Commentary

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

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

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

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

Creating an optimal learning environment for medical students studying psychiatry is essential for their growth and development. Over the last 25 years, I have worked with hundreds of medical students in a busy urban emergency department (ED), and I have developed a style that has worked well for them and for me. A supportive, engaging atmosphere can significantly enhance students’ understanding of psychiatric conditions, therapeutic approaches, and patient care. To ensure a productive and inspiring learning experience, educators should consider several key factors.

The educators

Faculty physicians should invest themselves in the students’ individual growth and aspirations by providing personalized guidance that caters to each student’s goals and challenges.¹ Educators must also embody a passion for psychiatry. I’ve found that integrating a lighthearted and humorous approach to my teaching style can relieve stress and enhance learning. I’ve also found it crucial to demonstrate empathy and effective communication skills that students can emulate in their professional development.² Encourage students to take an active role in their learning process by engaging in clinical discussions and decision-making. Lastly, providing regular assessments and constructive feedback in a supportive manner allows students to better understand their strengths and weaknesses, and to continually improve their knowledge and skills.³

The students

Encourage students to fully express their unique personalities, perspectives, and learning styles. This diversity can fuel creativity and promote an atmosphere of inclusivity and enhanced learning. Teach students to recognize the value in each patient encounter, because each offers a unique opportunity to deepen their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴ Instead of being mere observers, students should actively participate in their education by involving themselves in clinical discussions, treatment planning, and decision-making.

The environment

A supportive, inclusive learning environment should foster diversity, inclusivity, and collaborative learning by creating an engaging atmosphere in which students can express themselves. In my experience, a sense of relaxed focus can help alleviate stress and enhance creativity. Emphasize a patient-centered approach to instill empathy and compassion in students and enrich their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴

The peers

Encourage students to engage in peer feedback, which will provide their fellow trainees additional perspective on their performance and offer an avenue for constructive criticism and improvement.³ Promoting collaborative learning will foster a sense of camaraderie, help students share their diverse perspectives, and enhance the learning experience. Peers also play a crucial role in reinforcing positive behaviors and attitudes.

My extensive experience educating medical students studying psychiatry in a busy ED has taught me that creating an exceptional learning environment requires understanding the role of educators, students, the environment, and peers. By implementing these principles, educators can contribute to their students’ professional growth, equipping them with the skills and mindset necessary to become a compassionate, competent, effective physician.

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

Creating an optimal learning environment for medical students studying psychiatry is essential for their growth and development. Over the last 25 years, I have worked with hundreds of medical students in a busy urban emergency department (ED), and I have developed a style that has worked well for them and for me. A supportive, engaging atmosphere can significantly enhance students’ understanding of psychiatric conditions, therapeutic approaches, and patient care. To ensure a productive and inspiring learning experience, educators should consider several key factors.

The educators

Faculty physicians should invest themselves in the students’ individual growth and aspirations by providing personalized guidance that caters to each student’s goals and challenges.¹ Educators must also embody a passion for psychiatry. I’ve found that integrating a lighthearted and humorous approach to my teaching style can relieve stress and enhance learning. I’ve also found it crucial to demonstrate empathy and effective communication skills that students can emulate in their professional development.² Encourage students to take an active role in their learning process by engaging in clinical discussions and decision-making. Lastly, providing regular assessments and constructive feedback in a supportive manner allows students to better understand their strengths and weaknesses, and to continually improve their knowledge and skills.³

The students

Encourage students to fully express their unique personalities, perspectives, and learning styles. This diversity can fuel creativity and promote an atmosphere of inclusivity and enhanced learning. Teach students to recognize the value in each patient encounter, because each offers a unique opportunity to deepen their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴ Instead of being mere observers, students should actively participate in their education by involving themselves in clinical discussions, treatment planning, and decision-making.

The environment

A supportive, inclusive learning environment should foster diversity, inclusivity, and collaborative learning by creating an engaging atmosphere in which students can express themselves. In my experience, a sense of relaxed focus can help alleviate stress and enhance creativity. Emphasize a patient-centered approach to instill empathy and compassion in students and enrich their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴

The peers

Encourage students to engage in peer feedback, which will provide their fellow trainees additional perspective on their performance and offer an avenue for constructive criticism and improvement.³ Promoting collaborative learning will foster a sense of camaraderie, help students share their diverse perspectives, and enhance the learning experience. Peers also play a crucial role in reinforcing positive behaviors and attitudes.

My extensive experience educating medical students studying psychiatry in a busy ED has taught me that creating an exceptional learning environment requires understanding the role of educators, students, the environment, and peers. By implementing these principles, educators can contribute to their students’ professional growth, equipping them with the skills and mindset necessary to become a compassionate, competent, effective physician.

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

Creating an optimal learning environment for medical students studying psychiatry is essential for their growth and development. Over the last 25 years, I have worked with hundreds of medical students in a busy urban emergency department (ED), and I have developed a style that has worked well for them and for me. A supportive, engaging atmosphere can significantly enhance students’ understanding of psychiatric conditions, therapeutic approaches, and patient care. To ensure a productive and inspiring learning experience, educators should consider several key factors.

The educators

Faculty physicians should invest themselves in the students’ individual growth and aspirations by providing personalized guidance that caters to each student’s goals and challenges.¹ Educators must also embody a passion for psychiatry. I’ve found that integrating a lighthearted and humorous approach to my teaching style can relieve stress and enhance learning. I’ve also found it crucial to demonstrate empathy and effective communication skills that students can emulate in their professional development.² Encourage students to take an active role in their learning process by engaging in clinical discussions and decision-making. Lastly, providing regular assessments and constructive feedback in a supportive manner allows students to better understand their strengths and weaknesses, and to continually improve their knowledge and skills.³

The students

Encourage students to fully express their unique personalities, perspectives, and learning styles. This diversity can fuel creativity and promote an atmosphere of inclusivity and enhanced learning. Teach students to recognize the value in each patient encounter, because each offers a unique opportunity to deepen their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴ Instead of being mere observers, students should actively participate in their education by involving themselves in clinical discussions, treatment planning, and decision-making.

The environment

A supportive, inclusive learning environment should foster diversity, inclusivity, and collaborative learning by creating an engaging atmosphere in which students can express themselves. In my experience, a sense of relaxed focus can help alleviate stress and enhance creativity. Emphasize a patient-centered approach to instill empathy and compassion in students and enrich their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴

The peers

Encourage students to engage in peer feedback, which will provide their fellow trainees additional perspective on their performance and offer an avenue for constructive criticism and improvement.³ Promoting collaborative learning will foster a sense of camaraderie, help students share their diverse perspectives, and enhance the learning experience. Peers also play a crucial role in reinforcing positive behaviors and attitudes.

My extensive experience educating medical students studying psychiatry in a busy ED has taught me that creating an exceptional learning environment requires understanding the role of educators, students, the environment, and peers. By implementing these principles, educators can contribute to their students’ professional growth, equipping them with the skills and mindset necessary to become a compassionate, competent, effective physician.

I was disheartened with the June 2023 issue of Current Psychiatry. This issue included “Optimizing benzodiazepine treatment of anxiety disorders” (p. 22-33,39, doi:10.12788/cp.0365). While these medications may be helpful for short-term treatment, I find their irresponsible use to be a much greater problem than their underutilization.¹

The benzodiazepine pharmacology discussed in this article is interesting, but it would be helpful if it had been integrated within a much more extensive discussion of careful prescribing practices. In 2020, the FDA updated the boxed warning to alert prescribers to the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with benzodiazepines.² I would hope that an article on benzodiazepines would provide more discussion and guidance surrounding these important issues.

The June 2023 issue also included “High-dose stimulants for adult ADHD” (p. 34-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0366). This article provided esoteric advice on managing stimulant therapy in the setting of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, yet I would regard stimulant misuse as a far more common and pressing issue.^3,4 The recent Drug Enforcement Administration investigation of telehealth stimulant prescribing is a notable example of this problem.⁵

The patient discussed in this article was receiving large doses of stimulants for a purported case of refractory attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The article provided a sparse differential diagnosis for the patient’s intractable symptoms. While rapid metabolism may be an explanation, I would also like to know how the authors ruled out physiological dependence and/or addiction to a controlled substance. How was misuse excluded? Was urine drug testing (UDS) performed? UDS is highly irregular among prescribers,⁶ which suggests that practices for detecting covert substance abuse and stimulant misuse are inadequate. Wouldn’t such investigations be fundamental to ethical stimulant prescribing?

Jeff Sanders, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in nonfatal and fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines—38 states and the District of Columbia, 2019-2020. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034a2.htm

2. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requiring boxed warning updated to improve safe use of benzodiazepine drug class. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requiring-boxed-warning-updated-improve-safe-use-benzodiazepine-drug-class

3. McCabe SE, Schulenberg JE, Wilens TE, et al. Prescription stimulant medical and nonmedical use among US secondary school students, 2005 to 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e238707. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8707

4. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA updating warnings to improve safe use of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/fda-updating-warnings-improve-safe-use-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

5. Vaidya A. Report: telehealth company’s prescribing practices come under DEA scrutiny. September 16, 2022. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/report-telehealth-company-dones-prescribing-practices-come-under-dea-scrutiny

6. Zionts A. Some ADHD patients are drug-tested often, while others are never asked. Kaiser Health News. March 25, 2023. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76330

Continue to: Drs. Stimpfl and Strawn respond

We thank Dr. Sanders for highlighting the need for clinical equipoise in considering the risks and benefits of medications—something that is true for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and in fact all medications. He reminds us that the risks of misuse, dependence, and withdrawal associated with benzodiazepines led to a boxed warning in September 2020 and highlights recent trends of fatal and nonfatal benzodiazepine overdose, especially when combined with opiates.

Our article, which aimed to educate clinicians on benzodiazepine pharma­cology and patient-specific factors influencing benzodiazepine selection and dosing, did not focus significantly on the risks associated with benzodiazepines. We do encourage careful and individualized benzodiazepine prescribing. However, we wish to remind our colleagues that benzodiazepines, while associated with risks, continue to have utility in acute and periprocedural settings, and remain an important treatment option for patients with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (especially while waiting for other medications to take effect), catatonia, seizure disorders, and alcohol withdrawal.

We agree that patient-specific risk assessment is essential, as some patients benefit from benzodiazepines despite the risks. However, we also acknowledge that some individuals are at higher risk for adverse outcomes, including those with concurrent opiate use or who are prescribed other sedative-hypnotics; older adults and those with neurocognitive disorders; and patients susceptible to respiratory depression due to other medical reasons (eg, myasthenia gravis, sleep apnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Further, we agree that benzodiazepine use during pregnancy is generally not advised due to the risks of neonatal hypotonia and neonatal withdrawal syndrome¹ as well as a possible risk of cleft palate that has been reported in some studies.² Finally, paradoxical reactions may be more common at the extremes of age and in patients with intellectual disability or personality disorders.^3,4

Patient characteristics that have been associated with a higher risk of benzodiazepine use disorder include lower education/income, unemployment, having another substance use disorder, and severe psychopathology.⁵ In some studies, using benzodiazepines for prolonged periods at high doses as well as using those with a rapid onset of action was associated with an increased risk of benzodiazepine use disorder.^5-7

Ultimately, we concur with Dr. Sanders on the perils of the “irresponsible use” of medication and emphasize the need for discernment when choosing treatments to avoid rashly discarding an effective remedy while attempting to mitigate all conceivable risks.

Julia Stimpfl, MD
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Cincinnati, Ohio

References

1. McElhatton PR. The effects of benzodiazepine use during pregnancy and lactation. Reprod Toxicol. 1994;8(6):461-475. doi:10.1016/0890-6238(94)90029-9

2. Enato E, Moretti M, Koren G. The fetal safety of benzodiazepines: an updated meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(1):46-48. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34772-7 Erratum in: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):319.

3. Hakimi Y, Petitpain N, Pinzani V, et al. Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76(8):1169-1174. doi:10.1007/s00228-020-02892-2

4. Paton C. Benzodiazepines and disinhibition: a review. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2002;26(12):460-462. doi:10.1192/pb.26.12.460

5. Fride Tvete I, Bjørner T, Skomedal T. Risk factors for excessive benzodiazepine use in a working age population: a nationwide 5-year survey in Norway. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(4):252-259. doi:10.3109/02813432.2015.1117282

6. Griffiths RR, Johnson MW. Relative abuse liability of hypnotic drugs: a conceptual framework and algorithm for differentiating among compounds. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66 Suppl 9:31-41.

7. Kan CC, Hilberink SR, Breteler MH. Determination of the main risk factors for benzodiazepine dependence using a multivariate and multidimensional approach. Compr Psychiatry. 2004;45(2):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2003.12.007

Continue to: Drs. Sarma and Grady respond

Dr. Sanders’ letter highlights the potential caveats associated with prescribing controlled substances. We agree that our short case summary includes numerous interesting elements, each of which would be worthy of further exploration and discussion. Our choice was to highlight the patient history of bariatric surgery and use this as a springboard into a review of stimulants, including the newest formulations for ADHD. For more than 1 year, many generic stimulants have been in short supply, and patients and clinicians have been seeking other therapeutic options. Given this background and with newer, branded stimulant use becoming more commonplace, we believe our article was useful and timely.

Our original intent had been to include an example of a controlled substance agreement. Regrettably, there was simply not enough space for this document or the additional discussion that its inclusion would deem necessary. Nevertheless, had the May 2023 FDA requirement for manufacturers to update the labeling of prescription stimulants¹ to clarify misuse and abuse been published before our article’s final revision, we would have mentioned it and provided the appropriate link.

Subbu J. Sarma, MD, FAPA
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarah E. Grady, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Des Moines, Iowa

References

1. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requires updates to clarify labeling of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-updates-clarify-labeling-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

I was disheartened with the June 2023 issue of Current Psychiatry. This issue included “Optimizing benzodiazepine treatment of anxiety disorders” (p. 22-33,39, doi:10.12788/cp.0365). While these medications may be helpful for short-term treatment, I find their irresponsible use to be a much greater problem than their underutilization.¹

The benzodiazepine pharmacology discussed in this article is interesting, but it would be helpful if it had been integrated within a much more extensive discussion of careful prescribing practices. In 2020, the FDA updated the boxed warning to alert prescribers to the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with benzodiazepines.² I would hope that an article on benzodiazepines would provide more discussion and guidance surrounding these important issues.

The June 2023 issue also included “High-dose stimulants for adult ADHD” (p. 34-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0366). This article provided esoteric advice on managing stimulant therapy in the setting of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, yet I would regard stimulant misuse as a far more common and pressing issue.^3,4 The recent Drug Enforcement Administration investigation of telehealth stimulant prescribing is a notable example of this problem.⁵

The patient discussed in this article was receiving large doses of stimulants for a purported case of refractory attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The article provided a sparse differential diagnosis for the patient’s intractable symptoms. While rapid metabolism may be an explanation, I would also like to know how the authors ruled out physiological dependence and/or addiction to a controlled substance. How was misuse excluded? Was urine drug testing (UDS) performed? UDS is highly irregular among prescribers,⁶ which suggests that practices for detecting covert substance abuse and stimulant misuse are inadequate. Wouldn’t such investigations be fundamental to ethical stimulant prescribing?

Jeff Sanders, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in nonfatal and fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines—38 states and the District of Columbia, 2019-2020. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034a2.htm

2. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requiring boxed warning updated to improve safe use of benzodiazepine drug class. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requiring-boxed-warning-updated-improve-safe-use-benzodiazepine-drug-class

3. McCabe SE, Schulenberg JE, Wilens TE, et al. Prescription stimulant medical and nonmedical use among US secondary school students, 2005 to 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e238707. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8707

4. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA updating warnings to improve safe use of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/fda-updating-warnings-improve-safe-use-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

5. Vaidya A. Report: telehealth company’s prescribing practices come under DEA scrutiny. September 16, 2022. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/report-telehealth-company-dones-prescribing-practices-come-under-dea-scrutiny

6. Zionts A. Some ADHD patients are drug-tested often, while others are never asked. Kaiser Health News. March 25, 2023. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76330

Continue to: Drs. Stimpfl and Strawn respond

We thank Dr. Sanders for highlighting the need for clinical equipoise in considering the risks and benefits of medications—something that is true for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and in fact all medications. He reminds us that the risks of misuse, dependence, and withdrawal associated with benzodiazepines led to a boxed warning in September 2020 and highlights recent trends of fatal and nonfatal benzodiazepine overdose, especially when combined with opiates.

Our article, which aimed to educate clinicians on benzodiazepine pharma­cology and patient-specific factors influencing benzodiazepine selection and dosing, did not focus significantly on the risks associated with benzodiazepines. We do encourage careful and individualized benzodiazepine prescribing. However, we wish to remind our colleagues that benzodiazepines, while associated with risks, continue to have utility in acute and periprocedural settings, and remain an important treatment option for patients with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (especially while waiting for other medications to take effect), catatonia, seizure disorders, and alcohol withdrawal.

We agree that patient-specific risk assessment is essential, as some patients benefit from benzodiazepines despite the risks. However, we also acknowledge that some individuals are at higher risk for adverse outcomes, including those with concurrent opiate use or who are prescribed other sedative-hypnotics; older adults and those with neurocognitive disorders; and patients susceptible to respiratory depression due to other medical reasons (eg, myasthenia gravis, sleep apnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Further, we agree that benzodiazepine use during pregnancy is generally not advised due to the risks of neonatal hypotonia and neonatal withdrawal syndrome¹ as well as a possible risk of cleft palate that has been reported in some studies.² Finally, paradoxical reactions may be more common at the extremes of age and in patients with intellectual disability or personality disorders.^3,4

Patient characteristics that have been associated with a higher risk of benzodiazepine use disorder include lower education/income, unemployment, having another substance use disorder, and severe psychopathology.⁵ In some studies, using benzodiazepines for prolonged periods at high doses as well as using those with a rapid onset of action was associated with an increased risk of benzodiazepine use disorder.^5-7

Ultimately, we concur with Dr. Sanders on the perils of the “irresponsible use” of medication and emphasize the need for discernment when choosing treatments to avoid rashly discarding an effective remedy while attempting to mitigate all conceivable risks.

Julia Stimpfl, MD
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Cincinnati, Ohio

References

1. McElhatton PR. The effects of benzodiazepine use during pregnancy and lactation. Reprod Toxicol. 1994;8(6):461-475. doi:10.1016/0890-6238(94)90029-9

2. Enato E, Moretti M, Koren G. The fetal safety of benzodiazepines: an updated meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(1):46-48. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34772-7 Erratum in: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):319.

3. Hakimi Y, Petitpain N, Pinzani V, et al. Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76(8):1169-1174. doi:10.1007/s00228-020-02892-2

4. Paton C. Benzodiazepines and disinhibition: a review. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2002;26(12):460-462. doi:10.1192/pb.26.12.460

5. Fride Tvete I, Bjørner T, Skomedal T. Risk factors for excessive benzodiazepine use in a working age population: a nationwide 5-year survey in Norway. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(4):252-259. doi:10.3109/02813432.2015.1117282

6. Griffiths RR, Johnson MW. Relative abuse liability of hypnotic drugs: a conceptual framework and algorithm for differentiating among compounds. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66 Suppl 9:31-41.

7. Kan CC, Hilberink SR, Breteler MH. Determination of the main risk factors for benzodiazepine dependence using a multivariate and multidimensional approach. Compr Psychiatry. 2004;45(2):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2003.12.007

Continue to: Drs. Sarma and Grady respond

Dr. Sanders’ letter highlights the potential caveats associated with prescribing controlled substances. We agree that our short case summary includes numerous interesting elements, each of which would be worthy of further exploration and discussion. Our choice was to highlight the patient history of bariatric surgery and use this as a springboard into a review of stimulants, including the newest formulations for ADHD. For more than 1 year, many generic stimulants have been in short supply, and patients and clinicians have been seeking other therapeutic options. Given this background and with newer, branded stimulant use becoming more commonplace, we believe our article was useful and timely.

Our original intent had been to include an example of a controlled substance agreement. Regrettably, there was simply not enough space for this document or the additional discussion that its inclusion would deem necessary. Nevertheless, had the May 2023 FDA requirement for manufacturers to update the labeling of prescription stimulants¹ to clarify misuse and abuse been published before our article’s final revision, we would have mentioned it and provided the appropriate link.

Subbu J. Sarma, MD, FAPA
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarah E. Grady, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Des Moines, Iowa

References

1. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requires updates to clarify labeling of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-updates-clarify-labeling-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

I was disheartened with the June 2023 issue of Current Psychiatry. This issue included “Optimizing benzodiazepine treatment of anxiety disorders” (p. 22-33,39, doi:10.12788/cp.0365). While these medications may be helpful for short-term treatment, I find their irresponsible use to be a much greater problem than their underutilization.¹

The benzodiazepine pharmacology discussed in this article is interesting, but it would be helpful if it had been integrated within a much more extensive discussion of careful prescribing practices. In 2020, the FDA updated the boxed warning to alert prescribers to the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with benzodiazepines.² I would hope that an article on benzodiazepines would provide more discussion and guidance surrounding these important issues.

The June 2023 issue also included “High-dose stimulants for adult ADHD” (p. 34-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0366). This article provided esoteric advice on managing stimulant therapy in the setting of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, yet I would regard stimulant misuse as a far more common and pressing issue.^3,4 The recent Drug Enforcement Administration investigation of telehealth stimulant prescribing is a notable example of this problem.⁵

The patient discussed in this article was receiving large doses of stimulants for a purported case of refractory attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The article provided a sparse differential diagnosis for the patient’s intractable symptoms. While rapid metabolism may be an explanation, I would also like to know how the authors ruled out physiological dependence and/or addiction to a controlled substance. How was misuse excluded? Was urine drug testing (UDS) performed? UDS is highly irregular among prescribers,⁶ which suggests that practices for detecting covert substance abuse and stimulant misuse are inadequate. Wouldn’t such investigations be fundamental to ethical stimulant prescribing?

Jeff Sanders, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in nonfatal and fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines—38 states and the District of Columbia, 2019-2020. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034a2.htm

2. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requiring boxed warning updated to improve safe use of benzodiazepine drug class. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requiring-boxed-warning-updated-improve-safe-use-benzodiazepine-drug-class

3. McCabe SE, Schulenberg JE, Wilens TE, et al. Prescription stimulant medical and nonmedical use among US secondary school students, 2005 to 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e238707. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8707

4. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA updating warnings to improve safe use of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/fda-updating-warnings-improve-safe-use-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

5. Vaidya A. Report: telehealth company’s prescribing practices come under DEA scrutiny. September 16, 2022. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/report-telehealth-company-dones-prescribing-practices-come-under-dea-scrutiny

6. Zionts A. Some ADHD patients are drug-tested often, while others are never asked. Kaiser Health News. March 25, 2023. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76330

Continue to: Drs. Stimpfl and Strawn respond

We thank Dr. Sanders for highlighting the need for clinical equipoise in considering the risks and benefits of medications—something that is true for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and in fact all medications. He reminds us that the risks of misuse, dependence, and withdrawal associated with benzodiazepines led to a boxed warning in September 2020 and highlights recent trends of fatal and nonfatal benzodiazepine overdose, especially when combined with opiates.

Our article, which aimed to educate clinicians on benzodiazepine pharma­cology and patient-specific factors influencing benzodiazepine selection and dosing, did not focus significantly on the risks associated with benzodiazepines. We do encourage careful and individualized benzodiazepine prescribing. However, we wish to remind our colleagues that benzodiazepines, while associated with risks, continue to have utility in acute and periprocedural settings, and remain an important treatment option for patients with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (especially while waiting for other medications to take effect), catatonia, seizure disorders, and alcohol withdrawal.

We agree that patient-specific risk assessment is essential, as some patients benefit from benzodiazepines despite the risks. However, we also acknowledge that some individuals are at higher risk for adverse outcomes, including those with concurrent opiate use or who are prescribed other sedative-hypnotics; older adults and those with neurocognitive disorders; and patients susceptible to respiratory depression due to other medical reasons (eg, myasthenia gravis, sleep apnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Further, we agree that benzodiazepine use during pregnancy is generally not advised due to the risks of neonatal hypotonia and neonatal withdrawal syndrome¹ as well as a possible risk of cleft palate that has been reported in some studies.² Finally, paradoxical reactions may be more common at the extremes of age and in patients with intellectual disability or personality disorders.^3,4

Patient characteristics that have been associated with a higher risk of benzodiazepine use disorder include lower education/income, unemployment, having another substance use disorder, and severe psychopathology.⁵ In some studies, using benzodiazepines for prolonged periods at high doses as well as using those with a rapid onset of action was associated with an increased risk of benzodiazepine use disorder.^5-7

Ultimately, we concur with Dr. Sanders on the perils of the “irresponsible use” of medication and emphasize the need for discernment when choosing treatments to avoid rashly discarding an effective remedy while attempting to mitigate all conceivable risks.

Julia Stimpfl, MD
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Cincinnati, Ohio

References

1. McElhatton PR. The effects of benzodiazepine use during pregnancy and lactation. Reprod Toxicol. 1994;8(6):461-475. doi:10.1016/0890-6238(94)90029-9

2. Enato E, Moretti M, Koren G. The fetal safety of benzodiazepines: an updated meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(1):46-48. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34772-7 Erratum in: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):319.

3. Hakimi Y, Petitpain N, Pinzani V, et al. Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76(8):1169-1174. doi:10.1007/s00228-020-02892-2

4. Paton C. Benzodiazepines and disinhibition: a review. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2002;26(12):460-462. doi:10.1192/pb.26.12.460

5. Fride Tvete I, Bjørner T, Skomedal T. Risk factors for excessive benzodiazepine use in a working age population: a nationwide 5-year survey in Norway. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(4):252-259. doi:10.3109/02813432.2015.1117282

6. Griffiths RR, Johnson MW. Relative abuse liability of hypnotic drugs: a conceptual framework and algorithm for differentiating among compounds. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66 Suppl 9:31-41.

7. Kan CC, Hilberink SR, Breteler MH. Determination of the main risk factors for benzodiazepine dependence using a multivariate and multidimensional approach. Compr Psychiatry. 2004;45(2):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2003.12.007

Continue to: Drs. Sarma and Grady respond

Dr. Sanders’ letter highlights the potential caveats associated with prescribing controlled substances. We agree that our short case summary includes numerous interesting elements, each of which would be worthy of further exploration and discussion. Our choice was to highlight the patient history of bariatric surgery and use this as a springboard into a review of stimulants, including the newest formulations for ADHD. For more than 1 year, many generic stimulants have been in short supply, and patients and clinicians have been seeking other therapeutic options. Given this background and with newer, branded stimulant use becoming more commonplace, we believe our article was useful and timely.

Our original intent had been to include an example of a controlled substance agreement. Regrettably, there was simply not enough space for this document or the additional discussion that its inclusion would deem necessary. Nevertheless, had the May 2023 FDA requirement for manufacturers to update the labeling of prescription stimulants¹ to clarify misuse and abuse been published before our article’s final revision, we would have mentioned it and provided the appropriate link.

Subbu J. Sarma, MD, FAPA
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarah E. Grady, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Des Moines, Iowa

References

1. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requires updates to clarify labeling of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-updates-clarify-labeling-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

One of the most rewarding things about serving as editor of GI & Hepatology News is to consider new content that will further engage and bring value to our readership. In addition to reporting on scientific advances from our GI journals that can inform frontline clinical care of patients with gastrointestinal conditions, we have launched several new columns over the past year, including our monthly Member Spotlight and quarterly Health Policy and Advocacy columns, to diversify our content.

In our September 2023 issue, in addition to debuting a new cover design, we are pleased to introduce yet another new offering – the “Ethics Corner” column. It is intended to highlight important ethical considerations and challenges arising in GI practice and offer practical guidance on how to navigate them. In our inaugural Ethics Corner, AGA Ethics Committee members Dr. Sheldon Sloan and Dr. David Drew discuss the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA). They highlight the pros and cons of DTCA from an ethical perspective, illustrate how DTCA can impact everyday clinical interactions with patients, and provide insight into how to navigate these challenging conversations. We hope you enjoy this new addition to the newspaper and welcome your ideas for future Ethics Corner columns and other content.

Also in this month’s issue, we update you on AGA’s response to the American College of Physicians’ recent decision to recommend against initiating colon cancer screening at age 45, contrary to the recommendation of the GI community. We also present a story on Humira biosimilars and how they are likely to impact clinical practice. Finally, our September Member Spotlight features GI dietitian Renee Euler, MS, RD, LD, who discusses the intersection between diet and GI disorders, the importance of a team approach to GI care, and her work as a liaison between the AGA and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

We hope you enjoy these, and all the stories featured in our September issue.

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

One of the most rewarding things about serving as editor of GI & Hepatology News is to consider new content that will further engage and bring value to our readership. In addition to reporting on scientific advances from our GI journals that can inform frontline clinical care of patients with gastrointestinal conditions, we have launched several new columns over the past year, including our monthly Member Spotlight and quarterly Health Policy and Advocacy columns, to diversify our content.

In our September 2023 issue, in addition to debuting a new cover design, we are pleased to introduce yet another new offering – the “Ethics Corner” column. It is intended to highlight important ethical considerations and challenges arising in GI practice and offer practical guidance on how to navigate them. In our inaugural Ethics Corner, AGA Ethics Committee members Dr. Sheldon Sloan and Dr. David Drew discuss the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA). They highlight the pros and cons of DTCA from an ethical perspective, illustrate how DTCA can impact everyday clinical interactions with patients, and provide insight into how to navigate these challenging conversations. We hope you enjoy this new addition to the newspaper and welcome your ideas for future Ethics Corner columns and other content.

Also in this month’s issue, we update you on AGA’s response to the American College of Physicians’ recent decision to recommend against initiating colon cancer screening at age 45, contrary to the recommendation of the GI community. We also present a story on Humira biosimilars and how they are likely to impact clinical practice. Finally, our September Member Spotlight features GI dietitian Renee Euler, MS, RD, LD, who discusses the intersection between diet and GI disorders, the importance of a team approach to GI care, and her work as a liaison between the AGA and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

We hope you enjoy these, and all the stories featured in our September issue.

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

One of the most rewarding things about serving as editor of GI & Hepatology News is to consider new content that will further engage and bring value to our readership. In addition to reporting on scientific advances from our GI journals that can inform frontline clinical care of patients with gastrointestinal conditions, we have launched several new columns over the past year, including our monthly Member Spotlight and quarterly Health Policy and Advocacy columns, to diversify our content.

In our September 2023 issue, in addition to debuting a new cover design, we are pleased to introduce yet another new offering – the “Ethics Corner” column. It is intended to highlight important ethical considerations and challenges arising in GI practice and offer practical guidance on how to navigate them. In our inaugural Ethics Corner, AGA Ethics Committee members Dr. Sheldon Sloan and Dr. David Drew discuss the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA). They highlight the pros and cons of DTCA from an ethical perspective, illustrate how DTCA can impact everyday clinical interactions with patients, and provide insight into how to navigate these challenging conversations. We hope you enjoy this new addition to the newspaper and welcome your ideas for future Ethics Corner columns and other content.

Also in this month’s issue, we update you on AGA’s response to the American College of Physicians’ recent decision to recommend against initiating colon cancer screening at age 45, contrary to the recommendation of the GI community. We also present a story on Humira biosimilars and how they are likely to impact clinical practice. Finally, our September Member Spotlight features GI dietitian Renee Euler, MS, RD, LD, who discusses the intersection between diet and GI disorders, the importance of a team approach to GI care, and her work as a liaison between the AGA and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

We hope you enjoy these, and all the stories featured in our September issue.

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

This transcript from Impact Factor has been edited for clarity.

If you are my age or older, and like me, you are something of a rule follower, then you’re getting screened for various cancers.

Colonoscopies, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, chest CTs for people with a significant smoking history. The tests are done and usually, but not always, they are negative. And if positive, usually, but not always, follow-up tests are negative, and if they aren’t and a new cancer is diagnosed you tell yourself, Well, at least we caught it early. Isn’t it good that I’m a rule follower? My life was just saved.

But it turns out, proving that cancer screening actually saves lives is quite difficult. Is it possible that all this screening is for nothing?

The benefits, risks, or perhaps futility of cancer screening is in the news this week because of this article, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

It’s a meta-analysis of very specific randomized trials of cancer screening modalities and concludes that, with the exception of sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, none of them meaningfully change life expectancy.

Now – a bit of inside baseball here – I almost never choose to discuss meta-analyses on Impact Factor. It’s hard enough to dig deep into the methodology of a single study, but with a meta-analysis, you’re sort of obligated to review all the included studies, and, what’s worse, the studies that were not included but might bear on the central question.

In this case, though, the topic is important enough to think about a bit more, and the conclusions have large enough implications for public health that we should question them a bit.

First, let’s run down the study as presented.

The authors searched for randomized trials of cancer screening modalities. This is important, and I think appropriate. They wanted studies that took some people and assigned them to screening, and some people to no screening – avoiding the confounding that would come from observational data (rule followers like me tend to live longer owing to a variety of healthful behaviors, not just cancer screening).

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript from Impact Factor has been edited for clarity.

If you are my age or older, and like me, you are something of a rule follower, then you’re getting screened for various cancers.

Colonoscopies, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, chest CTs for people with a significant smoking history. The tests are done and usually, but not always, they are negative. And if positive, usually, but not always, follow-up tests are negative, and if they aren’t and a new cancer is diagnosed you tell yourself, Well, at least we caught it early. Isn’t it good that I’m a rule follower? My life was just saved.

But it turns out, proving that cancer screening actually saves lives is quite difficult. Is it possible that all this screening is for nothing?

The benefits, risks, or perhaps futility of cancer screening is in the news this week because of this article, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

It’s a meta-analysis of very specific randomized trials of cancer screening modalities and concludes that, with the exception of sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, none of them meaningfully change life expectancy.

Now – a bit of inside baseball here – I almost never choose to discuss meta-analyses on Impact Factor. It’s hard enough to dig deep into the methodology of a single study, but with a meta-analysis, you’re sort of obligated to review all the included studies, and, what’s worse, the studies that were not included but might bear on the central question.

In this case, though, the topic is important enough to think about a bit more, and the conclusions have large enough implications for public health that we should question them a bit.

First, let’s run down the study as presented.

The authors searched for randomized trials of cancer screening modalities. This is important, and I think appropriate. They wanted studies that took some people and assigned them to screening, and some people to no screening – avoiding the confounding that would come from observational data (rule followers like me tend to live longer owing to a variety of healthful behaviors, not just cancer screening).

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript from Impact Factor has been edited for clarity.

If you are my age or older, and like me, you are something of a rule follower, then you’re getting screened for various cancers.

Colonoscopies, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, chest CTs for people with a significant smoking history. The tests are done and usually, but not always, they are negative. And if positive, usually, but not always, follow-up tests are negative, and if they aren’t and a new cancer is diagnosed you tell yourself, Well, at least we caught it early. Isn’t it good that I’m a rule follower? My life was just saved.

But it turns out, proving that cancer screening actually saves lives is quite difficult. Is it possible that all this screening is for nothing?

The benefits, risks, or perhaps futility of cancer screening is in the news this week because of this article, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

It’s a meta-analysis of very specific randomized trials of cancer screening modalities and concludes that, with the exception of sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, none of them meaningfully change life expectancy.

Now – a bit of inside baseball here – I almost never choose to discuss meta-analyses on Impact Factor. It’s hard enough to dig deep into the methodology of a single study, but with a meta-analysis, you’re sort of obligated to review all the included studies, and, what’s worse, the studies that were not included but might bear on the central question.

In this case, though, the topic is important enough to think about a bit more, and the conclusions have large enough implications for public health that we should question them a bit.

First, let’s run down the study as presented.

The authors searched for randomized trials of cancer screening modalities. This is important, and I think appropriate. They wanted studies that took some people and assigned them to screening, and some people to no screening – avoiding the confounding that would come from observational data (rule followers like me tend to live longer owing to a variety of healthful behaviors, not just cancer screening).

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Don’t look for the publication of a study detailing the probability of blood pressure reduction to normotensive among adults with hypertension who aren’t offered pharmacotherapy in a JAMA journal. It’s not because hypertension doesn’t respond to intentional behavior change. On the contrary, it absolutely does, but when it comes to hypertension, physicians don’t require patients to fail to manage their hypertension through personal responsibility before medications are discussed and involved.

Not so, of course, with obesity.

A few weeks ago a paper was published in JAMA Network Open entitled “Probability of 5% or greater weight loss or BMI reduction to healthy weight among adults with overweight or obesity,” which authors, peer reviewers, and editors deemed worthy of publication. Now, to be fair, it might be worthy of publication if the call to action and thrust of the paper was to chastise physicians for not offering patients effective treatments; the medical education system for failing to teach physicians how to effectively manage obesity; or, if medication is being offered, addressing the barriers to its use. Instead, the main thrust was that patients are failing to help themselves despite the known health benefits of sustained weight loss.

It’s not at all surprising that, despite known benefits, sustained weight loss without pharmacotherapy or surgery is elusive. Just as with virtually every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers, intentional behavior change as treatment – which, by definition for chronic diseases, needs to be employed in perpetuity – requires wide-ranging degrees of privilege and is not a reasonable expectation. And if outcomes from the FREEE trial are applicable broadly, this may be true even if the behavior change required is minimal, the cost is free, and the motivation is large.

The FREEE trial studied whether cost had a role to play in why so many people, even after a myocardial infarction, don’t follow through with the simplest of intentional behavior changes – taking prescribed medications – by providing free medications known to reduce the risk of having a second MI to study participants who had just suffered an MI.

Results showed that, although the group receiving free medications were taking more of them than the group that had a copay for them, at 1.5 years post-MI, only 41% of those receiving all their medications for free were taking them.

And what of those who have a copay? This study found that fewer than 30% of Medicare beneficiaries 65-74 years of age who were hospitalized for heart attacks filled their new statin prescriptions within 90 days of discharge. That the vast majority of patients who’d had actual heart attacks didn’t even take on the behavior change of simply filling their prescription for, let alone taking, a medication shown to reduce their risk of having another heart attack, speaks to the folly of believing that knowledge drives behavior change.

The message is that human beings, even when faced with knowledge – and in the aforementioned studies, knowledge coupled with a very real glimpse of personal mortality – struggle to deploy the most basic of behavior changes. And yet here we have a paper that concludes with the inference of surprise that few people, without treatment, lost clinically meaningful amounts of weight “despite the known benefits of clinically meaningful weight loss.”

While this paper does suggest in passing that yes, maybe we should offer effective treatments to patients with obesity, medicine needs to stop framing obesity as some surprising personal-responsibility knowledge gap and instead focus on the real problems at hand: the barriers to physicians treating obesity as they do every other chronic noncommunicable disease; why, unlike hypertension, for example, primary care providers are generally not well trained in its effective management; and why those who aren’t, despite obesity’s prevalence and impact, don’t see it as worthwhile to go out of their way to learn.

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

Don’t look for the publication of a study detailing the probability of blood pressure reduction to normotensive among adults with hypertension who aren’t offered pharmacotherapy in a JAMA journal. It’s not because hypertension doesn’t respond to intentional behavior change. On the contrary, it absolutely does, but when it comes to hypertension, physicians don’t require patients to fail to manage their hypertension through personal responsibility before medications are discussed and involved.

Not so, of course, with obesity.

A few weeks ago a paper was published in JAMA Network Open entitled “Probability of 5% or greater weight loss or BMI reduction to healthy weight among adults with overweight or obesity,” which authors, peer reviewers, and editors deemed worthy of publication. Now, to be fair, it might be worthy of publication if the call to action and thrust of the paper was to chastise physicians for not offering patients effective treatments; the medical education system for failing to teach physicians how to effectively manage obesity; or, if medication is being offered, addressing the barriers to its use. Instead, the main thrust was that patients are failing to help themselves despite the known health benefits of sustained weight loss.

It’s not at all surprising that, despite known benefits, sustained weight loss without pharmacotherapy or surgery is elusive. Just as with virtually every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers, intentional behavior change as treatment – which, by definition for chronic diseases, needs to be employed in perpetuity – requires wide-ranging degrees of privilege and is not a reasonable expectation. And if outcomes from the FREEE trial are applicable broadly, this may be true even if the behavior change required is minimal, the cost is free, and the motivation is large.

The FREEE trial studied whether cost had a role to play in why so many people, even after a myocardial infarction, don’t follow through with the simplest of intentional behavior changes – taking prescribed medications – by providing free medications known to reduce the risk of having a second MI to study participants who had just suffered an MI.

Results showed that, although the group receiving free medications were taking more of them than the group that had a copay for them, at 1.5 years post-MI, only 41% of those receiving all their medications for free were taking them.

And what of those who have a copay? This study found that fewer than 30% of Medicare beneficiaries 65-74 years of age who were hospitalized for heart attacks filled their new statin prescriptions within 90 days of discharge. That the vast majority of patients who’d had actual heart attacks didn’t even take on the behavior change of simply filling their prescription for, let alone taking, a medication shown to reduce their risk of having another heart attack, speaks to the folly of believing that knowledge drives behavior change.

The message is that human beings, even when faced with knowledge – and in the aforementioned studies, knowledge coupled with a very real glimpse of personal mortality – struggle to deploy the most basic of behavior changes. And yet here we have a paper that concludes with the inference of surprise that few people, without treatment, lost clinically meaningful amounts of weight “despite the known benefits of clinically meaningful weight loss.”

While this paper does suggest in passing that yes, maybe we should offer effective treatments to patients with obesity, medicine needs to stop framing obesity as some surprising personal-responsibility knowledge gap and instead focus on the real problems at hand: the barriers to physicians treating obesity as they do every other chronic noncommunicable disease; why, unlike hypertension, for example, primary care providers are generally not well trained in its effective management; and why those who aren’t, despite obesity’s prevalence and impact, don’t see it as worthwhile to go out of their way to learn.

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

Don’t look for the publication of a study detailing the probability of blood pressure reduction to normotensive among adults with hypertension who aren’t offered pharmacotherapy in a JAMA journal. It’s not because hypertension doesn’t respond to intentional behavior change. On the contrary, it absolutely does, but when it comes to hypertension, physicians don’t require patients to fail to manage their hypertension through personal responsibility before medications are discussed and involved.

Not so, of course, with obesity.

A few weeks ago a paper was published in JAMA Network Open entitled “Probability of 5% or greater weight loss or BMI reduction to healthy weight among adults with overweight or obesity,” which authors, peer reviewers, and editors deemed worthy of publication. Now, to be fair, it might be worthy of publication if the call to action and thrust of the paper was to chastise physicians for not offering patients effective treatments; the medical education system for failing to teach physicians how to effectively manage obesity; or, if medication is being offered, addressing the barriers to its use. Instead, the main thrust was that patients are failing to help themselves despite the known health benefits of sustained weight loss.

It’s not at all surprising that, despite known benefits, sustained weight loss without pharmacotherapy or surgery is elusive. Just as with virtually every other chronic noncommunicable disease with lifestyle levers, intentional behavior change as treatment – which, by definition for chronic diseases, needs to be employed in perpetuity – requires wide-ranging degrees of privilege and is not a reasonable expectation. And if outcomes from the FREEE trial are applicable broadly, this may be true even if the behavior change required is minimal, the cost is free, and the motivation is large.

The FREEE trial studied whether cost had a role to play in why so many people, even after a myocardial infarction, don’t follow through with the simplest of intentional behavior changes – taking prescribed medications – by providing free medications known to reduce the risk of having a second MI to study participants who had just suffered an MI.

Results showed that, although the group receiving free medications were taking more of them than the group that had a copay for them, at 1.5 years post-MI, only 41% of those receiving all their medications for free were taking them.

And what of those who have a copay? This study found that fewer than 30% of Medicare beneficiaries 65-74 years of age who were hospitalized for heart attacks filled their new statin prescriptions within 90 days of discharge. That the vast majority of patients who’d had actual heart attacks didn’t even take on the behavior change of simply filling their prescription for, let alone taking, a medication shown to reduce their risk of having another heart attack, speaks to the folly of believing that knowledge drives behavior change.

The message is that human beings, even when faced with knowledge – and in the aforementioned studies, knowledge coupled with a very real glimpse of personal mortality – struggle to deploy the most basic of behavior changes. And yet here we have a paper that concludes with the inference of surprise that few people, without treatment, lost clinically meaningful amounts of weight “despite the known benefits of clinically meaningful weight loss.”

While this paper does suggest in passing that yes, maybe we should offer effective treatments to patients with obesity, medicine needs to stop framing obesity as some surprising personal-responsibility knowledge gap and instead focus on the real problems at hand: the barriers to physicians treating obesity as they do every other chronic noncommunicable disease; why, unlike hypertension, for example, primary care providers are generally not well trained in its effective management; and why those who aren’t, despite obesity’s prevalence and impact, don’t see it as worthwhile to go out of their way to learn.

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, also in Ottawa. He reported conflicts of interest with Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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