Perspectives

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

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

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

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

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

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

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

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

What a boxed warning is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxed warning problems for physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

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

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

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

What a boxed warning is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxed warning problems for physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

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

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

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

What a boxed warning is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxed warning problems for physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

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

Summary

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

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

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am fortunate to receive the baton from Charles Kahi, MD, in facilitating the fascinating and timely debates that have characterized the AGA Perspective series. Favorable reimbursement changes and the need for social distancing fast-tracked telemedicine, a care delivery model that had been slowly evolving.

In this month’s Perspective column, Dr. Hernaez and Dr. Vaughn discuss the pros and cons of telemedicine in GI. Is it the new office visit? Or simply just good enough for when we really need it? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum as well as by email (ginews@gastro.org).
 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

It holds promise

BY RUBEN HERNAEZ, MD, MPH, PHD

It was around January 2020, when COVID-19 was something far, far away, and not particularly worrisome. I was performing a routine care visit of one of my out-of-state patients waitlisted for a liver transplant. All was going fine until he stated, “Hey doc, while I appreciate your time and visits, these travels to Houston are quite inconvenient for my family and me: It is a logistical ordeal, and my wife is always afraid of catching something in the airplane. Could you do the same remotely such as a videoconference?” And just like that, it sparked my interest in how to maintain his liver transplant care from a distance. The Federation of State Medical Boards defines telemedicine as “the practice of medicine using electronic communication, information technology, or other means between a physician in one location, and a patient in another location, with or without an intervening health care provider.¹ What my patient was asking was to use a mode of telemedicine – a video visit – to receive the same quality of care. He brought up three critical points that I will discuss further: access to specialty care (such as transplant hepatology), reduction of costs (time and money), and improved patient satisfaction.

Arora and colleagues pioneered the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) project, providing complex specialty medical care to underserved populations through a model of team-based interdisciplinary development in hepatitis C infection treatment in underserved communities, with cure rates similar to the university settings.¹ The University of Michigan–Veterans Affairs Medical Center used a similar approach, called Specialty Care Access Network–Extension of Community Healthcare Outcome (SCAN‐ECHO). They showed that telemedicine improved survival in 513 patients evaluated in this program compared to regular care (hazard ratio [HR]of 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36‐0.81, P = .003).² So the evidence backs my patient’s request in providing advanced medical care using a telemedicine platform.

An extra benefit of telemedicine in the current climate crisis is reducing the carbon footprint: There’s no need to travel. Telemedicine has been shown to be cost effective: A study of claims data from Jefferson Health reported that patients who received care from an on-demand telemedicine program had net cost savings per telemedicine visit between $19 and $121 per visit compared with traditional in-person visits.³ Using telemonitoring, a form of telemedicine, Bloom et al. showed in 100 simulated patients with cirrhosis and ascites over a 6-month horizon that standard of care was $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. The net savings of telemonitoring was always superior in different clinical scenarios.⁴

Further, our patients significantly decrease travel time (almost instant), improve compliance with medical appointments (more flexibility), and no more headaches related to parking or getting lost around the medical campus. Not surprisingly, these perks from telemedicine are associated with patient-reported outcomes. Reed and colleagues reported patients’ experience with video telemedicine visits in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (n = 1,274) and showed that “67% generally needed to make one or more arrangements to attend an in-person office visit (55% time off from work, 29% coverage for another activity or responsibility, 15% child care or caregiving, and 10% another person to accompany them)”; in contrast, 87% reported a video visit as “more convenient for me,” and 93% stated that “my video visit adequately addressed my needs.”⁵ In liver transplantation, John et al. showed that, in the Veterans Health Administration, telehealth was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs. 249 days), reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01) in a study of 232 patients with advanced cirrhosis.⁶

So, should I change my approach to patients undergoing care for chronic liver/gastrointestinal diseases? I think so. Telemedicine and its tools provide clear benefits to our patients by increasing access to care, time and money savings, and satisfaction. I am fortunate to work within the largest healthcare network in the Nation – the Veterans Health Administration – and therefore, I can cross state lines to provide medical care/advice using the video-visit tool (VA VideoConnect). One could argue that some patients might find it challenging to access telemedicine appointments, but with adequate coaching or support from our teams, telemedicine visits are a click away.

Going back to my patient, I embraced his request and coached him on using VA VideoConnect. We can continue his waitlist medical care in the following months despite the COVID-19 pandemic using telemedicine. I can assess his asterixis and ascites via his cellphone; his primary care team fills in the vitals and labs to complete a virtual visit. There’s no question in my mind that telemedicine is here to stay and that we will continue to adapt e-health tools into video visits (for example, integrating vitals, measurement of frailty, and remote monitoring). The future of our specialty is here, and I envision we will eventually have home-based hospitalizations with daily virtual rounds.
 

Dr. Hernaez is with the section of gastroenterology and the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology in the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Arora S et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2199-207.

2. Su GL et al. Hepatology. 2018 Dec;68(6):2317-24.

3. Nord G et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 May;37(5):890-4.

4. Bloom PP et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07013-2.

5. Reed ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug;171:222-4.

6. John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;18:1822-30.e4.

It has its limits

BY BYRON P. VAUGHN, MD, MS

The post-pandemic world will include telehealth. Technology disrupts business as usual and often brings positive change. But there are consequences. To employ telehealth into routine care equitably and effectively within a gastroenterology practice, we should consider two general questions: “Was the care I provided the same quality as if the patient was seen in person?” and more broadly, “am I satisfied with my practice’s implementation of telehealth?” This perspective will highlight several areas affecting gastroenterology care: lack of physical exam, disproportionate impact on certain populations, development of a patient-provider relationship, impact on physician well-being, and potential financial ramifications. We will all have to adapt to telemedicine to some extent. Understanding the trade-offs of this technology can help us position effectively in a gastroenterology practice.

Perhaps the most obvious limitation of telemedicine is the lack of vital signs and physical exam. Determining if a patient is “sick or not” is often one of the first lessons trainees learn overnight. Vital signs and physical exam are crucial in the complex triaging that occurs when evaluating for diagnoses with potentially urgent interventions. While most outpatient gastroenterology clinics are not evaluating an acute abdomen, in the correct context, the physical exam provides important nuance and often reassurance. My personal estimate is that 90% of a diagnosis is based on the history. But without physical contact, providers may increase costly downstream diagnostic testing or referrals to the emergency department. Increasing use of at-home or wearable health technology could help but requires system investments in infrastructure to implement.

Telemedicine requires a baseline level of equipment and knowledge to participate. A variety of populations will have either a knowledge gap or technology gap. Lack of rural high-speed Internet can lead to poor video quality, inhibiting effective communication and frustrating both provider and patient. In urban areas, there is a drastic wealth divide, and some groups may have difficulty obtaining sufficient equipment to complete a video visit. Even with adequate infrastructure and equipment, certain groups may be disadvantaged because of a lack of the technological savvy or literacy needed to navigate a virtual visit. The addition of interpreter services adds complexity to communication on top of the virtual interaction. These technology and knowledge gaps can produce confusion and potentially lead to worse care.¹ Careful selection of appropriate patients for telemedicine is essential. Is the quality of care over a virtual visit the same for a business executive as that of a non-English speaking refugee?

The term “webside manner” precedes the pandemic but will be important in the lexicon of doctor-patient relationships moving forward. We routinely train physicians about the importance of small actions to improve our bedside manner, such as sitting down, reacting to body language, and making eye contact. First impressions matter in relationship building. For many of my established IBD patients, I can easily hop into a comfortable repertoire in person, virtually, or even on the phone. In addition, I know these people well enough to trust that I am providing the same level of care regardless of visit medium. However, a new patient virtual encounter requires nuance. I have met new patients while they are driving (I requested the patient park!), in public places, and at work. Despite instructions given to patients about the appropriate location for a virtual visit, the patient location is not in our control. For some patients this may increase the comfort of the visit. However, for others, it can lead to distractions or potentially limit the amount of information a patient is willing to share. Forming a patient-provider relationship virtually will require a new set of skills and specific training for many practitioners.

Telehealth can contribute to provider burnout. While a busy in-person clinic can be exhausting, I have found I can be more exhausted after a half-day of virtual clinic. There is an element of human connection that is difficult to replace online.² On top of that loss, video visits are more psychologically demanding than in-person interactions. I also spend more time in a chair, have fewer coffee breaks, and have fewer professional interactions with the clinic staff and professional colleagues. Several other micro-stressors exist in virtual care that may make “Zoom fatigue” a real occupational hazard.³

Lastly, there are implications on reimbursement with telehealth. In Minnesota, a 2015 telemedicine law required private and state employee health plans to provide the same coverage for telemedicine as in-person visits, although patients had to drive to a clinic or facility to use secure telehealth equipment and have vital signs taken. With the pandemic, this stipulation is waived, and it seems likely to become permanent. However, reimbursement questions will arise, as there is a perception that a 30-minute telephone call should not cost as much as a 30-minute in-person visit, regardless of the content of the conversation.

We will have to learn to move forward with telehealth. The strength of telehealth is likely in patients with chronic, well controlled diseases, who have frequent interactions with health care. Examples of this include (although certainly are not limited to) established patients with well-controlled IBD, non-cirrhotic liver disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. Triaging patients who need in-person evaluation, ensuring patient and provider well-being, and creating a financially sustainable model of care are yet unresolved issues. Providers will likely vary in their personal acceptance of telehealth and will need to advocate within their own systems to obtain a hybrid model of telehealth that maximizes quality of care with job satisfaction.
 

Dr. Vaughn is associate professor of medicine and codirector of the inflammatory bowel disease program in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He has received consulting fees from Prometheus and research support from Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Diasorin, and Crestovo.

References

1. George S et al. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:946.

2. Blank S. “What’s missing from Zoom reminds us what it means to be human,” 2020 Apr 27, Medium.

3. Williams N. Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Apr. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqab041.

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am fortunate to receive the baton from Charles Kahi, MD, in facilitating the fascinating and timely debates that have characterized the AGA Perspective series. Favorable reimbursement changes and the need for social distancing fast-tracked telemedicine, a care delivery model that had been slowly evolving.

In this month’s Perspective column, Dr. Hernaez and Dr. Vaughn discuss the pros and cons of telemedicine in GI. Is it the new office visit? Or simply just good enough for when we really need it? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum as well as by email (ginews@gastro.org).
 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

It holds promise

BY RUBEN HERNAEZ, MD, MPH, PHD

It was around January 2020, when COVID-19 was something far, far away, and not particularly worrisome. I was performing a routine care visit of one of my out-of-state patients waitlisted for a liver transplant. All was going fine until he stated, “Hey doc, while I appreciate your time and visits, these travels to Houston are quite inconvenient for my family and me: It is a logistical ordeal, and my wife is always afraid of catching something in the airplane. Could you do the same remotely such as a videoconference?” And just like that, it sparked my interest in how to maintain his liver transplant care from a distance. The Federation of State Medical Boards defines telemedicine as “the practice of medicine using electronic communication, information technology, or other means between a physician in one location, and a patient in another location, with or without an intervening health care provider.¹ What my patient was asking was to use a mode of telemedicine – a video visit – to receive the same quality of care. He brought up three critical points that I will discuss further: access to specialty care (such as transplant hepatology), reduction of costs (time and money), and improved patient satisfaction.

Arora and colleagues pioneered the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) project, providing complex specialty medical care to underserved populations through a model of team-based interdisciplinary development in hepatitis C infection treatment in underserved communities, with cure rates similar to the university settings.¹ The University of Michigan–Veterans Affairs Medical Center used a similar approach, called Specialty Care Access Network–Extension of Community Healthcare Outcome (SCAN‐ECHO). They showed that telemedicine improved survival in 513 patients evaluated in this program compared to regular care (hazard ratio [HR]of 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36‐0.81, P = .003).² So the evidence backs my patient’s request in providing advanced medical care using a telemedicine platform.

An extra benefit of telemedicine in the current climate crisis is reducing the carbon footprint: There’s no need to travel. Telemedicine has been shown to be cost effective: A study of claims data from Jefferson Health reported that patients who received care from an on-demand telemedicine program had net cost savings per telemedicine visit between $19 and $121 per visit compared with traditional in-person visits.³ Using telemonitoring, a form of telemedicine, Bloom et al. showed in 100 simulated patients with cirrhosis and ascites over a 6-month horizon that standard of care was $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. The net savings of telemonitoring was always superior in different clinical scenarios.⁴

Further, our patients significantly decrease travel time (almost instant), improve compliance with medical appointments (more flexibility), and no more headaches related to parking or getting lost around the medical campus. Not surprisingly, these perks from telemedicine are associated with patient-reported outcomes. Reed and colleagues reported patients’ experience with video telemedicine visits in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (n = 1,274) and showed that “67% generally needed to make one or more arrangements to attend an in-person office visit (55% time off from work, 29% coverage for another activity or responsibility, 15% child care or caregiving, and 10% another person to accompany them)”; in contrast, 87% reported a video visit as “more convenient for me,” and 93% stated that “my video visit adequately addressed my needs.”⁵ In liver transplantation, John et al. showed that, in the Veterans Health Administration, telehealth was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs. 249 days), reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01) in a study of 232 patients with advanced cirrhosis.⁶

So, should I change my approach to patients undergoing care for chronic liver/gastrointestinal diseases? I think so. Telemedicine and its tools provide clear benefits to our patients by increasing access to care, time and money savings, and satisfaction. I am fortunate to work within the largest healthcare network in the Nation – the Veterans Health Administration – and therefore, I can cross state lines to provide medical care/advice using the video-visit tool (VA VideoConnect). One could argue that some patients might find it challenging to access telemedicine appointments, but with adequate coaching or support from our teams, telemedicine visits are a click away.

Going back to my patient, I embraced his request and coached him on using VA VideoConnect. We can continue his waitlist medical care in the following months despite the COVID-19 pandemic using telemedicine. I can assess his asterixis and ascites via his cellphone; his primary care team fills in the vitals and labs to complete a virtual visit. There’s no question in my mind that telemedicine is here to stay and that we will continue to adapt e-health tools into video visits (for example, integrating vitals, measurement of frailty, and remote monitoring). The future of our specialty is here, and I envision we will eventually have home-based hospitalizations with daily virtual rounds.
 

Dr. Hernaez is with the section of gastroenterology and the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology in the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Arora S et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2199-207.

2. Su GL et al. Hepatology. 2018 Dec;68(6):2317-24.

3. Nord G et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 May;37(5):890-4.

4. Bloom PP et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07013-2.

5. Reed ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug;171:222-4.

6. John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;18:1822-30.e4.

It has its limits

BY BYRON P. VAUGHN, MD, MS

The post-pandemic world will include telehealth. Technology disrupts business as usual and often brings positive change. But there are consequences. To employ telehealth into routine care equitably and effectively within a gastroenterology practice, we should consider two general questions: “Was the care I provided the same quality as if the patient was seen in person?” and more broadly, “am I satisfied with my practice’s implementation of telehealth?” This perspective will highlight several areas affecting gastroenterology care: lack of physical exam, disproportionate impact on certain populations, development of a patient-provider relationship, impact on physician well-being, and potential financial ramifications. We will all have to adapt to telemedicine to some extent. Understanding the trade-offs of this technology can help us position effectively in a gastroenterology practice.

Perhaps the most obvious limitation of telemedicine is the lack of vital signs and physical exam. Determining if a patient is “sick or not” is often one of the first lessons trainees learn overnight. Vital signs and physical exam are crucial in the complex triaging that occurs when evaluating for diagnoses with potentially urgent interventions. While most outpatient gastroenterology clinics are not evaluating an acute abdomen, in the correct context, the physical exam provides important nuance and often reassurance. My personal estimate is that 90% of a diagnosis is based on the history. But without physical contact, providers may increase costly downstream diagnostic testing or referrals to the emergency department. Increasing use of at-home or wearable health technology could help but requires system investments in infrastructure to implement.

Telemedicine requires a baseline level of equipment and knowledge to participate. A variety of populations will have either a knowledge gap or technology gap. Lack of rural high-speed Internet can lead to poor video quality, inhibiting effective communication and frustrating both provider and patient. In urban areas, there is a drastic wealth divide, and some groups may have difficulty obtaining sufficient equipment to complete a video visit. Even with adequate infrastructure and equipment, certain groups may be disadvantaged because of a lack of the technological savvy or literacy needed to navigate a virtual visit. The addition of interpreter services adds complexity to communication on top of the virtual interaction. These technology and knowledge gaps can produce confusion and potentially lead to worse care.¹ Careful selection of appropriate patients for telemedicine is essential. Is the quality of care over a virtual visit the same for a business executive as that of a non-English speaking refugee?

The term “webside manner” precedes the pandemic but will be important in the lexicon of doctor-patient relationships moving forward. We routinely train physicians about the importance of small actions to improve our bedside manner, such as sitting down, reacting to body language, and making eye contact. First impressions matter in relationship building. For many of my established IBD patients, I can easily hop into a comfortable repertoire in person, virtually, or even on the phone. In addition, I know these people well enough to trust that I am providing the same level of care regardless of visit medium. However, a new patient virtual encounter requires nuance. I have met new patients while they are driving (I requested the patient park!), in public places, and at work. Despite instructions given to patients about the appropriate location for a virtual visit, the patient location is not in our control. For some patients this may increase the comfort of the visit. However, for others, it can lead to distractions or potentially limit the amount of information a patient is willing to share. Forming a patient-provider relationship virtually will require a new set of skills and specific training for many practitioners.

Telehealth can contribute to provider burnout. While a busy in-person clinic can be exhausting, I have found I can be more exhausted after a half-day of virtual clinic. There is an element of human connection that is difficult to replace online.² On top of that loss, video visits are more psychologically demanding than in-person interactions. I also spend more time in a chair, have fewer coffee breaks, and have fewer professional interactions with the clinic staff and professional colleagues. Several other micro-stressors exist in virtual care that may make “Zoom fatigue” a real occupational hazard.³

Lastly, there are implications on reimbursement with telehealth. In Minnesota, a 2015 telemedicine law required private and state employee health plans to provide the same coverage for telemedicine as in-person visits, although patients had to drive to a clinic or facility to use secure telehealth equipment and have vital signs taken. With the pandemic, this stipulation is waived, and it seems likely to become permanent. However, reimbursement questions will arise, as there is a perception that a 30-minute telephone call should not cost as much as a 30-minute in-person visit, regardless of the content of the conversation.

We will have to learn to move forward with telehealth. The strength of telehealth is likely in patients with chronic, well controlled diseases, who have frequent interactions with health care. Examples of this include (although certainly are not limited to) established patients with well-controlled IBD, non-cirrhotic liver disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. Triaging patients who need in-person evaluation, ensuring patient and provider well-being, and creating a financially sustainable model of care are yet unresolved issues. Providers will likely vary in their personal acceptance of telehealth and will need to advocate within their own systems to obtain a hybrid model of telehealth that maximizes quality of care with job satisfaction.
 

Dr. Vaughn is associate professor of medicine and codirector of the inflammatory bowel disease program in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He has received consulting fees from Prometheus and research support from Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Diasorin, and Crestovo.

References

1. George S et al. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:946.

2. Blank S. “What’s missing from Zoom reminds us what it means to be human,” 2020 Apr 27, Medium.

3. Williams N. Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Apr. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqab041.

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am fortunate to receive the baton from Charles Kahi, MD, in facilitating the fascinating and timely debates that have characterized the AGA Perspective series. Favorable reimbursement changes and the need for social distancing fast-tracked telemedicine, a care delivery model that had been slowly evolving.

In this month’s Perspective column, Dr. Hernaez and Dr. Vaughn discuss the pros and cons of telemedicine in GI. Is it the new office visit? Or simply just good enough for when we really need it? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum as well as by email (ginews@gastro.org).
 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

It holds promise

BY RUBEN HERNAEZ, MD, MPH, PHD

It was around January 2020, when COVID-19 was something far, far away, and not particularly worrisome. I was performing a routine care visit of one of my out-of-state patients waitlisted for a liver transplant. All was going fine until he stated, “Hey doc, while I appreciate your time and visits, these travels to Houston are quite inconvenient for my family and me: It is a logistical ordeal, and my wife is always afraid of catching something in the airplane. Could you do the same remotely such as a videoconference?” And just like that, it sparked my interest in how to maintain his liver transplant care from a distance. The Federation of State Medical Boards defines telemedicine as “the practice of medicine using electronic communication, information technology, or other means between a physician in one location, and a patient in another location, with or without an intervening health care provider.¹ What my patient was asking was to use a mode of telemedicine – a video visit – to receive the same quality of care. He brought up three critical points that I will discuss further: access to specialty care (such as transplant hepatology), reduction of costs (time and money), and improved patient satisfaction.

Arora and colleagues pioneered the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) project, providing complex specialty medical care to underserved populations through a model of team-based interdisciplinary development in hepatitis C infection treatment in underserved communities, with cure rates similar to the university settings.¹ The University of Michigan–Veterans Affairs Medical Center used a similar approach, called Specialty Care Access Network–Extension of Community Healthcare Outcome (SCAN‐ECHO). They showed that telemedicine improved survival in 513 patients evaluated in this program compared to regular care (hazard ratio [HR]of 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36‐0.81, P = .003).² So the evidence backs my patient’s request in providing advanced medical care using a telemedicine platform.

An extra benefit of telemedicine in the current climate crisis is reducing the carbon footprint: There’s no need to travel. Telemedicine has been shown to be cost effective: A study of claims data from Jefferson Health reported that patients who received care from an on-demand telemedicine program had net cost savings per telemedicine visit between $19 and $121 per visit compared with traditional in-person visits.³ Using telemonitoring, a form of telemedicine, Bloom et al. showed in 100 simulated patients with cirrhosis and ascites over a 6-month horizon that standard of care was $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. The net savings of telemonitoring was always superior in different clinical scenarios.⁴

Further, our patients significantly decrease travel time (almost instant), improve compliance with medical appointments (more flexibility), and no more headaches related to parking or getting lost around the medical campus. Not surprisingly, these perks from telemedicine are associated with patient-reported outcomes. Reed and colleagues reported patients’ experience with video telemedicine visits in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (n = 1,274) and showed that “67% generally needed to make one or more arrangements to attend an in-person office visit (55% time off from work, 29% coverage for another activity or responsibility, 15% child care or caregiving, and 10% another person to accompany them)”; in contrast, 87% reported a video visit as “more convenient for me,” and 93% stated that “my video visit adequately addressed my needs.”⁵ In liver transplantation, John et al. showed that, in the Veterans Health Administration, telehealth was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs. 249 days), reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01) in a study of 232 patients with advanced cirrhosis.⁶

So, should I change my approach to patients undergoing care for chronic liver/gastrointestinal diseases? I think so. Telemedicine and its tools provide clear benefits to our patients by increasing access to care, time and money savings, and satisfaction. I am fortunate to work within the largest healthcare network in the Nation – the Veterans Health Administration – and therefore, I can cross state lines to provide medical care/advice using the video-visit tool (VA VideoConnect). One could argue that some patients might find it challenging to access telemedicine appointments, but with adequate coaching or support from our teams, telemedicine visits are a click away.

Going back to my patient, I embraced his request and coached him on using VA VideoConnect. We can continue his waitlist medical care in the following months despite the COVID-19 pandemic using telemedicine. I can assess his asterixis and ascites via his cellphone; his primary care team fills in the vitals and labs to complete a virtual visit. There’s no question in my mind that telemedicine is here to stay and that we will continue to adapt e-health tools into video visits (for example, integrating vitals, measurement of frailty, and remote monitoring). The future of our specialty is here, and I envision we will eventually have home-based hospitalizations with daily virtual rounds.
 

Dr. Hernaez is with the section of gastroenterology and the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology in the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Arora S et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2199-207.

2. Su GL et al. Hepatology. 2018 Dec;68(6):2317-24.

3. Nord G et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 May;37(5):890-4.

4. Bloom PP et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07013-2.

5. Reed ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug;171:222-4.

6. John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;18:1822-30.e4.

It has its limits

BY BYRON P. VAUGHN, MD, MS

The post-pandemic world will include telehealth. Technology disrupts business as usual and often brings positive change. But there are consequences. To employ telehealth into routine care equitably and effectively within a gastroenterology practice, we should consider two general questions: “Was the care I provided the same quality as if the patient was seen in person?” and more broadly, “am I satisfied with my practice’s implementation of telehealth?” This perspective will highlight several areas affecting gastroenterology care: lack of physical exam, disproportionate impact on certain populations, development of a patient-provider relationship, impact on physician well-being, and potential financial ramifications. We will all have to adapt to telemedicine to some extent. Understanding the trade-offs of this technology can help us position effectively in a gastroenterology practice.

Perhaps the most obvious limitation of telemedicine is the lack of vital signs and physical exam. Determining if a patient is “sick or not” is often one of the first lessons trainees learn overnight. Vital signs and physical exam are crucial in the complex triaging that occurs when evaluating for diagnoses with potentially urgent interventions. While most outpatient gastroenterology clinics are not evaluating an acute abdomen, in the correct context, the physical exam provides important nuance and often reassurance. My personal estimate is that 90% of a diagnosis is based on the history. But without physical contact, providers may increase costly downstream diagnostic testing or referrals to the emergency department. Increasing use of at-home or wearable health technology could help but requires system investments in infrastructure to implement.

Telemedicine requires a baseline level of equipment and knowledge to participate. A variety of populations will have either a knowledge gap or technology gap. Lack of rural high-speed Internet can lead to poor video quality, inhibiting effective communication and frustrating both provider and patient. In urban areas, there is a drastic wealth divide, and some groups may have difficulty obtaining sufficient equipment to complete a video visit. Even with adequate infrastructure and equipment, certain groups may be disadvantaged because of a lack of the technological savvy or literacy needed to navigate a virtual visit. The addition of interpreter services adds complexity to communication on top of the virtual interaction. These technology and knowledge gaps can produce confusion and potentially lead to worse care.¹ Careful selection of appropriate patients for telemedicine is essential. Is the quality of care over a virtual visit the same for a business executive as that of a non-English speaking refugee?

The term “webside manner” precedes the pandemic but will be important in the lexicon of doctor-patient relationships moving forward. We routinely train physicians about the importance of small actions to improve our bedside manner, such as sitting down, reacting to body language, and making eye contact. First impressions matter in relationship building. For many of my established IBD patients, I can easily hop into a comfortable repertoire in person, virtually, or even on the phone. In addition, I know these people well enough to trust that I am providing the same level of care regardless of visit medium. However, a new patient virtual encounter requires nuance. I have met new patients while they are driving (I requested the patient park!), in public places, and at work. Despite instructions given to patients about the appropriate location for a virtual visit, the patient location is not in our control. For some patients this may increase the comfort of the visit. However, for others, it can lead to distractions or potentially limit the amount of information a patient is willing to share. Forming a patient-provider relationship virtually will require a new set of skills and specific training for many practitioners.

Telehealth can contribute to provider burnout. While a busy in-person clinic can be exhausting, I have found I can be more exhausted after a half-day of virtual clinic. There is an element of human connection that is difficult to replace online.² On top of that loss, video visits are more psychologically demanding than in-person interactions. I also spend more time in a chair, have fewer coffee breaks, and have fewer professional interactions with the clinic staff and professional colleagues. Several other micro-stressors exist in virtual care that may make “Zoom fatigue” a real occupational hazard.³

Lastly, there are implications on reimbursement with telehealth. In Minnesota, a 2015 telemedicine law required private and state employee health plans to provide the same coverage for telemedicine as in-person visits, although patients had to drive to a clinic or facility to use secure telehealth equipment and have vital signs taken. With the pandemic, this stipulation is waived, and it seems likely to become permanent. However, reimbursement questions will arise, as there is a perception that a 30-minute telephone call should not cost as much as a 30-minute in-person visit, regardless of the content of the conversation.

We will have to learn to move forward with telehealth. The strength of telehealth is likely in patients with chronic, well controlled diseases, who have frequent interactions with health care. Examples of this include (although certainly are not limited to) established patients with well-controlled IBD, non-cirrhotic liver disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. Triaging patients who need in-person evaluation, ensuring patient and provider well-being, and creating a financially sustainable model of care are yet unresolved issues. Providers will likely vary in their personal acceptance of telehealth and will need to advocate within their own systems to obtain a hybrid model of telehealth that maximizes quality of care with job satisfaction.
 

Dr. Vaughn is associate professor of medicine and codirector of the inflammatory bowel disease program in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He has received consulting fees from Prometheus and research support from Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Diasorin, and Crestovo.

References

1. George S et al. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:946.

2. Blank S. “What’s missing from Zoom reminds us what it means to be human,” 2020 Apr 27, Medium.

3. Williams N. Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Apr. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqab041.

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

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

Vision of a better world for our patients

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

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

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

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

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

Vision of a better world for our patients

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

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

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

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

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

Vision of a better world for our patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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



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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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



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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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



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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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


Taking stock of the available information:

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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


Taking stock of the available information:

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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


Taking stock of the available information:

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Gender-affirmation surgery refers to a collection of procedures by which a transgender individual physically alters characteristics to align with their gender identity. While not all patients who identify as transgender will choose to undergo surgery, the surgeries are considered medically necessary and lead to significant improvements in emotional and psychological well-being.¹ With increasing insurance coverage and improved access to care, more and more patients are seeking gender-affirming surgery, and it is incumbent for providers to familiarize themselves with preoperative recommendations and requirements.

Ob.gyns. play a key role in patients seeking surgical treatment as patients may inquire about available procedures and what steps are necessary prior to scheduling a visit with the appropriate surgeon. The World Professional Association of Transgender Health has established standards of care that provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidance for patients seeking a variety of gender-affirming services ranging from mental health, hormone therapy, and surgery.

Basic preoperative surgical prerequisites set forth by WPATH include being a patient with well-documented gender dysphoria, being the age of majority, and having the ability to provide informed consent.¹

As with any surgical candidate, it is also equally important for a patient to have well-controlled medical and psychiatric comorbidities, which should also include smoking cessation. A variety of surgical procedures are available to patients and include breast/chest surgery, genital (bottom) surgery, and nongenital surgery (facial feminization, pectoral implant placement, thyroid chondroplasty, lipofilling/liposuction, body contouring, and voice modification). Patients may choose to undergo chest/breast surgery and/or bottom surgery or forgo surgical procedures altogether.

For transmasculine patients, breast/chest surgery, otherwise known as top surgery, is the most common and desired procedure. According to a recent survey, approximately 97% of transmasculine patients had or wanted masculinizing chest surgery.² In addition to patients meeting the basic requirements set forth by WPATH, one referral from a mental health provider specializing in gender-affirming care is also needed prior to this procedure. It is also important to note that testosterone use is no longer a needed prior to masculinizing chest surgery.

Transmasculine bottom surgery, which includes hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, testicular implant placement, and/or phalloplasty have additional nuances. Compared with transmasculine individuals seeking top surgery, the number of patients who have had or desire metoidioplasty and phalloplasty is much lower, which is mainly because of the high complication rates of these procedures. In the same survey, only 4% of patients had undergone a metoidioplasty procedure and 2% of patients had undergone a phalloplasty.²

In evaluating rates of hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, approximately 21% of transgender men underwent hysterectomy, with 58% desiring it in the future.² Unlike patients pursuing top surgery, patients who desire any form of bottom surgery need to be on 12 months of continuous hormone therapy.¹ They also must provide two letters from two different mental health providers, one of whom must have either an MD/DO or PhD. In cases in which a patient requests a hysterectomy for reasons other than gender dysphoria, such as pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding, these criteria do not apply.

For transfeminine individuals, augmentation mammoplasty is performed following 12 months of continuous hormone therapy. This is to allow maximum breast growth, which occurs approximately 2-3 months after hormone initiation and peaks at 1-2 years.³ Rates of transfeminine individuals seeking augmentation mammoplasty is similar to that of their transmasculine counterparts at 74%.² One referral letter from a mental health provider is also needed prior to augmentation mammoplasty.

Transfeminine patients who desire bottom surgery, which can involve an orchiectomy or vaginoplasty (single-stage penile inversion, peritoneal, or colonic interposition), have the same additional requirements as transmasculine individuals seeking bottom surgery. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 25% of transfeminine individuals had already undergone orchiectomy and 87% had either undergone or desired a vaginoplasty in the future.² This is in stark contrast to transmasculine patients and rates of bottom surgery.

Unless there is a specific medical contraindication to hormone therapy, emphasis is placed on 12 months of continuous hormone usage. Additional emphasis is placed on patients seeking bottom surgery to live for a minimum of 12 months in their congruent gender role. This also allows patients to further explore their gender identity and make appropriate preparations for surgery.

As with any surgical procedure, obtaining informed consent and reviewing patient expectations are key. In my clinical practice, I discuss with patients that the general surgical goals are to achieve both function and good aesthetic outcome but that their results are also tailored to their individual bodies. Assessing a patient’s support system and social factors is also equally important in the preoperative planning period. As this field continues to grow, it is essential for providers to understand the evolving distinctions in surgical care to improve access to patients.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no conflicts. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2016.

3. Thomas TN. Overview of surgery for transgender patients, in “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient.” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020. pp. 48-53.

Gender-affirmation surgery refers to a collection of procedures by which a transgender individual physically alters characteristics to align with their gender identity. While not all patients who identify as transgender will choose to undergo surgery, the surgeries are considered medically necessary and lead to significant improvements in emotional and psychological well-being.¹ With increasing insurance coverage and improved access to care, more and more patients are seeking gender-affirming surgery, and it is incumbent for providers to familiarize themselves with preoperative recommendations and requirements.

Ob.gyns. play a key role in patients seeking surgical treatment as patients may inquire about available procedures and what steps are necessary prior to scheduling a visit with the appropriate surgeon. The World Professional Association of Transgender Health has established standards of care that provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidance for patients seeking a variety of gender-affirming services ranging from mental health, hormone therapy, and surgery.

Basic preoperative surgical prerequisites set forth by WPATH include being a patient with well-documented gender dysphoria, being the age of majority, and having the ability to provide informed consent.¹

As with any surgical candidate, it is also equally important for a patient to have well-controlled medical and psychiatric comorbidities, which should also include smoking cessation. A variety of surgical procedures are available to patients and include breast/chest surgery, genital (bottom) surgery, and nongenital surgery (facial feminization, pectoral implant placement, thyroid chondroplasty, lipofilling/liposuction, body contouring, and voice modification). Patients may choose to undergo chest/breast surgery and/or bottom surgery or forgo surgical procedures altogether.

For transmasculine patients, breast/chest surgery, otherwise known as top surgery, is the most common and desired procedure. According to a recent survey, approximately 97% of transmasculine patients had or wanted masculinizing chest surgery.² In addition to patients meeting the basic requirements set forth by WPATH, one referral from a mental health provider specializing in gender-affirming care is also needed prior to this procedure. It is also important to note that testosterone use is no longer a needed prior to masculinizing chest surgery.

Transmasculine bottom surgery, which includes hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, testicular implant placement, and/or phalloplasty have additional nuances. Compared with transmasculine individuals seeking top surgery, the number of patients who have had or desire metoidioplasty and phalloplasty is much lower, which is mainly because of the high complication rates of these procedures. In the same survey, only 4% of patients had undergone a metoidioplasty procedure and 2% of patients had undergone a phalloplasty.²

In evaluating rates of hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, approximately 21% of transgender men underwent hysterectomy, with 58% desiring it in the future.² Unlike patients pursuing top surgery, patients who desire any form of bottom surgery need to be on 12 months of continuous hormone therapy.¹ They also must provide two letters from two different mental health providers, one of whom must have either an MD/DO or PhD. In cases in which a patient requests a hysterectomy for reasons other than gender dysphoria, such as pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding, these criteria do not apply.

For transfeminine individuals, augmentation mammoplasty is performed following 12 months of continuous hormone therapy. This is to allow maximum breast growth, which occurs approximately 2-3 months after hormone initiation and peaks at 1-2 years.³ Rates of transfeminine individuals seeking augmentation mammoplasty is similar to that of their transmasculine counterparts at 74%.² One referral letter from a mental health provider is also needed prior to augmentation mammoplasty.

Transfeminine patients who desire bottom surgery, which can involve an orchiectomy or vaginoplasty (single-stage penile inversion, peritoneal, or colonic interposition), have the same additional requirements as transmasculine individuals seeking bottom surgery. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 25% of transfeminine individuals had already undergone orchiectomy and 87% had either undergone or desired a vaginoplasty in the future.² This is in stark contrast to transmasculine patients and rates of bottom surgery.

Unless there is a specific medical contraindication to hormone therapy, emphasis is placed on 12 months of continuous hormone usage. Additional emphasis is placed on patients seeking bottom surgery to live for a minimum of 12 months in their congruent gender role. This also allows patients to further explore their gender identity and make appropriate preparations for surgery.

As with any surgical procedure, obtaining informed consent and reviewing patient expectations are key. In my clinical practice, I discuss with patients that the general surgical goals are to achieve both function and good aesthetic outcome but that their results are also tailored to their individual bodies. Assessing a patient’s support system and social factors is also equally important in the preoperative planning period. As this field continues to grow, it is essential for providers to understand the evolving distinctions in surgical care to improve access to patients.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no conflicts. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2016.

3. Thomas TN. Overview of surgery for transgender patients, in “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient.” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020. pp. 48-53.

Gender-affirmation surgery refers to a collection of procedures by which a transgender individual physically alters characteristics to align with their gender identity. While not all patients who identify as transgender will choose to undergo surgery, the surgeries are considered medically necessary and lead to significant improvements in emotional and psychological well-being.¹ With increasing insurance coverage and improved access to care, more and more patients are seeking gender-affirming surgery, and it is incumbent for providers to familiarize themselves with preoperative recommendations and requirements.

Ob.gyns. play a key role in patients seeking surgical treatment as patients may inquire about available procedures and what steps are necessary prior to scheduling a visit with the appropriate surgeon. The World Professional Association of Transgender Health has established standards of care that provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidance for patients seeking a variety of gender-affirming services ranging from mental health, hormone therapy, and surgery.

Basic preoperative surgical prerequisites set forth by WPATH include being a patient with well-documented gender dysphoria, being the age of majority, and having the ability to provide informed consent.¹

As with any surgical candidate, it is also equally important for a patient to have well-controlled medical and psychiatric comorbidities, which should also include smoking cessation. A variety of surgical procedures are available to patients and include breast/chest surgery, genital (bottom) surgery, and nongenital surgery (facial feminization, pectoral implant placement, thyroid chondroplasty, lipofilling/liposuction, body contouring, and voice modification). Patients may choose to undergo chest/breast surgery and/or bottom surgery or forgo surgical procedures altogether.

For transmasculine patients, breast/chest surgery, otherwise known as top surgery, is the most common and desired procedure. According to a recent survey, approximately 97% of transmasculine patients had or wanted masculinizing chest surgery.² In addition to patients meeting the basic requirements set forth by WPATH, one referral from a mental health provider specializing in gender-affirming care is also needed prior to this procedure. It is also important to note that testosterone use is no longer a needed prior to masculinizing chest surgery.

Transmasculine bottom surgery, which includes hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, testicular implant placement, and/or phalloplasty have additional nuances. Compared with transmasculine individuals seeking top surgery, the number of patients who have had or desire metoidioplasty and phalloplasty is much lower, which is mainly because of the high complication rates of these procedures. In the same survey, only 4% of patients had undergone a metoidioplasty procedure and 2% of patients had undergone a phalloplasty.²

In evaluating rates of hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, approximately 21% of transgender men underwent hysterectomy, with 58% desiring it in the future.² Unlike patients pursuing top surgery, patients who desire any form of bottom surgery need to be on 12 months of continuous hormone therapy.¹ They also must provide two letters from two different mental health providers, one of whom must have either an MD/DO or PhD. In cases in which a patient requests a hysterectomy for reasons other than gender dysphoria, such as pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding, these criteria do not apply.

For transfeminine individuals, augmentation mammoplasty is performed following 12 months of continuous hormone therapy. This is to allow maximum breast growth, which occurs approximately 2-3 months after hormone initiation and peaks at 1-2 years.³ Rates of transfeminine individuals seeking augmentation mammoplasty is similar to that of their transmasculine counterparts at 74%.² One referral letter from a mental health provider is also needed prior to augmentation mammoplasty.

Transfeminine patients who desire bottom surgery, which can involve an orchiectomy or vaginoplasty (single-stage penile inversion, peritoneal, or colonic interposition), have the same additional requirements as transmasculine individuals seeking bottom surgery. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 25% of transfeminine individuals had already undergone orchiectomy and 87% had either undergone or desired a vaginoplasty in the future.² This is in stark contrast to transmasculine patients and rates of bottom surgery.

Unless there is a specific medical contraindication to hormone therapy, emphasis is placed on 12 months of continuous hormone usage. Additional emphasis is placed on patients seeking bottom surgery to live for a minimum of 12 months in their congruent gender role. This also allows patients to further explore their gender identity and make appropriate preparations for surgery.

As with any surgical procedure, obtaining informed consent and reviewing patient expectations are key. In my clinical practice, I discuss with patients that the general surgical goals are to achieve both function and good aesthetic outcome but that their results are also tailored to their individual bodies. Assessing a patient’s support system and social factors is also equally important in the preoperative planning period. As this field continues to grow, it is essential for providers to understand the evolving distinctions in surgical care to improve access to patients.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no conflicts. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2016.

3. Thomas TN. Overview of surgery for transgender patients, in “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient.” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020. pp. 48-53.

I graduated medical school in May 2020, right as COVID was taking over the country, and the specter of the virus has hung over every aspect of my residency education thus far.

I did not get a medical school graduation; I was one of the many thousands of newly graduated students who simply left their 4th-year rotation sites one chilly day in March 2020 and just never went back. My medical school education didn’t end with me walking triumphantly across the stage – a first-generation college student finally achieving the greatest dream in her life. Instead, it ended with a Zoom “graduation” and a cross-country move from Georgia to Pennsylvania amidst the greatest pandemic in recent memory. To say my impostor syndrome was bad would be an understatement.
 

Residency in the COVID-19-era

The joy and the draw to family medicine for me has always been the broad scope of conditions that we see and treat. From day 1, however, much of my residency has been devoted to one very small subset of patients – those with COVID-19. At one point, our hospital was so strained that our family medicine program had to run a second inpatient service alongside our usual five-resident service team just to provide care to everybody. Patients were in the hallways. The ER was packed to the gills. We were sleepless, terrified, unvaccinated, and desperate to help our patients survive a disease that was incompletely understood, with very few tools in our toolbox to combat it.

I distinctly remember sitting in the workroom with a coresident of mine, our faces seemingly permanently lined from wearing N95s all shift, and saying to him, “I worry I will be a bad family medicine physician. I worry I haven’t seen enough, other than COVID.” It was midway through my intern year; the days were short, so I was driving to and from the hospital in chilly darkness. My patients, like many around the country, were doing poorly. Vaccines seemed like a promise too good to be true. Worst of all: Those of us who were interns, who had no triumphant podium moment to end our medical school education, were suffering with an intense sense of impostor syndrome which was strengthened by every “there is nothing else we can offer your loved one at this time,” conversation we had. My apprehension about not having seen a wider breadth of medicine during my training is a sentiment still widely shared by COVID-era residents.

Luckily, my coresident was supportive.

“We’re going to be great family medicine physicians,” he said. “We’re learning the hard stuff – the bread and butter of FM – up-front. You’ll see.”

In some ways, I think he was right. Clinical skills, empathy, humility, and forging strong relationships are at the center of every family medicine physician’s heart; my generation has had to learn these skills early and under pressure. Sometimes, there are no answers. Sometimes, the best thing a family doctor can do for a patient is to hear them, understand them, and hold their hand.
 

‘We watched Cinderella together’

Shortly after that conversation with my coresident, I had a particular case which moved me. This gentleman with intellectual disability and COVID had been declining steadily since his admission to the hospital. He was isolated from everybody he knew and loved, but it did not dampen his spirits. He was cheerful to every person who entered his room, clad in their shrouds of PPE, which more often than not felt more like mourning garb than protective wear. I remember very little about this patient’s clinical picture – the COVID, the superimposed pneumonia, the repeated intubations. What I do remember is he loved the Disney classic, Cinderella. I knew this because I developed a very close relationship with his family during the course of his hospitalization. Amidst the torrential onslaught of patients, I made sure to call families every day – not because I wanted to, but because my mentors and attendings and coresidents had all drilled into me from day 1 that we are family medicine, and a large part of our role is to advocate for our patients, and to communicate with their loved ones. So I called. I learned a lot about him; his likes, his dislikes, his close bond with his siblings, and of course his lifelong love for Cinderella. On the last week of my ICU rotation, my patient passed peacefully. His nurse and I were bedside. We held his hand. We told him his family loved him. We watched Cinderella together on an iPad encased in protective plastic.

My next rotation was an outpatient one and it looked more like the “bread and butter” of family medicine. But as I whisked in and out of patient rooms, attending to patients with diabetes, with depression, with pain, I could not stop thinking about my hospitalized patients who my coresidents had assumed care of. Each exam room I entered, I rather morbidly thought “this patient could be next on our hospital service.” Without realizing it, I made more of an effort to get to know each patient holistically. I learned who they were as people. I found myself writing small, medically low-yield details in the chart: “Margaret loves to sing in her church choir;” “Katherine is a self-published author.”

I learned from my attendings. As I sat at the precepting table with them, observing their conversations about patients, their collective decades of experience were apparent.

“I’ve been seeing this patient every few weeks since I was a resident,” said one of my attendings.

“I don’t even see my parents that often,” I thought.

The depth of her relationship with, understanding of, and compassion for this patient struck me deeply. This was why I went into family medicine. My attending knew her patients; they were not faceless unknowns in a hospital gown to her. She would have known to play Cinderella for them in the end.

This is a unique time for trainees. We have been challenged, terrified, overwhelmed, and heartbroken. But at no point have we been isolated. We’ve had the generations of doctors before us to lead the way, to teach us the “hard stuff.” We’ve had senior residents to lean on, who have taken us aside and told us, “I can do the goals-of-care talk today, you need a break.” While the plague seems to have passed over our hospital for now, it has left behind a class of family medicine residents who are proud to carry on our specialty’s long tradition of compassionate, empathetic, lifelong care. “We care for all life stages, from cradle to grave,” says every family medicine physician.

My class, for better or for worse, has cared more often for patients in the twilight of their lives, and while it has been hard, I believe it has made us all better doctors. Now, when I hold a newborn in my arms for a well-child check, I am exceptionally grateful – for the opportunities I have been given, for new beginnings amidst so much sadness, and for the great privilege of being a family medicine physician.
 

Dr. Persampiere is a 2nd-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

I graduated medical school in May 2020, right as COVID was taking over the country, and the specter of the virus has hung over every aspect of my residency education thus far.

I did not get a medical school graduation; I was one of the many thousands of newly graduated students who simply left their 4th-year rotation sites one chilly day in March 2020 and just never went back. My medical school education didn’t end with me walking triumphantly across the stage – a first-generation college student finally achieving the greatest dream in her life. Instead, it ended with a Zoom “graduation” and a cross-country move from Georgia to Pennsylvania amidst the greatest pandemic in recent memory. To say my impostor syndrome was bad would be an understatement.
 

Residency in the COVID-19-era

The joy and the draw to family medicine for me has always been the broad scope of conditions that we see and treat. From day 1, however, much of my residency has been devoted to one very small subset of patients – those with COVID-19. At one point, our hospital was so strained that our family medicine program had to run a second inpatient service alongside our usual five-resident service team just to provide care to everybody. Patients were in the hallways. The ER was packed to the gills. We were sleepless, terrified, unvaccinated, and desperate to help our patients survive a disease that was incompletely understood, with very few tools in our toolbox to combat it.

I distinctly remember sitting in the workroom with a coresident of mine, our faces seemingly permanently lined from wearing N95s all shift, and saying to him, “I worry I will be a bad family medicine physician. I worry I haven’t seen enough, other than COVID.” It was midway through my intern year; the days were short, so I was driving to and from the hospital in chilly darkness. My patients, like many around the country, were doing poorly. Vaccines seemed like a promise too good to be true. Worst of all: Those of us who were interns, who had no triumphant podium moment to end our medical school education, were suffering with an intense sense of impostor syndrome which was strengthened by every “there is nothing else we can offer your loved one at this time,” conversation we had. My apprehension about not having seen a wider breadth of medicine during my training is a sentiment still widely shared by COVID-era residents.

Luckily, my coresident was supportive.

“We’re going to be great family medicine physicians,” he said. “We’re learning the hard stuff – the bread and butter of FM – up-front. You’ll see.”

In some ways, I think he was right. Clinical skills, empathy, humility, and forging strong relationships are at the center of every family medicine physician’s heart; my generation has had to learn these skills early and under pressure. Sometimes, there are no answers. Sometimes, the best thing a family doctor can do for a patient is to hear them, understand them, and hold their hand.
 

‘We watched Cinderella together’

Shortly after that conversation with my coresident, I had a particular case which moved me. This gentleman with intellectual disability and COVID had been declining steadily since his admission to the hospital. He was isolated from everybody he knew and loved, but it did not dampen his spirits. He was cheerful to every person who entered his room, clad in their shrouds of PPE, which more often than not felt more like mourning garb than protective wear. I remember very little about this patient’s clinical picture – the COVID, the superimposed pneumonia, the repeated intubations. What I do remember is he loved the Disney classic, Cinderella. I knew this because I developed a very close relationship with his family during the course of his hospitalization. Amidst the torrential onslaught of patients, I made sure to call families every day – not because I wanted to, but because my mentors and attendings and coresidents had all drilled into me from day 1 that we are family medicine, and a large part of our role is to advocate for our patients, and to communicate with their loved ones. So I called. I learned a lot about him; his likes, his dislikes, his close bond with his siblings, and of course his lifelong love for Cinderella. On the last week of my ICU rotation, my patient passed peacefully. His nurse and I were bedside. We held his hand. We told him his family loved him. We watched Cinderella together on an iPad encased in protective plastic.

My next rotation was an outpatient one and it looked more like the “bread and butter” of family medicine. But as I whisked in and out of patient rooms, attending to patients with diabetes, with depression, with pain, I could not stop thinking about my hospitalized patients who my coresidents had assumed care of. Each exam room I entered, I rather morbidly thought “this patient could be next on our hospital service.” Without realizing it, I made more of an effort to get to know each patient holistically. I learned who they were as people. I found myself writing small, medically low-yield details in the chart: “Margaret loves to sing in her church choir;” “Katherine is a self-published author.”

I learned from my attendings. As I sat at the precepting table with them, observing their conversations about patients, their collective decades of experience were apparent.

“I’ve been seeing this patient every few weeks since I was a resident,” said one of my attendings.

“I don’t even see my parents that often,” I thought.

The depth of her relationship with, understanding of, and compassion for this patient struck me deeply. This was why I went into family medicine. My attending knew her patients; they were not faceless unknowns in a hospital gown to her. She would have known to play Cinderella for them in the end.

This is a unique time for trainees. We have been challenged, terrified, overwhelmed, and heartbroken. But at no point have we been isolated. We’ve had the generations of doctors before us to lead the way, to teach us the “hard stuff.” We’ve had senior residents to lean on, who have taken us aside and told us, “I can do the goals-of-care talk today, you need a break.” While the plague seems to have passed over our hospital for now, it has left behind a class of family medicine residents who are proud to carry on our specialty’s long tradition of compassionate, empathetic, lifelong care. “We care for all life stages, from cradle to grave,” says every family medicine physician.

My class, for better or for worse, has cared more often for patients in the twilight of their lives, and while it has been hard, I believe it has made us all better doctors. Now, when I hold a newborn in my arms for a well-child check, I am exceptionally grateful – for the opportunities I have been given, for new beginnings amidst so much sadness, and for the great privilege of being a family medicine physician.
 

Dr. Persampiere is a 2nd-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

I graduated medical school in May 2020, right as COVID was taking over the country, and the specter of the virus has hung over every aspect of my residency education thus far.

I did not get a medical school graduation; I was one of the many thousands of newly graduated students who simply left their 4th-year rotation sites one chilly day in March 2020 and just never went back. My medical school education didn’t end with me walking triumphantly across the stage – a first-generation college student finally achieving the greatest dream in her life. Instead, it ended with a Zoom “graduation” and a cross-country move from Georgia to Pennsylvania amidst the greatest pandemic in recent memory. To say my impostor syndrome was bad would be an understatement.
 

Residency in the COVID-19-era

The joy and the draw to family medicine for me has always been the broad scope of conditions that we see and treat. From day 1, however, much of my residency has been devoted to one very small subset of patients – those with COVID-19. At one point, our hospital was so strained that our family medicine program had to run a second inpatient service alongside our usual five-resident service team just to provide care to everybody. Patients were in the hallways. The ER was packed to the gills. We were sleepless, terrified, unvaccinated, and desperate to help our patients survive a disease that was incompletely understood, with very few tools in our toolbox to combat it.

I distinctly remember sitting in the workroom with a coresident of mine, our faces seemingly permanently lined from wearing N95s all shift, and saying to him, “I worry I will be a bad family medicine physician. I worry I haven’t seen enough, other than COVID.” It was midway through my intern year; the days were short, so I was driving to and from the hospital in chilly darkness. My patients, like many around the country, were doing poorly. Vaccines seemed like a promise too good to be true. Worst of all: Those of us who were interns, who had no triumphant podium moment to end our medical school education, were suffering with an intense sense of impostor syndrome which was strengthened by every “there is nothing else we can offer your loved one at this time,” conversation we had. My apprehension about not having seen a wider breadth of medicine during my training is a sentiment still widely shared by COVID-era residents.

Luckily, my coresident was supportive.

“We’re going to be great family medicine physicians,” he said. “We’re learning the hard stuff – the bread and butter of FM – up-front. You’ll see.”

In some ways, I think he was right. Clinical skills, empathy, humility, and forging strong relationships are at the center of every family medicine physician’s heart; my generation has had to learn these skills early and under pressure. Sometimes, there are no answers. Sometimes, the best thing a family doctor can do for a patient is to hear them, understand them, and hold their hand.
 

‘We watched Cinderella together’

Shortly after that conversation with my coresident, I had a particular case which moved me. This gentleman with intellectual disability and COVID had been declining steadily since his admission to the hospital. He was isolated from everybody he knew and loved, but it did not dampen his spirits. He was cheerful to every person who entered his room, clad in their shrouds of PPE, which more often than not felt more like mourning garb than protective wear. I remember very little about this patient’s clinical picture – the COVID, the superimposed pneumonia, the repeated intubations. What I do remember is he loved the Disney classic, Cinderella. I knew this because I developed a very close relationship with his family during the course of his hospitalization. Amidst the torrential onslaught of patients, I made sure to call families every day – not because I wanted to, but because my mentors and attendings and coresidents had all drilled into me from day 1 that we are family medicine, and a large part of our role is to advocate for our patients, and to communicate with their loved ones. So I called. I learned a lot about him; his likes, his dislikes, his close bond with his siblings, and of course his lifelong love for Cinderella. On the last week of my ICU rotation, my patient passed peacefully. His nurse and I were bedside. We held his hand. We told him his family loved him. We watched Cinderella together on an iPad encased in protective plastic.

My next rotation was an outpatient one and it looked more like the “bread and butter” of family medicine. But as I whisked in and out of patient rooms, attending to patients with diabetes, with depression, with pain, I could not stop thinking about my hospitalized patients who my coresidents had assumed care of. Each exam room I entered, I rather morbidly thought “this patient could be next on our hospital service.” Without realizing it, I made more of an effort to get to know each patient holistically. I learned who they were as people. I found myself writing small, medically low-yield details in the chart: “Margaret loves to sing in her church choir;” “Katherine is a self-published author.”

I learned from my attendings. As I sat at the precepting table with them, observing their conversations about patients, their collective decades of experience were apparent.

“I’ve been seeing this patient every few weeks since I was a resident,” said one of my attendings.

“I don’t even see my parents that often,” I thought.

The depth of her relationship with, understanding of, and compassion for this patient struck me deeply. This was why I went into family medicine. My attending knew her patients; they were not faceless unknowns in a hospital gown to her. She would have known to play Cinderella for them in the end.

This is a unique time for trainees. We have been challenged, terrified, overwhelmed, and heartbroken. But at no point have we been isolated. We’ve had the generations of doctors before us to lead the way, to teach us the “hard stuff.” We’ve had senior residents to lean on, who have taken us aside and told us, “I can do the goals-of-care talk today, you need a break.” While the plague seems to have passed over our hospital for now, it has left behind a class of family medicine residents who are proud to carry on our specialty’s long tradition of compassionate, empathetic, lifelong care. “We care for all life stages, from cradle to grave,” says every family medicine physician.

My class, for better or for worse, has cared more often for patients in the twilight of their lives, and while it has been hard, I believe it has made us all better doctors. Now, when I hold a newborn in my arms for a well-child check, I am exceptionally grateful – for the opportunities I have been given, for new beginnings amidst so much sadness, and for the great privilege of being a family medicine physician.
 

Dr. Persampiere is a 2nd-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

For decades, we have recognized the age-related natural decline in female fecundity (the ability to reproduce) after the age of 30 (Maturitas 1988;[Suppl]1:15-22). Advanced maternal age (AMA) has also been demonstrated to increase miscarriage and pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities, presumably from the increased rate of oocyte aneuploidy. There has been a sixfold increase in the rate of first birth in women aged 35-39 years (NCHS Data Brief 2014;152:1-8). Consequently, over the last decade, women, often before they reach AMA, have turned to elective oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation.

Ovarian aging

Ovarian aging occurs through the decline in quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is a reflection of the woman’s chronologic age. Markers of female ovarian aging have been utilized, for the past 3 decades, most commonly by basal follicle stimulating hormone. Currently, to assess the quantity of ovarian follicles, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian antral follicle count (AFC) are the most accurate indicators (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004:89:2977-81). While ovarian age testing, particularly AMH, has been widely used to assess a woman’s “fertility potential,” it does not reflect her natural fecundity. In a prospective cohort study, AMH levels (ng/mL) divided into < 0.7, 0.7-8.4, and > 8.4, did not affect natural conception in women aged 30-44 who were divided into the categories of <35, 35-37, or 38-44 years (JAMA 2017;318:1367-76). Although AMH does reduce success with IVF, its main value is the inverse correlation when prescribing gonadotropin dosage for controlled ovarian stimulation.

Despite the familiarity with ovarian aging effects on fertility, the male biological clock remains less studied and understood. Over the last 4 decades, paternal age has increased an average of 3.5 years presumably due to delayed child rearing from professional or personal reasons, improved contraception as well as increased divorce, remarriage, and life expectancy (Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2110-6). Nevertheless, we have little data to definitively counsel men on the effects of advanced paternal age (APA) and no consensus on an actual defined age of designation. This month’s article will summarize the current literature on male age and its impact on fertility.
 

Testicular aging

Men older than 45 years require approximately five times longer to achieve a pregnancy as men less than 25 after adjustment for female age (Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1520-7). The most likely parameter to assess male fertility, other than pregnancy rates, would be the sperm. Sperm counts, beginning at age 41, may decline but concentrations have been shown to increase in older men apparently because of declining semen volume (Ageing Res Rev. 2015;19:22-33). Sperm motility, but not morphology, also declines while genetic alterations of sperm increase with age. The issue of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm from men of advanced age appears to be similar to that in the oocytes of women with AMA. Consequently, both sexes may contribute to embryo aneuploidy resulting in declining fertility and increasing miscarriage.

For all ages, studies have suggested that elevated male body mass index as well as alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking, including e-cigarettes, can lead to impaired sperm production (Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:221-31).
 

Fertility treatment outcomes

A mainstay of fertility treatment, particularly in men with mild to moderate impairments in semen parameters, is ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. Male age has been shown to be a significant indicator for pregnancy rates, including those with normal semen parameters (J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:420-3). Men above age 45 contributed to lower pregnancy rates and higher miscarriages during IUI treatment cycles (Reprod BioMed Online 2008;17:392-7).

During IVF cycles, the sperm of men with APA often undergo ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) due to higher fertilization rates compared with standard insemination. However, APA sperm appear to have lower fertilization rates and decreased embryo development to the blastocyst stage during cycles using donor oocytes, although pregnancy outcomes are inconsistent (Trans Androl Urol. 2019;8[Suppl 1]:S22-S30; Fertil Steril. 2008;90:97-103).
 

Perinatal and children’s health

The offspring from APA men appear to have higher rates of stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm birth, as well as birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and three times the risk of schizophrenia in their offspring (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7:e1019; Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1528-33).

Conclusions

Most of the literature supports negative effects on sperm and reproduction from men with APA. The challenge in deciphering the true role of APA on fertility is that the partner is often of AMA. A consideration to avoid this effect would be sperm cryopreservation at a younger age, similar to the common trend among women. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos from men with APA is also a potential option to reduce miscarriage and avoid a chromosomally abnormal pregnancy. Ethicists have pondered the impact of APA on parenthood and the detrimental effect of early paternal death on the child. Nevertheless, the effect of APA in reproduction is a vital area to study with the same fervor as AMA (Fertil Steril 2009;92:1772-5).

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

For decades, we have recognized the age-related natural decline in female fecundity (the ability to reproduce) after the age of 30 (Maturitas 1988;[Suppl]1:15-22). Advanced maternal age (AMA) has also been demonstrated to increase miscarriage and pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities, presumably from the increased rate of oocyte aneuploidy. There has been a sixfold increase in the rate of first birth in women aged 35-39 years (NCHS Data Brief 2014;152:1-8). Consequently, over the last decade, women, often before they reach AMA, have turned to elective oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation.

Ovarian aging

Ovarian aging occurs through the decline in quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is a reflection of the woman’s chronologic age. Markers of female ovarian aging have been utilized, for the past 3 decades, most commonly by basal follicle stimulating hormone. Currently, to assess the quantity of ovarian follicles, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian antral follicle count (AFC) are the most accurate indicators (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004:89:2977-81). While ovarian age testing, particularly AMH, has been widely used to assess a woman’s “fertility potential,” it does not reflect her natural fecundity. In a prospective cohort study, AMH levels (ng/mL) divided into < 0.7, 0.7-8.4, and > 8.4, did not affect natural conception in women aged 30-44 who were divided into the categories of <35, 35-37, or 38-44 years (JAMA 2017;318:1367-76). Although AMH does reduce success with IVF, its main value is the inverse correlation when prescribing gonadotropin dosage for controlled ovarian stimulation.

Despite the familiarity with ovarian aging effects on fertility, the male biological clock remains less studied and understood. Over the last 4 decades, paternal age has increased an average of 3.5 years presumably due to delayed child rearing from professional or personal reasons, improved contraception as well as increased divorce, remarriage, and life expectancy (Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2110-6). Nevertheless, we have little data to definitively counsel men on the effects of advanced paternal age (APA) and no consensus on an actual defined age of designation. This month’s article will summarize the current literature on male age and its impact on fertility.
 

Testicular aging

Men older than 45 years require approximately five times longer to achieve a pregnancy as men less than 25 after adjustment for female age (Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1520-7). The most likely parameter to assess male fertility, other than pregnancy rates, would be the sperm. Sperm counts, beginning at age 41, may decline but concentrations have been shown to increase in older men apparently because of declining semen volume (Ageing Res Rev. 2015;19:22-33). Sperm motility, but not morphology, also declines while genetic alterations of sperm increase with age. The issue of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm from men of advanced age appears to be similar to that in the oocytes of women with AMA. Consequently, both sexes may contribute to embryo aneuploidy resulting in declining fertility and increasing miscarriage.

For all ages, studies have suggested that elevated male body mass index as well as alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking, including e-cigarettes, can lead to impaired sperm production (Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:221-31).
 

Fertility treatment outcomes

A mainstay of fertility treatment, particularly in men with mild to moderate impairments in semen parameters, is ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. Male age has been shown to be a significant indicator for pregnancy rates, including those with normal semen parameters (J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:420-3). Men above age 45 contributed to lower pregnancy rates and higher miscarriages during IUI treatment cycles (Reprod BioMed Online 2008;17:392-7).

During IVF cycles, the sperm of men with APA often undergo ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) due to higher fertilization rates compared with standard insemination. However, APA sperm appear to have lower fertilization rates and decreased embryo development to the blastocyst stage during cycles using donor oocytes, although pregnancy outcomes are inconsistent (Trans Androl Urol. 2019;8[Suppl 1]:S22-S30; Fertil Steril. 2008;90:97-103).
 

Perinatal and children’s health

The offspring from APA men appear to have higher rates of stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm birth, as well as birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and three times the risk of schizophrenia in their offspring (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7:e1019; Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1528-33).

Conclusions

Most of the literature supports negative effects on sperm and reproduction from men with APA. The challenge in deciphering the true role of APA on fertility is that the partner is often of AMA. A consideration to avoid this effect would be sperm cryopreservation at a younger age, similar to the common trend among women. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos from men with APA is also a potential option to reduce miscarriage and avoid a chromosomally abnormal pregnancy. Ethicists have pondered the impact of APA on parenthood and the detrimental effect of early paternal death on the child. Nevertheless, the effect of APA in reproduction is a vital area to study with the same fervor as AMA (Fertil Steril 2009;92:1772-5).

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

For decades, we have recognized the age-related natural decline in female fecundity (the ability to reproduce) after the age of 30 (Maturitas 1988;[Suppl]1:15-22). Advanced maternal age (AMA) has also been demonstrated to increase miscarriage and pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities, presumably from the increased rate of oocyte aneuploidy. There has been a sixfold increase in the rate of first birth in women aged 35-39 years (NCHS Data Brief 2014;152:1-8). Consequently, over the last decade, women, often before they reach AMA, have turned to elective oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation.

Ovarian aging

Ovarian aging occurs through the decline in quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is a reflection of the woman’s chronologic age. Markers of female ovarian aging have been utilized, for the past 3 decades, most commonly by basal follicle stimulating hormone. Currently, to assess the quantity of ovarian follicles, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian antral follicle count (AFC) are the most accurate indicators (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004:89:2977-81). While ovarian age testing, particularly AMH, has been widely used to assess a woman’s “fertility potential,” it does not reflect her natural fecundity. In a prospective cohort study, AMH levels (ng/mL) divided into < 0.7, 0.7-8.4, and > 8.4, did not affect natural conception in women aged 30-44 who were divided into the categories of <35, 35-37, or 38-44 years (JAMA 2017;318:1367-76). Although AMH does reduce success with IVF, its main value is the inverse correlation when prescribing gonadotropin dosage for controlled ovarian stimulation.

Despite the familiarity with ovarian aging effects on fertility, the male biological clock remains less studied and understood. Over the last 4 decades, paternal age has increased an average of 3.5 years presumably due to delayed child rearing from professional or personal reasons, improved contraception as well as increased divorce, remarriage, and life expectancy (Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2110-6). Nevertheless, we have little data to definitively counsel men on the effects of advanced paternal age (APA) and no consensus on an actual defined age of designation. This month’s article will summarize the current literature on male age and its impact on fertility.
 

Testicular aging

Men older than 45 years require approximately five times longer to achieve a pregnancy as men less than 25 after adjustment for female age (Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1520-7). The most likely parameter to assess male fertility, other than pregnancy rates, would be the sperm. Sperm counts, beginning at age 41, may decline but concentrations have been shown to increase in older men apparently because of declining semen volume (Ageing Res Rev. 2015;19:22-33). Sperm motility, but not morphology, also declines while genetic alterations of sperm increase with age. The issue of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm from men of advanced age appears to be similar to that in the oocytes of women with AMA. Consequently, both sexes may contribute to embryo aneuploidy resulting in declining fertility and increasing miscarriage.

For all ages, studies have suggested that elevated male body mass index as well as alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking, including e-cigarettes, can lead to impaired sperm production (Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:221-31).
 

Fertility treatment outcomes

A mainstay of fertility treatment, particularly in men with mild to moderate impairments in semen parameters, is ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. Male age has been shown to be a significant indicator for pregnancy rates, including those with normal semen parameters (J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:420-3). Men above age 45 contributed to lower pregnancy rates and higher miscarriages during IUI treatment cycles (Reprod BioMed Online 2008;17:392-7).

During IVF cycles, the sperm of men with APA often undergo ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) due to higher fertilization rates compared with standard insemination. However, APA sperm appear to have lower fertilization rates and decreased embryo development to the blastocyst stage during cycles using donor oocytes, although pregnancy outcomes are inconsistent (Trans Androl Urol. 2019;8[Suppl 1]:S22-S30; Fertil Steril. 2008;90:97-103).
 

Perinatal and children’s health

The offspring from APA men appear to have higher rates of stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm birth, as well as birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and three times the risk of schizophrenia in their offspring (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7:e1019; Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1528-33).

Conclusions

Most of the literature supports negative effects on sperm and reproduction from men with APA. The challenge in deciphering the true role of APA on fertility is that the partner is often of AMA. A consideration to avoid this effect would be sperm cryopreservation at a younger age, similar to the common trend among women. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos from men with APA is also a potential option to reduce miscarriage and avoid a chromosomally abnormal pregnancy. Ethicists have pondered the impact of APA on parenthood and the detrimental effect of early paternal death on the child. Nevertheless, the effect of APA in reproduction is a vital area to study with the same fervor as AMA (Fertil Steril 2009;92:1772-5).

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.