner’s work, overqualification for a position, inflexible work schedules, and reduced work autonomy.

Wage inequalities may act as a proxy for workplace inequalities such as promotions, prestigious projects, limited upward mobility, and internalized negative workplace experiences, all of which may contribute to increased sleep loss, stress, and related mental health stressors.

One might say, “A few cents, so what?” In addition to income itself, there’s a broader theme at play, which is gender discrimination and inequality. We should encourage conversations around the gender pay gap and develop strategies to combat this economic and social disparity.
 

Ms. Lui completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate. She has received income from Braxia Scientific Corp. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center and a report by the National Women’s Law Center, women were earning approximately $0.83-$0.84 for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts in 2020. Accordingly, women would need to work an additional 42 days to receive compensation for earnings by men during that year. Moreover, these gaps exist with respect to race inequalities. For example, Black and Latinx women who are working full-time were reported to earn approximately $0.64 and $0.57, respectively, for every $1.00 compared with their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts. Striking, isn’t it?

The gender pay gap also affects physicians. A 2021 Medscape survey found that male physicians earn 35% more than female physicians. The biggest gap seems to be between male and female specialists, with men earning $376,000 and women $283,000.
 

Gender inequality and COVID-19

In addition to workplace responsibilities, women are more likely to take on unpaid positions in the informal care economy – examples of these tasks include cleaning, grocery shopping, and child care. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the burden of unpaid care work among women, which often incurs a significant impact on their participation in the paid economy.

A study in the United States evaluating the impact of gender inequality during COVID-19 suggested that the rise in unemployment among women during this time may be related to decreased occupational flexibility. Accordingly, the closure of schools and caregiving facilities has translated into increased responsibilities as the informal caregiver, and a decreased ability to fulfill work obligations. Consequently, women may be overwhelmed and unable to maintain their employment status, are limited in their work opportunities, and/or are furloughed or passed over for promotions.
 

Gendered pay gaps affect mental health

A study by Platt and colleagues investigated the relationship between gendered wage gaps and gendered disparities in depression and anxiety disorders. Researchers found that females with a lower income compared with their matched male counterparts were more likely to experience depression and generalized anxiety disorders (i.e., they were 2.4 times more likely to experience depression and 4 times more likely to experience anxiety), while women who earned more than men did not report a significant difference in depression there were reduced gaps in the prevalence of anxiety disorders. As such, it has been suggested that wage gap inequalities are a contributing factor to gendered mental health disparities.

Reduced pay is not only a signifier of reduced returns on human capital. It may also have implications for one’s role in the care economy (e.g., greater time allocation as a result of reduced return), and may result in a higher likelihood for relocation as it relates to a partner’s work, overqualification for a position, inflexible work schedules, and reduced work autonomy.

Wage inequalities may act as a proxy for workplace inequalities such as promotions, prestigious projects, limited upward mobility, and internalized negative workplace experiences, all of which may contribute to increased sleep loss, stress, and related mental health stressors.

One might say, “A few cents, so what?” In addition to income itself, there’s a broader theme at play, which is gender discrimination and inequality. We should encourage conversations around the gender pay gap and develop strategies to combat this economic and social disparity.
 

Ms. Lui completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate. She has received income from Braxia Scientific Corp. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center and a report by the National Women’s Law Center, women were earning approximately $0.83-$0.84 for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts in 2020. Accordingly, women would need to work an additional 42 days to receive compensation for earnings by men during that year. Moreover, these gaps exist with respect to race inequalities. For example, Black and Latinx women who are working full-time were reported to earn approximately $0.64 and $0.57, respectively, for every $1.00 compared with their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts. Striking, isn’t it?

The gender pay gap also affects physicians. A 2021 Medscape survey found that male physicians earn 35% more than female physicians. The biggest gap seems to be between male and female specialists, with men earning $376,000 and women $283,000.
 

Gender inequality and COVID-19

In addition to workplace responsibilities, women are more likely to take on unpaid positions in the informal care economy – examples of these tasks include cleaning, grocery shopping, and child care. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the burden of unpaid care work among women, which often incurs a significant impact on their participation in the paid economy.

A study in the United States evaluating the impact of gender inequality during COVID-19 suggested that the rise in unemployment among women during this time may be related to decreased occupational flexibility. Accordingly, the closure of schools and caregiving facilities has translated into increased responsibilities as the informal caregiver, and a decreased ability to fulfill work obligations. Consequently, women may be overwhelmed and unable to maintain their employment status, are limited in their work opportunities, and/or are furloughed or passed over for promotions.
 

Gendered pay gaps affect mental health

A study by Platt and colleagues investigated the relationship between gendered wage gaps and gendered disparities in depression and anxiety disorders. Researchers found that females with a lower income compared with their matched male counterparts were more likely to experience depression and generalized anxiety disorders (i.e., they were 2.4 times more likely to experience depression and 4 times more likely to experience anxiety), while women who earned more than men did not report a significant difference in depression there were reduced gaps in the prevalence of anxiety disorders. As such, it has been suggested that wage gap inequalities are a contributing factor to gendered mental health disparities.

Reduced pay is not only a signifier of reduced returns on human capital. It may also have implications for one’s role in the care economy (e.g., greater time allocation as a result of reduced return), and may result in a higher likelihood for relocation as it relates to a partner’s work, overqualification for a position, inflexible work schedules, and reduced work autonomy.

Wage inequalities may act as a proxy for workplace inequalities such as promotions, prestigious projects, limited upward mobility, and internalized negative workplace experiences, all of which may contribute to increased sleep loss, stress, and related mental health stressors.

One might say, “A few cents, so what?” In addition to income itself, there’s a broader theme at play, which is gender discrimination and inequality. We should encourage conversations around the gender pay gap and develop strategies to combat this economic and social disparity.
 

Ms. Lui completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate. She has received income from Braxia Scientific Corp. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.