User login
For MD-IQ use only
An introduction to Naikan
The list of things to be ungrateful for last year is long. You’re not supposed to make this list, though. The best practice is to list what you’re grateful for, even when living in trying times. That’s a long list too, but I find making it similarly unfruitful.
Of course, I’m grateful I don’t have COVID-19, thankful my practice hasn’t been significantly impacted, grateful I got the vaccine. But simply repeating these gratitudes daily seems ineffective. I’ve learned a different “gratefulness practice” that perhaps works better.
It’s a Japanese method called Naikan (pronounced “nye-kan”). The word means introspection and the practice is one of self-reflection. But . Yoshimoto Ishin developed Naikan in the 1940s. He was a Japanese businessman and devout Buddhist who wanted to make a difficult form of meditation more accessible. He removed the ascetic bits like sleep deprivation and refined the exercises such that they better see how others see us. The result is a way to reframe your life experiences and help you understand how much others do for us and how our actions and attitudes impact others. It can be done alone or with a partner. You can do it at the beginning or end of your day.
The method is simple. You ask three questions:
What have I received today from ___________?
What have I given today to ___________?
What difficulty or trouble have I caused to ___________?
The first question is similar to most gratitude practices. For example, you might ask, “What have I received from (my husband or nurse or friend, etc.)? Today, I received a beautifully tidied-up office from my wife who spent time last night sorting things. This made it easy for me to sit down and start writing this piece.
The second question is better. What have I given today to (my wife, or patient, or mom, etc.)? It can be simple as: Today, I slowed down to let everyone who was in the closed highway lane back into traffic (even though some were clearly undeserving of my generosity). Or last night, I worked to coordinate with anesthesia and scheduling to help a little girl who would benefit from conscious sedation for her procedure.
Combined, these two questions pull you 180 degrees from our default mode, which is complaining. We are wired to find, and talk about, all the inconveniences in our lives: Roadway construction caused a traffic backup that led to running late for clinic. First patient was peeved and had a list of complaints, the last of which was hair loss. Isn’t it much better to rave about how our dermatology nurse volunteered to work the hospital COVID-19 unit to give her colleagues a break? Or how my 10:15 patient came early to be sure she was on time? (It happens.)
The last question is the best. We all spend time thinking about what others think of us. We should spend time thinking about what impact we’ve had on them. Like a cold shower, it’s both briskly awakening and easy to do. Go back through your day and reflect on what you did that made things difficult for others. It can be as simple as I started whining about how a patient waylaid me with her silly complaints. That led to my colleague’s joining in about difficult patients. Or I was late turning in my article, which made my editor have to work harder to get it completed in time.
There’s plenty of things we should be grateful for. In doing these exercises you’ll learn just how much others have cared for you and, I hope, how you might do things to make them grateful for you.
If you’re interested in learning more about Naikan, I discovered this from Brett McKay’s The Art of Manliness podcast and the teaching of Gregg Krech, summarized in his book, “Naikan: Gratitude, Grace, and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection.”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .
The list of things to be ungrateful for last year is long. You’re not supposed to make this list, though. The best practice is to list what you’re grateful for, even when living in trying times. That’s a long list too, but I find making it similarly unfruitful.
Of course, I’m grateful I don’t have COVID-19, thankful my practice hasn’t been significantly impacted, grateful I got the vaccine. But simply repeating these gratitudes daily seems ineffective. I’ve learned a different “gratefulness practice” that perhaps works better.
It’s a Japanese method called Naikan (pronounced “nye-kan”). The word means introspection and the practice is one of self-reflection. But . Yoshimoto Ishin developed Naikan in the 1940s. He was a Japanese businessman and devout Buddhist who wanted to make a difficult form of meditation more accessible. He removed the ascetic bits like sleep deprivation and refined the exercises such that they better see how others see us. The result is a way to reframe your life experiences and help you understand how much others do for us and how our actions and attitudes impact others. It can be done alone or with a partner. You can do it at the beginning or end of your day.
The method is simple. You ask three questions:
What have I received today from ___________?
What have I given today to ___________?
What difficulty or trouble have I caused to ___________?
The first question is similar to most gratitude practices. For example, you might ask, “What have I received from (my husband or nurse or friend, etc.)? Today, I received a beautifully tidied-up office from my wife who spent time last night sorting things. This made it easy for me to sit down and start writing this piece.
The second question is better. What have I given today to (my wife, or patient, or mom, etc.)? It can be simple as: Today, I slowed down to let everyone who was in the closed highway lane back into traffic (even though some were clearly undeserving of my generosity). Or last night, I worked to coordinate with anesthesia and scheduling to help a little girl who would benefit from conscious sedation for her procedure.
Combined, these two questions pull you 180 degrees from our default mode, which is complaining. We are wired to find, and talk about, all the inconveniences in our lives: Roadway construction caused a traffic backup that led to running late for clinic. First patient was peeved and had a list of complaints, the last of which was hair loss. Isn’t it much better to rave about how our dermatology nurse volunteered to work the hospital COVID-19 unit to give her colleagues a break? Or how my 10:15 patient came early to be sure she was on time? (It happens.)
The last question is the best. We all spend time thinking about what others think of us. We should spend time thinking about what impact we’ve had on them. Like a cold shower, it’s both briskly awakening and easy to do. Go back through your day and reflect on what you did that made things difficult for others. It can be as simple as I started whining about how a patient waylaid me with her silly complaints. That led to my colleague’s joining in about difficult patients. Or I was late turning in my article, which made my editor have to work harder to get it completed in time.
There’s plenty of things we should be grateful for. In doing these exercises you’ll learn just how much others have cared for you and, I hope, how you might do things to make them grateful for you.
If you’re interested in learning more about Naikan, I discovered this from Brett McKay’s The Art of Manliness podcast and the teaching of Gregg Krech, summarized in his book, “Naikan: Gratitude, Grace, and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection.”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .
The list of things to be ungrateful for last year is long. You’re not supposed to make this list, though. The best practice is to list what you’re grateful for, even when living in trying times. That’s a long list too, but I find making it similarly unfruitful.
Of course, I’m grateful I don’t have COVID-19, thankful my practice hasn’t been significantly impacted, grateful I got the vaccine. But simply repeating these gratitudes daily seems ineffective. I’ve learned a different “gratefulness practice” that perhaps works better.
It’s a Japanese method called Naikan (pronounced “nye-kan”). The word means introspection and the practice is one of self-reflection. But . Yoshimoto Ishin developed Naikan in the 1940s. He was a Japanese businessman and devout Buddhist who wanted to make a difficult form of meditation more accessible. He removed the ascetic bits like sleep deprivation and refined the exercises such that they better see how others see us. The result is a way to reframe your life experiences and help you understand how much others do for us and how our actions and attitudes impact others. It can be done alone or with a partner. You can do it at the beginning or end of your day.
The method is simple. You ask three questions:
What have I received today from ___________?
What have I given today to ___________?
What difficulty or trouble have I caused to ___________?
The first question is similar to most gratitude practices. For example, you might ask, “What have I received from (my husband or nurse or friend, etc.)? Today, I received a beautifully tidied-up office from my wife who spent time last night sorting things. This made it easy for me to sit down and start writing this piece.
The second question is better. What have I given today to (my wife, or patient, or mom, etc.)? It can be simple as: Today, I slowed down to let everyone who was in the closed highway lane back into traffic (even though some were clearly undeserving of my generosity). Or last night, I worked to coordinate with anesthesia and scheduling to help a little girl who would benefit from conscious sedation for her procedure.
Combined, these two questions pull you 180 degrees from our default mode, which is complaining. We are wired to find, and talk about, all the inconveniences in our lives: Roadway construction caused a traffic backup that led to running late for clinic. First patient was peeved and had a list of complaints, the last of which was hair loss. Isn’t it much better to rave about how our dermatology nurse volunteered to work the hospital COVID-19 unit to give her colleagues a break? Or how my 10:15 patient came early to be sure she was on time? (It happens.)
The last question is the best. We all spend time thinking about what others think of us. We should spend time thinking about what impact we’ve had on them. Like a cold shower, it’s both briskly awakening and easy to do. Go back through your day and reflect on what you did that made things difficult for others. It can be as simple as I started whining about how a patient waylaid me with her silly complaints. That led to my colleague’s joining in about difficult patients. Or I was late turning in my article, which made my editor have to work harder to get it completed in time.
There’s plenty of things we should be grateful for. In doing these exercises you’ll learn just how much others have cared for you and, I hope, how you might do things to make them grateful for you.
If you’re interested in learning more about Naikan, I discovered this from Brett McKay’s The Art of Manliness podcast and the teaching of Gregg Krech, summarized in his book, “Naikan: Gratitude, Grace, and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection.”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com .
Pityriasis rosea carries few risks for pregnant women
according to a review of 33 patients.
“Though generally considered benign, PR may be associated with an increased risk of birth complications if acquired during pregnancy,” and previous studies have shown increased rates of complications including miscarriage and neonatal hypotonia in these patients, wrote Julian Stashower of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues.
In a retrospective study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers assessed pregnancy outcomes in women who developed PR during pregnancy. They were identified from medical records at three institutions between September 2010 and June 2020. Diagnosis of PR, a papulosquamous skin eruption associated with human herpesvirus (HHV)–6/7 reactivation, was based on history and physical examination.
Overall, 8 of the 33 women (24%) had birth complications; the rates of preterm delivery, spontaneous pregnancy loss in clinically detectable pregnancies, and oligohydramnios were 6%, 0%, and 3%, respectively. The average onset of PR during pregnancy was earlier among women with complications, compared with those without complications (10.75 weeks’ gestation vs. 15.21 weeks’ gestation), but the difference was not statistically significant.
The researchers noted that their findings differed from the most recent study of PR in pregnancy, which included 60 patients and found a notably higher incidence of overall birth complications (50%), as well as higher incidence of neonatal hypotonia (25%), and miscarriage (13%).
The previous study also showed an increased risk of birth complications when PR onset occurred prior to 15 weeks’ gestation, but the current study did not reflect that finding, they wrote.
The current study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, retrospective design, and lack of confirmation of PR with HHV-6/7 testing, as well as lack of exclusion of atypical PR cases, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that birth complications associated with PR may be lower than previously reported. “Further research is needed to guide future care and fully elucidate this possible association, which has important implications for both pregnant women with PR and their providers.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflict to disclose.
according to a review of 33 patients.
“Though generally considered benign, PR may be associated with an increased risk of birth complications if acquired during pregnancy,” and previous studies have shown increased rates of complications including miscarriage and neonatal hypotonia in these patients, wrote Julian Stashower of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues.
In a retrospective study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers assessed pregnancy outcomes in women who developed PR during pregnancy. They were identified from medical records at three institutions between September 2010 and June 2020. Diagnosis of PR, a papulosquamous skin eruption associated with human herpesvirus (HHV)–6/7 reactivation, was based on history and physical examination.
Overall, 8 of the 33 women (24%) had birth complications; the rates of preterm delivery, spontaneous pregnancy loss in clinically detectable pregnancies, and oligohydramnios were 6%, 0%, and 3%, respectively. The average onset of PR during pregnancy was earlier among women with complications, compared with those without complications (10.75 weeks’ gestation vs. 15.21 weeks’ gestation), but the difference was not statistically significant.
The researchers noted that their findings differed from the most recent study of PR in pregnancy, which included 60 patients and found a notably higher incidence of overall birth complications (50%), as well as higher incidence of neonatal hypotonia (25%), and miscarriage (13%).
The previous study also showed an increased risk of birth complications when PR onset occurred prior to 15 weeks’ gestation, but the current study did not reflect that finding, they wrote.
The current study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, retrospective design, and lack of confirmation of PR with HHV-6/7 testing, as well as lack of exclusion of atypical PR cases, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that birth complications associated with PR may be lower than previously reported. “Further research is needed to guide future care and fully elucidate this possible association, which has important implications for both pregnant women with PR and their providers.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflict to disclose.
according to a review of 33 patients.
“Though generally considered benign, PR may be associated with an increased risk of birth complications if acquired during pregnancy,” and previous studies have shown increased rates of complications including miscarriage and neonatal hypotonia in these patients, wrote Julian Stashower of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues.
In a retrospective study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers assessed pregnancy outcomes in women who developed PR during pregnancy. They were identified from medical records at three institutions between September 2010 and June 2020. Diagnosis of PR, a papulosquamous skin eruption associated with human herpesvirus (HHV)–6/7 reactivation, was based on history and physical examination.
Overall, 8 of the 33 women (24%) had birth complications; the rates of preterm delivery, spontaneous pregnancy loss in clinically detectable pregnancies, and oligohydramnios were 6%, 0%, and 3%, respectively. The average onset of PR during pregnancy was earlier among women with complications, compared with those without complications (10.75 weeks’ gestation vs. 15.21 weeks’ gestation), but the difference was not statistically significant.
The researchers noted that their findings differed from the most recent study of PR in pregnancy, which included 60 patients and found a notably higher incidence of overall birth complications (50%), as well as higher incidence of neonatal hypotonia (25%), and miscarriage (13%).
The previous study also showed an increased risk of birth complications when PR onset occurred prior to 15 weeks’ gestation, but the current study did not reflect that finding, they wrote.
The current study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, retrospective design, and lack of confirmation of PR with HHV-6/7 testing, as well as lack of exclusion of atypical PR cases, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that birth complications associated with PR may be lower than previously reported. “Further research is needed to guide future care and fully elucidate this possible association, which has important implications for both pregnant women with PR and their providers.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflict to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Find and manage a kidney in crisis
“Kidney disease is the most common chronic disease in the United States and the world, and the incidence is on the rise,” said Kim Zuber, PA-C, executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and outreach chair for the National Kidney Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Kidney disease also is an expensive problem that accounts for approximately 20% of the Medicare budget in the United States, she said in a virtual presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.
“It’s important that we know how to identify it and how to slow the progression if possible, and what to do when we can no longer control the disease,” she said.
Notably, the rate of growth for kidney disease is highest among adults aged 20-45 years, said Ms. Zuber. “That is the group who will live for many years with kidney disease,” but should be in their peak years of working and earning. “That is the group we do not want to develop chronic diseases.”
“Look for kidney disease. It’s not always on the chart; it is often missed because people don’t think of it,” Ms. Zuber said. Anyone over 60 years has likely lost some kidney function. Other risk factors include minority/ethnicity, hypertension or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and a family history of kidney disease.
Women are more likely to develop chronic kidney disease (CKD), but less likely to go on dialysis, said Ms. Zuber. “What I find fascinating is that a history of oophorectomy” increases risk. Other less obvious risk factors in a medical history that should prompt a kidney disease screening include mothers who drank during pregnancy, individuals with a history of acute kidney disease, lupus, sarcoid, amyloid, gout, or other autoimmune conditions, as well as a history of kidney stones of cancer. Kidney donors or transplant recipients are at increased risk, as are smokers, soda drinkers, and heavy salt users.
CKD is missed by many health care providers, Ms. Zuber said. For example, she cited data from more than 270,000 veterans treated at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Texas, which suggested that the likelihood of adding CKD to a patient’s diagnosis was 43.7% even if lab results confirmed CKD.
Find the patients
There are many formulas for defining kidney function, Ms. Zuber said. The estimation of creatinine clearance (eCrCl) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are among them. The most common definition is to calculate eGFR using the CKD-EPI formula. Cystatin C is more exact, but it is not standardized, so a lab in one state does not use the same formula as one in another state.
Overall, all these formulas are plus or minus 30%. “It is an estimate,” she said. Within the stages of CKD, “what we know is that, if you have a high GFR, that’s good, but patients who are losing albumin are at increased risk for CKD.” The albumin is more of a risk factor for CKD than GFR, so the GFR test used doesn’t make much difference, whereas, “if you have a lot of albumin in your urine, you are going downhill,” she said.
Normally, everyone loses kidney function with age, Ms. Zuber said. Starting at age 30, individuals lose about 1 mL/min per year in measures of GFR, however, this progression is more rapid among those with CKD, so “we need to find those people who are progressing more quickly than normal.”
The way to identify the high-risk patients is albumin, Ms. Zuber said. Health care providers need to test the urine and check albumin for high levels of albumin loss through urine, and many providers simply don’t routinely conduct urine tests for patients with other CKD risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension.
Albuminuria levels of 2,000 mg/g are the most concerning, and a urine-albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test is the most effective tool to monitor kidney function, Ms. Zuber said.
She recommends ordering a UACR test at least once a year to monitor kidney loss in all patients with hypertension, diabetes, lupus, and other risk factors including race and a history of acute kidney injury.
Keep them healthy
Managing patients with chronic kidney disease includes attention to several categories: hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, and mental health, Ms. Zuber said.
“If hypertension doesn’t cause your CKD, your CKD will cause hypertension,” she said. The goal for patients with CKD is a target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg. “As kidney disease progresses, hypertension becomes harder to control,” she added. Lifestyle changes including exercise, low-fat diet, limited use of salt, weight loss if needed, and stress reduction strategies can help.
For patients with diabetes and CKD, work towards a target hemoglobin A1c of 7.0 for early CKD, and of 8% for stage 4/5 or for older patients with multiple comorbidities, Ms. Zuber said. All types of insulin are safe for CKD patients. “Kidney function declines at twice the normal rate for diabetes patients; however, SGLT2 inhibitors are very renoprotective. You may not see a drop in A1c, but you are protecting the kidney.”
For patients with obesity and CKD, data show that bariatric surgery (gastric bypass) lowers mortality in diabetes and also protects the heart and kidneys, said Ms. Zuber. Overall, central obesity increases CKD risk independent of any other risk factors, but losing weight, either by surgery or diet/lifestyle, helps save the kidneys.
Cardiovascular disease is the cause of death for more than 70% of kidney disease patients, Ms. Zuber said. CKD patients “are two to three times more likely to have atrial fibrillation, so take the time to listen with that stethoscope,” she added, also emphasizing the importance of statins for all CKD and diabetes patients, and decreasing smoking. In addition, “managing metabolic acidosis slows the loss of kidney function and protects the heart.”
Additional pearls for managing chronic kidney disease include paying attention to a patient’s mental health; depression occurs in roughly 25%-47% of CKD patients, and anxiety in approximately 27%, said Ms. Zuber. Depression “is believed to be the most common psychiatric disorder in patients with end stage renal disease,” and data suggest that managing depression can help improve survival in CKD patients.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber had no financial conflicts to disclose.
“Kidney disease is the most common chronic disease in the United States and the world, and the incidence is on the rise,” said Kim Zuber, PA-C, executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and outreach chair for the National Kidney Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Kidney disease also is an expensive problem that accounts for approximately 20% of the Medicare budget in the United States, she said in a virtual presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.
“It’s important that we know how to identify it and how to slow the progression if possible, and what to do when we can no longer control the disease,” she said.
Notably, the rate of growth for kidney disease is highest among adults aged 20-45 years, said Ms. Zuber. “That is the group who will live for many years with kidney disease,” but should be in their peak years of working and earning. “That is the group we do not want to develop chronic diseases.”
“Look for kidney disease. It’s not always on the chart; it is often missed because people don’t think of it,” Ms. Zuber said. Anyone over 60 years has likely lost some kidney function. Other risk factors include minority/ethnicity, hypertension or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and a family history of kidney disease.
Women are more likely to develop chronic kidney disease (CKD), but less likely to go on dialysis, said Ms. Zuber. “What I find fascinating is that a history of oophorectomy” increases risk. Other less obvious risk factors in a medical history that should prompt a kidney disease screening include mothers who drank during pregnancy, individuals with a history of acute kidney disease, lupus, sarcoid, amyloid, gout, or other autoimmune conditions, as well as a history of kidney stones of cancer. Kidney donors or transplant recipients are at increased risk, as are smokers, soda drinkers, and heavy salt users.
CKD is missed by many health care providers, Ms. Zuber said. For example, she cited data from more than 270,000 veterans treated at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Texas, which suggested that the likelihood of adding CKD to a patient’s diagnosis was 43.7% even if lab results confirmed CKD.
Find the patients
There are many formulas for defining kidney function, Ms. Zuber said. The estimation of creatinine clearance (eCrCl) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are among them. The most common definition is to calculate eGFR using the CKD-EPI formula. Cystatin C is more exact, but it is not standardized, so a lab in one state does not use the same formula as one in another state.
Overall, all these formulas are plus or minus 30%. “It is an estimate,” she said. Within the stages of CKD, “what we know is that, if you have a high GFR, that’s good, but patients who are losing albumin are at increased risk for CKD.” The albumin is more of a risk factor for CKD than GFR, so the GFR test used doesn’t make much difference, whereas, “if you have a lot of albumin in your urine, you are going downhill,” she said.
Normally, everyone loses kidney function with age, Ms. Zuber said. Starting at age 30, individuals lose about 1 mL/min per year in measures of GFR, however, this progression is more rapid among those with CKD, so “we need to find those people who are progressing more quickly than normal.”
The way to identify the high-risk patients is albumin, Ms. Zuber said. Health care providers need to test the urine and check albumin for high levels of albumin loss through urine, and many providers simply don’t routinely conduct urine tests for patients with other CKD risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension.
Albuminuria levels of 2,000 mg/g are the most concerning, and a urine-albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test is the most effective tool to monitor kidney function, Ms. Zuber said.
She recommends ordering a UACR test at least once a year to monitor kidney loss in all patients with hypertension, diabetes, lupus, and other risk factors including race and a history of acute kidney injury.
Keep them healthy
Managing patients with chronic kidney disease includes attention to several categories: hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, and mental health, Ms. Zuber said.
“If hypertension doesn’t cause your CKD, your CKD will cause hypertension,” she said. The goal for patients with CKD is a target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg. “As kidney disease progresses, hypertension becomes harder to control,” she added. Lifestyle changes including exercise, low-fat diet, limited use of salt, weight loss if needed, and stress reduction strategies can help.
For patients with diabetes and CKD, work towards a target hemoglobin A1c of 7.0 for early CKD, and of 8% for stage 4/5 or for older patients with multiple comorbidities, Ms. Zuber said. All types of insulin are safe for CKD patients. “Kidney function declines at twice the normal rate for diabetes patients; however, SGLT2 inhibitors are very renoprotective. You may not see a drop in A1c, but you are protecting the kidney.”
For patients with obesity and CKD, data show that bariatric surgery (gastric bypass) lowers mortality in diabetes and also protects the heart and kidneys, said Ms. Zuber. Overall, central obesity increases CKD risk independent of any other risk factors, but losing weight, either by surgery or diet/lifestyle, helps save the kidneys.
Cardiovascular disease is the cause of death for more than 70% of kidney disease patients, Ms. Zuber said. CKD patients “are two to three times more likely to have atrial fibrillation, so take the time to listen with that stethoscope,” she added, also emphasizing the importance of statins for all CKD and diabetes patients, and decreasing smoking. In addition, “managing metabolic acidosis slows the loss of kidney function and protects the heart.”
Additional pearls for managing chronic kidney disease include paying attention to a patient’s mental health; depression occurs in roughly 25%-47% of CKD patients, and anxiety in approximately 27%, said Ms. Zuber. Depression “is believed to be the most common psychiatric disorder in patients with end stage renal disease,” and data suggest that managing depression can help improve survival in CKD patients.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber had no financial conflicts to disclose.
“Kidney disease is the most common chronic disease in the United States and the world, and the incidence is on the rise,” said Kim Zuber, PA-C, executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and outreach chair for the National Kidney Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Kidney disease also is an expensive problem that accounts for approximately 20% of the Medicare budget in the United States, she said in a virtual presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.
“It’s important that we know how to identify it and how to slow the progression if possible, and what to do when we can no longer control the disease,” she said.
Notably, the rate of growth for kidney disease is highest among adults aged 20-45 years, said Ms. Zuber. “That is the group who will live for many years with kidney disease,” but should be in their peak years of working and earning. “That is the group we do not want to develop chronic diseases.”
“Look for kidney disease. It’s not always on the chart; it is often missed because people don’t think of it,” Ms. Zuber said. Anyone over 60 years has likely lost some kidney function. Other risk factors include minority/ethnicity, hypertension or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and a family history of kidney disease.
Women are more likely to develop chronic kidney disease (CKD), but less likely to go on dialysis, said Ms. Zuber. “What I find fascinating is that a history of oophorectomy” increases risk. Other less obvious risk factors in a medical history that should prompt a kidney disease screening include mothers who drank during pregnancy, individuals with a history of acute kidney disease, lupus, sarcoid, amyloid, gout, or other autoimmune conditions, as well as a history of kidney stones of cancer. Kidney donors or transplant recipients are at increased risk, as are smokers, soda drinkers, and heavy salt users.
CKD is missed by many health care providers, Ms. Zuber said. For example, she cited data from more than 270,000 veterans treated at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Texas, which suggested that the likelihood of adding CKD to a patient’s diagnosis was 43.7% even if lab results confirmed CKD.
Find the patients
There are many formulas for defining kidney function, Ms. Zuber said. The estimation of creatinine clearance (eCrCl) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are among them. The most common definition is to calculate eGFR using the CKD-EPI formula. Cystatin C is more exact, but it is not standardized, so a lab in one state does not use the same formula as one in another state.
Overall, all these formulas are plus or minus 30%. “It is an estimate,” she said. Within the stages of CKD, “what we know is that, if you have a high GFR, that’s good, but patients who are losing albumin are at increased risk for CKD.” The albumin is more of a risk factor for CKD than GFR, so the GFR test used doesn’t make much difference, whereas, “if you have a lot of albumin in your urine, you are going downhill,” she said.
Normally, everyone loses kidney function with age, Ms. Zuber said. Starting at age 30, individuals lose about 1 mL/min per year in measures of GFR, however, this progression is more rapid among those with CKD, so “we need to find those people who are progressing more quickly than normal.”
The way to identify the high-risk patients is albumin, Ms. Zuber said. Health care providers need to test the urine and check albumin for high levels of albumin loss through urine, and many providers simply don’t routinely conduct urine tests for patients with other CKD risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension.
Albuminuria levels of 2,000 mg/g are the most concerning, and a urine-albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test is the most effective tool to monitor kidney function, Ms. Zuber said.
She recommends ordering a UACR test at least once a year to monitor kidney loss in all patients with hypertension, diabetes, lupus, and other risk factors including race and a history of acute kidney injury.
Keep them healthy
Managing patients with chronic kidney disease includes attention to several categories: hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, and mental health, Ms. Zuber said.
“If hypertension doesn’t cause your CKD, your CKD will cause hypertension,” she said. The goal for patients with CKD is a target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg. “As kidney disease progresses, hypertension becomes harder to control,” she added. Lifestyle changes including exercise, low-fat diet, limited use of salt, weight loss if needed, and stress reduction strategies can help.
For patients with diabetes and CKD, work towards a target hemoglobin A1c of 7.0 for early CKD, and of 8% for stage 4/5 or for older patients with multiple comorbidities, Ms. Zuber said. All types of insulin are safe for CKD patients. “Kidney function declines at twice the normal rate for diabetes patients; however, SGLT2 inhibitors are very renoprotective. You may not see a drop in A1c, but you are protecting the kidney.”
For patients with obesity and CKD, data show that bariatric surgery (gastric bypass) lowers mortality in diabetes and also protects the heart and kidneys, said Ms. Zuber. Overall, central obesity increases CKD risk independent of any other risk factors, but losing weight, either by surgery or diet/lifestyle, helps save the kidneys.
Cardiovascular disease is the cause of death for more than 70% of kidney disease patients, Ms. Zuber said. CKD patients “are two to three times more likely to have atrial fibrillation, so take the time to listen with that stethoscope,” she added, also emphasizing the importance of statins for all CKD and diabetes patients, and decreasing smoking. In addition, “managing metabolic acidosis slows the loss of kidney function and protects the heart.”
Additional pearls for managing chronic kidney disease include paying attention to a patient’s mental health; depression occurs in roughly 25%-47% of CKD patients, and anxiety in approximately 27%, said Ms. Zuber. Depression “is believed to be the most common psychiatric disorder in patients with end stage renal disease,” and data suggest that managing depression can help improve survival in CKD patients.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM MEDS 2020
‘The Undoing’: A dramatization of ‘You Should Have Known’
Jean Hanff Korelitz’s ironic psychological thriller, “You Should Have Known,” (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2014) was transformed into an HBO miniseries called “The Undoing,” written and produced by David E. Kelley and directed by Susanne Bier, which premiered on Oct. 25, 2020.
The television drama differed from the novel in fundamental ways, but both have themes related to the therapeutic process. In the novel, a New York City–based couples therapist, Grace Reinhart Sachs, had recently written a book called “You Should Have Known,” about women who married their spouses disregarding their gut instinct that their partner was not fundamentally right for them, or might potentially cheat on them, or whose stories contained contradictions. In the miniseries, Grace (played by Nicole Kidman), is a therapist but there is no mention of her having written a book. Grace in both the novel and the miniseries is married to a pediatric oncologist, Jonathan (his ethnicity and surname were changed in the miniseries from a Jewish New Yorker in the novel to a British Dr. Jonathan Fraser in the series, played by Hugh Grant).
[Spoiler alert]: Prepandemic New York City’s Upper East Side is scandalized when a murdered mother is found by her young son the day after a lavish fund-raising auction party for a private school. Grace and Jonathan’s son, Henry, attends this school as well, and Grace had served on the auction committee with the murdered mother. When two detectives question Grace in the course of their investigation, she assumes that they are questioning her as they would any parent in the school. However, when she tries to reach her husband about the news and the investigation, she cannot. She thought he was at a medical conference in Cleveland, but she realizes that she does not know exactly what conference and exactly where. After many failed attempts at calling and texting, she hears a familiar alert sound coming from his nightstand drawer where she retrieves the cell phone that had been deliberately placed.
In the novel, Jonathan never reappears from “Cleveland,” and although it takes Grace a while to understand that her husband is not who she thought he was, she eventually does. In the miniseries, Jonathan appears in their lake house and a trial ensues with Jonathan adamantly proclaiming his innocence despite all evidence to the contrary.
The Oxford Reference defines undoing as “an emotional conflict associated with an action is dealt with by negating the action or attempting ‘magically’ to cause it not to have occurred by substituting an approximately opposite action.” It is not that the consequences of the action are attempted to be negated (as in making amends or showing remorse), but the action itself. In this way, the miniseries is aptly named since both main characters, Grace and Jonathan, use this defense mechanism. Grace has difficulty acknowledging that her husband could be capable of any wrongdoing, even as she is faced with fact after fact that contradicts this premise – and counsels others about their relationship choices. Similarly, Jonathan’s choice of profession is likely an attempt to undo his 4-year-old sister’s death that occurred on his watch when he was 14. However, even treating children’s cancer cannot undo the many indiscretions he has apparently committed in his adult life.
In the portrayal of a doctor with narcissistic, and possibly psychopathic, traits, “The Undoing” joins multiple recent podcasts that document real-life bad doctors, including Wondery’s “The Shrink Next Door,” “Dr. Death” (seasons 1 and 2), and “Do No Harm.” While most physicians go into medicine to heal and improve peoples’ lives, others, such as the character of Dr. Jonathan Fraser, appear to become physicians for ulterior and sinister motivations. Jonathan’s difficulty with empathy was present when he was a child as a character trait – rather than being attributable to any childhood traumatic event, as Grace had let herself believe.
In a Dec. 11, 2020, New York Times op-ed, Richard A. Friedman, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with New York Presbyterian-Cornell University, discussed three “dangerous doctors” during the pandemic who are potentially harming the nation. Scott Atlas, MD, a radiologist on leave from Stanford (Calif.) University, advised President Trump on the coronavirus despite having no training in public health or infectious disease. Before resigning, he questioned the use of face masks, contradicting scientific proof of their prevention of disease. Another doctor, a cardiologist in Washington, also publicly disputed scientific evidence of the efficacy of face masks and social distancing, and a third physician promoted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus despite scientific evidence that it has been ineffective and possibly even harmful to patients with the virus.
Both the novel “You Should Have Known” and the series “The Undoing” will be of interest to psychiatrists, especially therapists and forensic psychiatrists, because of the themes portrayed, such as defense mechanisms, therapeutic process, and a homicide investigation – as well as the common human experience of being an expert in something in one’s professional life, yet occasionally falling short of recognizing the same phenomena in one’s personal life.
Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and is on the faculty at Weill-Cornell Medical Center. She has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law, and which was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association. She has no conflicts of interest.
Jean Hanff Korelitz’s ironic psychological thriller, “You Should Have Known,” (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2014) was transformed into an HBO miniseries called “The Undoing,” written and produced by David E. Kelley and directed by Susanne Bier, which premiered on Oct. 25, 2020.
The television drama differed from the novel in fundamental ways, but both have themes related to the therapeutic process. In the novel, a New York City–based couples therapist, Grace Reinhart Sachs, had recently written a book called “You Should Have Known,” about women who married their spouses disregarding their gut instinct that their partner was not fundamentally right for them, or might potentially cheat on them, or whose stories contained contradictions. In the miniseries, Grace (played by Nicole Kidman), is a therapist but there is no mention of her having written a book. Grace in both the novel and the miniseries is married to a pediatric oncologist, Jonathan (his ethnicity and surname were changed in the miniseries from a Jewish New Yorker in the novel to a British Dr. Jonathan Fraser in the series, played by Hugh Grant).
[Spoiler alert]: Prepandemic New York City’s Upper East Side is scandalized when a murdered mother is found by her young son the day after a lavish fund-raising auction party for a private school. Grace and Jonathan’s son, Henry, attends this school as well, and Grace had served on the auction committee with the murdered mother. When two detectives question Grace in the course of their investigation, she assumes that they are questioning her as they would any parent in the school. However, when she tries to reach her husband about the news and the investigation, she cannot. She thought he was at a medical conference in Cleveland, but she realizes that she does not know exactly what conference and exactly where. After many failed attempts at calling and texting, she hears a familiar alert sound coming from his nightstand drawer where she retrieves the cell phone that had been deliberately placed.
In the novel, Jonathan never reappears from “Cleveland,” and although it takes Grace a while to understand that her husband is not who she thought he was, she eventually does. In the miniseries, Jonathan appears in their lake house and a trial ensues with Jonathan adamantly proclaiming his innocence despite all evidence to the contrary.
The Oxford Reference defines undoing as “an emotional conflict associated with an action is dealt with by negating the action or attempting ‘magically’ to cause it not to have occurred by substituting an approximately opposite action.” It is not that the consequences of the action are attempted to be negated (as in making amends or showing remorse), but the action itself. In this way, the miniseries is aptly named since both main characters, Grace and Jonathan, use this defense mechanism. Grace has difficulty acknowledging that her husband could be capable of any wrongdoing, even as she is faced with fact after fact that contradicts this premise – and counsels others about their relationship choices. Similarly, Jonathan’s choice of profession is likely an attempt to undo his 4-year-old sister’s death that occurred on his watch when he was 14. However, even treating children’s cancer cannot undo the many indiscretions he has apparently committed in his adult life.
In the portrayal of a doctor with narcissistic, and possibly psychopathic, traits, “The Undoing” joins multiple recent podcasts that document real-life bad doctors, including Wondery’s “The Shrink Next Door,” “Dr. Death” (seasons 1 and 2), and “Do No Harm.” While most physicians go into medicine to heal and improve peoples’ lives, others, such as the character of Dr. Jonathan Fraser, appear to become physicians for ulterior and sinister motivations. Jonathan’s difficulty with empathy was present when he was a child as a character trait – rather than being attributable to any childhood traumatic event, as Grace had let herself believe.
In a Dec. 11, 2020, New York Times op-ed, Richard A. Friedman, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with New York Presbyterian-Cornell University, discussed three “dangerous doctors” during the pandemic who are potentially harming the nation. Scott Atlas, MD, a radiologist on leave from Stanford (Calif.) University, advised President Trump on the coronavirus despite having no training in public health or infectious disease. Before resigning, he questioned the use of face masks, contradicting scientific proof of their prevention of disease. Another doctor, a cardiologist in Washington, also publicly disputed scientific evidence of the efficacy of face masks and social distancing, and a third physician promoted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus despite scientific evidence that it has been ineffective and possibly even harmful to patients with the virus.
Both the novel “You Should Have Known” and the series “The Undoing” will be of interest to psychiatrists, especially therapists and forensic psychiatrists, because of the themes portrayed, such as defense mechanisms, therapeutic process, and a homicide investigation – as well as the common human experience of being an expert in something in one’s professional life, yet occasionally falling short of recognizing the same phenomena in one’s personal life.
Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and is on the faculty at Weill-Cornell Medical Center. She has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law, and which was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association. She has no conflicts of interest.
Jean Hanff Korelitz’s ironic psychological thriller, “You Should Have Known,” (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2014) was transformed into an HBO miniseries called “The Undoing,” written and produced by David E. Kelley and directed by Susanne Bier, which premiered on Oct. 25, 2020.
The television drama differed from the novel in fundamental ways, but both have themes related to the therapeutic process. In the novel, a New York City–based couples therapist, Grace Reinhart Sachs, had recently written a book called “You Should Have Known,” about women who married their spouses disregarding their gut instinct that their partner was not fundamentally right for them, or might potentially cheat on them, or whose stories contained contradictions. In the miniseries, Grace (played by Nicole Kidman), is a therapist but there is no mention of her having written a book. Grace in both the novel and the miniseries is married to a pediatric oncologist, Jonathan (his ethnicity and surname were changed in the miniseries from a Jewish New Yorker in the novel to a British Dr. Jonathan Fraser in the series, played by Hugh Grant).
[Spoiler alert]: Prepandemic New York City’s Upper East Side is scandalized when a murdered mother is found by her young son the day after a lavish fund-raising auction party for a private school. Grace and Jonathan’s son, Henry, attends this school as well, and Grace had served on the auction committee with the murdered mother. When two detectives question Grace in the course of their investigation, she assumes that they are questioning her as they would any parent in the school. However, when she tries to reach her husband about the news and the investigation, she cannot. She thought he was at a medical conference in Cleveland, but she realizes that she does not know exactly what conference and exactly where. After many failed attempts at calling and texting, she hears a familiar alert sound coming from his nightstand drawer where she retrieves the cell phone that had been deliberately placed.
In the novel, Jonathan never reappears from “Cleveland,” and although it takes Grace a while to understand that her husband is not who she thought he was, she eventually does. In the miniseries, Jonathan appears in their lake house and a trial ensues with Jonathan adamantly proclaiming his innocence despite all evidence to the contrary.
The Oxford Reference defines undoing as “an emotional conflict associated with an action is dealt with by negating the action or attempting ‘magically’ to cause it not to have occurred by substituting an approximately opposite action.” It is not that the consequences of the action are attempted to be negated (as in making amends or showing remorse), but the action itself. In this way, the miniseries is aptly named since both main characters, Grace and Jonathan, use this defense mechanism. Grace has difficulty acknowledging that her husband could be capable of any wrongdoing, even as she is faced with fact after fact that contradicts this premise – and counsels others about their relationship choices. Similarly, Jonathan’s choice of profession is likely an attempt to undo his 4-year-old sister’s death that occurred on his watch when he was 14. However, even treating children’s cancer cannot undo the many indiscretions he has apparently committed in his adult life.
In the portrayal of a doctor with narcissistic, and possibly psychopathic, traits, “The Undoing” joins multiple recent podcasts that document real-life bad doctors, including Wondery’s “The Shrink Next Door,” “Dr. Death” (seasons 1 and 2), and “Do No Harm.” While most physicians go into medicine to heal and improve peoples’ lives, others, such as the character of Dr. Jonathan Fraser, appear to become physicians for ulterior and sinister motivations. Jonathan’s difficulty with empathy was present when he was a child as a character trait – rather than being attributable to any childhood traumatic event, as Grace had let herself believe.
In a Dec. 11, 2020, New York Times op-ed, Richard A. Friedman, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with New York Presbyterian-Cornell University, discussed three “dangerous doctors” during the pandemic who are potentially harming the nation. Scott Atlas, MD, a radiologist on leave from Stanford (Calif.) University, advised President Trump on the coronavirus despite having no training in public health or infectious disease. Before resigning, he questioned the use of face masks, contradicting scientific proof of their prevention of disease. Another doctor, a cardiologist in Washington, also publicly disputed scientific evidence of the efficacy of face masks and social distancing, and a third physician promoted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus despite scientific evidence that it has been ineffective and possibly even harmful to patients with the virus.
Both the novel “You Should Have Known” and the series “The Undoing” will be of interest to psychiatrists, especially therapists and forensic psychiatrists, because of the themes portrayed, such as defense mechanisms, therapeutic process, and a homicide investigation – as well as the common human experience of being an expert in something in one’s professional life, yet occasionally falling short of recognizing the same phenomena in one’s personal life.
Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and is on the faculty at Weill-Cornell Medical Center. She has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law, and which was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association. She has no conflicts of interest.
How can hospitalists change the status quo?
Lean framework for efficiency and empathy of care
“My census is too high.”
“I don’t have enough time to talk to patients.”
“These are outside our scope of practice.”
These are statements that I have heard from colleagues over the last fourteen years as a hospitalist. Back in 1996, when Dr. Bob Wachter coined the term ‘hospitalist,’ we were still in our infancy – the scope of what we could do had yet to be fully realized. Our focus was on providing care for hospitalized patients and improving quality of clinical care and patient safety. As health care organizations began to see the potential for our field, the demands on our services grew. We grew to comanage patients with our surgical colleagues, worked on patient satisfaction, facilitated transitions of care, and attempted to reduce readmissions – all of which improved patient care and the bottom line for our organizations.
Somewhere along the way, we were expected to staff high patient volumes to add more value, but this always seemed to come with compromise in another aspect of care or our own well-being. After all, there are only so many hours in the day and a limit on what one individual can accomplish in that time.
One of the reasons I love hospital medicine is the novelty of what we do – we are creative thinkers. We have the capacity to innovate solutions to hospital problems based on our expertise as frontline providers for our patients. Hospitalists of every discipline staff a large majority of inpatients, which makes our collective experience significant to the management of inpatient health care. We are often the ones tasked with executing improvement projects, but how often are we involved in their design? I know that we collectively have an enormous opportunity to improve our health care practice, both for ourselves, our patients, and the institutions we work for. But more than just being a voice of advocacy, we need to understand how to positively influence the health care structures that allow us to deliver quality patient care.
It is no surprise that the inefficiencies we deal with in our hospitals are many – daily workflow interruptions, delays in results, scheduling issues, communication difficulties. These are not unique to any one institution. The pandemic added more to that plate – PPE deficiencies, patient volume triage, and resource management are examples. Hospitals often contract consultants to help solve these problems, and many utilize a variety of frameworks to improve these system processes. The Lean framework is one of these, and it originated in the manufacturing industry to eliminate waste in systems in the pursuit of efficiency.
In my business training and prior hospital medicine leadership roles, I was educated in Lean thinking and methodologies for improving quality and applied its principles to projects for improving workflow. Last year I attended a virtual conference on ‘Lean Innovation during the pandemic’ for New York region hospitals, and it again highlighted how the Lean management methodology can help improve patient care but importantly, our workflow as clinicians. This got me thinking. Why is Lean well accepted in business and manufacturing circles, but less so in health care?
I think the answer is twofold – knowledge and people.
What is Lean and how can it help us?
The ‘Toyota Production System’-based philosophy has 14 core principles that help eliminate waste in systems in pursuit of efficiency. These principles are the “Toyota Way.” They center around two pillars: continuous improvement and respect for people. The cornerstone of this management methodology is based on efficient processes, developing employees to add value to the organization and continuous improvement through problem-solving and organizational learning.
Lean is often implemented with Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma has its origins in Motorola. While Lean cuts waste in our systems to provide value, Six Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) to reduce variation in our processes. When done in its entirety, Lean Six Sigma methodology adds value by increasing efficiency, reducing cost, and improving our everyday work.
Statistical principles suggest that 80% of consequences comes from 20% of causes. Lean methodology and tools allow us to systematically identify root causes for the problems we face and help narrow it down to the ‘vital few.’ In other words, fixing these would give us the most bang for our buck. As hospitalists, we are able to do this better than most because we work in these hospital processes everyday – we truly know the strengths and weaknesses of our systems.
As a hospitalist, I would love for the process of seeing patients in hospitals to be more efficient, less variable, and be more cost-effective for my institution. By eliminating the time wasted performing unnecessary and redundant tasks in my everyday work, I can reallocate that time to patient care – the very reason I chose a career in medicine.
We, the people
There are two common rebuttals I hear for adopting Lean Six Sigma methodology in health care. A frequent misconception is that Lean is all about reducing staff or time with patients. The second is that manufacturing methodologies do not work for a service profession. For instance, an article published on Reuters Events (www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-time) talks about Lean JIT (Just In Time) inventory as a culprit for creating a supply chain deficit during COVID-19. It is not entirely without merit. However, if done the correct way, Lean is all about involving the frontline worker to create a workflow that would work best for them.
Reducing the waste in our processes and empowering our frontline doctors to be creative in finding solutions naturally leads to cost reduction. The cornerstone of Lean is creating a continuously learning organization and putting your employees at the forefront. I think it is important that Lean principles be utilized within health care – but we cannot push to fix every problem in our systems to perfection at a significant expense to the physician and other health care staff.
Why HM can benefit from Lean
There is no hard and fast rule about the way health care should adopt Lean thinking. It is a way of thinking that aims to balance purpose, people, and process – extremes of inventory management may not be necessary to be successful in health care. Lean tools alone would not create results. John Shook, chairman of Lean Global Network, has said that the social side of Lean needs to be in balance with the technical side. In other words, rigidity and efficiency is good, but so is encouraging creativity and flexibility in thinking within the workforce.
In the crisis created by the novel coronavirus, many hospitals in New York state, including my own, turned to Lean to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges. Lean principles helped them problem-solve and develop strategies to both recover from the pandemic surge and adapt to future problems that could occur. Geographic clustering of patients, PPE supply, OR shut down and ramp up, emergency management offices at the peak of the pandemic, telehealth streamlining, and post-COVID-19 care planning are some areas where the application of Lean resulted in successful responses to the challenges that 2020 brought to our work.
As Warren Bennis said, ‘The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.’ As hospitalists, we can lead the way our hospitals provide care. Lean is not just a way for hospitals to cut costs (although it helps quite a bit there). Its processes and philosophies could enable hospitalists to maximize potential, efficiency, quality of care, and allow for a balanced work environment. When applied in a manner that focuses on continuous improvement (and is cognizant of its limitations), it has the potential to increase the capability of our service lines and streamline our processes and workday for greater efficiency. As a specialty, we stand to benefit by taking the lead role in choosing how best to improve how we work. We should think outside the box. What better time to do this than now?
Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany (N.Y) Medical College. She is a former hospitalist medical director and has served on SHM’s national committees, and is a certified Lean Six Sigma black belt and MBA candidate.
Lean framework for efficiency and empathy of care
Lean framework for efficiency and empathy of care
“My census is too high.”
“I don’t have enough time to talk to patients.”
“These are outside our scope of practice.”
These are statements that I have heard from colleagues over the last fourteen years as a hospitalist. Back in 1996, when Dr. Bob Wachter coined the term ‘hospitalist,’ we were still in our infancy – the scope of what we could do had yet to be fully realized. Our focus was on providing care for hospitalized patients and improving quality of clinical care and patient safety. As health care organizations began to see the potential for our field, the demands on our services grew. We grew to comanage patients with our surgical colleagues, worked on patient satisfaction, facilitated transitions of care, and attempted to reduce readmissions – all of which improved patient care and the bottom line for our organizations.
Somewhere along the way, we were expected to staff high patient volumes to add more value, but this always seemed to come with compromise in another aspect of care or our own well-being. After all, there are only so many hours in the day and a limit on what one individual can accomplish in that time.
One of the reasons I love hospital medicine is the novelty of what we do – we are creative thinkers. We have the capacity to innovate solutions to hospital problems based on our expertise as frontline providers for our patients. Hospitalists of every discipline staff a large majority of inpatients, which makes our collective experience significant to the management of inpatient health care. We are often the ones tasked with executing improvement projects, but how often are we involved in their design? I know that we collectively have an enormous opportunity to improve our health care practice, both for ourselves, our patients, and the institutions we work for. But more than just being a voice of advocacy, we need to understand how to positively influence the health care structures that allow us to deliver quality patient care.
It is no surprise that the inefficiencies we deal with in our hospitals are many – daily workflow interruptions, delays in results, scheduling issues, communication difficulties. These are not unique to any one institution. The pandemic added more to that plate – PPE deficiencies, patient volume triage, and resource management are examples. Hospitals often contract consultants to help solve these problems, and many utilize a variety of frameworks to improve these system processes. The Lean framework is one of these, and it originated in the manufacturing industry to eliminate waste in systems in the pursuit of efficiency.
In my business training and prior hospital medicine leadership roles, I was educated in Lean thinking and methodologies for improving quality and applied its principles to projects for improving workflow. Last year I attended a virtual conference on ‘Lean Innovation during the pandemic’ for New York region hospitals, and it again highlighted how the Lean management methodology can help improve patient care but importantly, our workflow as clinicians. This got me thinking. Why is Lean well accepted in business and manufacturing circles, but less so in health care?
I think the answer is twofold – knowledge and people.
What is Lean and how can it help us?
The ‘Toyota Production System’-based philosophy has 14 core principles that help eliminate waste in systems in pursuit of efficiency. These principles are the “Toyota Way.” They center around two pillars: continuous improvement and respect for people. The cornerstone of this management methodology is based on efficient processes, developing employees to add value to the organization and continuous improvement through problem-solving and organizational learning.
Lean is often implemented with Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma has its origins in Motorola. While Lean cuts waste in our systems to provide value, Six Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) to reduce variation in our processes. When done in its entirety, Lean Six Sigma methodology adds value by increasing efficiency, reducing cost, and improving our everyday work.
Statistical principles suggest that 80% of consequences comes from 20% of causes. Lean methodology and tools allow us to systematically identify root causes for the problems we face and help narrow it down to the ‘vital few.’ In other words, fixing these would give us the most bang for our buck. As hospitalists, we are able to do this better than most because we work in these hospital processes everyday – we truly know the strengths and weaknesses of our systems.
As a hospitalist, I would love for the process of seeing patients in hospitals to be more efficient, less variable, and be more cost-effective for my institution. By eliminating the time wasted performing unnecessary and redundant tasks in my everyday work, I can reallocate that time to patient care – the very reason I chose a career in medicine.
We, the people
There are two common rebuttals I hear for adopting Lean Six Sigma methodology in health care. A frequent misconception is that Lean is all about reducing staff or time with patients. The second is that manufacturing methodologies do not work for a service profession. For instance, an article published on Reuters Events (www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-time) talks about Lean JIT (Just In Time) inventory as a culprit for creating a supply chain deficit during COVID-19. It is not entirely without merit. However, if done the correct way, Lean is all about involving the frontline worker to create a workflow that would work best for them.
Reducing the waste in our processes and empowering our frontline doctors to be creative in finding solutions naturally leads to cost reduction. The cornerstone of Lean is creating a continuously learning organization and putting your employees at the forefront. I think it is important that Lean principles be utilized within health care – but we cannot push to fix every problem in our systems to perfection at a significant expense to the physician and other health care staff.
Why HM can benefit from Lean
There is no hard and fast rule about the way health care should adopt Lean thinking. It is a way of thinking that aims to balance purpose, people, and process – extremes of inventory management may not be necessary to be successful in health care. Lean tools alone would not create results. John Shook, chairman of Lean Global Network, has said that the social side of Lean needs to be in balance with the technical side. In other words, rigidity and efficiency is good, but so is encouraging creativity and flexibility in thinking within the workforce.
In the crisis created by the novel coronavirus, many hospitals in New York state, including my own, turned to Lean to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges. Lean principles helped them problem-solve and develop strategies to both recover from the pandemic surge and adapt to future problems that could occur. Geographic clustering of patients, PPE supply, OR shut down and ramp up, emergency management offices at the peak of the pandemic, telehealth streamlining, and post-COVID-19 care planning are some areas where the application of Lean resulted in successful responses to the challenges that 2020 brought to our work.
As Warren Bennis said, ‘The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.’ As hospitalists, we can lead the way our hospitals provide care. Lean is not just a way for hospitals to cut costs (although it helps quite a bit there). Its processes and philosophies could enable hospitalists to maximize potential, efficiency, quality of care, and allow for a balanced work environment. When applied in a manner that focuses on continuous improvement (and is cognizant of its limitations), it has the potential to increase the capability of our service lines and streamline our processes and workday for greater efficiency. As a specialty, we stand to benefit by taking the lead role in choosing how best to improve how we work. We should think outside the box. What better time to do this than now?
Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany (N.Y) Medical College. She is a former hospitalist medical director and has served on SHM’s national committees, and is a certified Lean Six Sigma black belt and MBA candidate.
“My census is too high.”
“I don’t have enough time to talk to patients.”
“These are outside our scope of practice.”
These are statements that I have heard from colleagues over the last fourteen years as a hospitalist. Back in 1996, when Dr. Bob Wachter coined the term ‘hospitalist,’ we were still in our infancy – the scope of what we could do had yet to be fully realized. Our focus was on providing care for hospitalized patients and improving quality of clinical care and patient safety. As health care organizations began to see the potential for our field, the demands on our services grew. We grew to comanage patients with our surgical colleagues, worked on patient satisfaction, facilitated transitions of care, and attempted to reduce readmissions – all of which improved patient care and the bottom line for our organizations.
Somewhere along the way, we were expected to staff high patient volumes to add more value, but this always seemed to come with compromise in another aspect of care or our own well-being. After all, there are only so many hours in the day and a limit on what one individual can accomplish in that time.
One of the reasons I love hospital medicine is the novelty of what we do – we are creative thinkers. We have the capacity to innovate solutions to hospital problems based on our expertise as frontline providers for our patients. Hospitalists of every discipline staff a large majority of inpatients, which makes our collective experience significant to the management of inpatient health care. We are often the ones tasked with executing improvement projects, but how often are we involved in their design? I know that we collectively have an enormous opportunity to improve our health care practice, both for ourselves, our patients, and the institutions we work for. But more than just being a voice of advocacy, we need to understand how to positively influence the health care structures that allow us to deliver quality patient care.
It is no surprise that the inefficiencies we deal with in our hospitals are many – daily workflow interruptions, delays in results, scheduling issues, communication difficulties. These are not unique to any one institution. The pandemic added more to that plate – PPE deficiencies, patient volume triage, and resource management are examples. Hospitals often contract consultants to help solve these problems, and many utilize a variety of frameworks to improve these system processes. The Lean framework is one of these, and it originated in the manufacturing industry to eliminate waste in systems in the pursuit of efficiency.
In my business training and prior hospital medicine leadership roles, I was educated in Lean thinking and methodologies for improving quality and applied its principles to projects for improving workflow. Last year I attended a virtual conference on ‘Lean Innovation during the pandemic’ for New York region hospitals, and it again highlighted how the Lean management methodology can help improve patient care but importantly, our workflow as clinicians. This got me thinking. Why is Lean well accepted in business and manufacturing circles, but less so in health care?
I think the answer is twofold – knowledge and people.
What is Lean and how can it help us?
The ‘Toyota Production System’-based philosophy has 14 core principles that help eliminate waste in systems in pursuit of efficiency. These principles are the “Toyota Way.” They center around two pillars: continuous improvement and respect for people. The cornerstone of this management methodology is based on efficient processes, developing employees to add value to the organization and continuous improvement through problem-solving and organizational learning.
Lean is often implemented with Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma has its origins in Motorola. While Lean cuts waste in our systems to provide value, Six Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) to reduce variation in our processes. When done in its entirety, Lean Six Sigma methodology adds value by increasing efficiency, reducing cost, and improving our everyday work.
Statistical principles suggest that 80% of consequences comes from 20% of causes. Lean methodology and tools allow us to systematically identify root causes for the problems we face and help narrow it down to the ‘vital few.’ In other words, fixing these would give us the most bang for our buck. As hospitalists, we are able to do this better than most because we work in these hospital processes everyday – we truly know the strengths and weaknesses of our systems.
As a hospitalist, I would love for the process of seeing patients in hospitals to be more efficient, less variable, and be more cost-effective for my institution. By eliminating the time wasted performing unnecessary and redundant tasks in my everyday work, I can reallocate that time to patient care – the very reason I chose a career in medicine.
We, the people
There are two common rebuttals I hear for adopting Lean Six Sigma methodology in health care. A frequent misconception is that Lean is all about reducing staff or time with patients. The second is that manufacturing methodologies do not work for a service profession. For instance, an article published on Reuters Events (www.reutersevents.com/supplychain/supply-chain/end-just-time) talks about Lean JIT (Just In Time) inventory as a culprit for creating a supply chain deficit during COVID-19. It is not entirely without merit. However, if done the correct way, Lean is all about involving the frontline worker to create a workflow that would work best for them.
Reducing the waste in our processes and empowering our frontline doctors to be creative in finding solutions naturally leads to cost reduction. The cornerstone of Lean is creating a continuously learning organization and putting your employees at the forefront. I think it is important that Lean principles be utilized within health care – but we cannot push to fix every problem in our systems to perfection at a significant expense to the physician and other health care staff.
Why HM can benefit from Lean
There is no hard and fast rule about the way health care should adopt Lean thinking. It is a way of thinking that aims to balance purpose, people, and process – extremes of inventory management may not be necessary to be successful in health care. Lean tools alone would not create results. John Shook, chairman of Lean Global Network, has said that the social side of Lean needs to be in balance with the technical side. In other words, rigidity and efficiency is good, but so is encouraging creativity and flexibility in thinking within the workforce.
In the crisis created by the novel coronavirus, many hospitals in New York state, including my own, turned to Lean to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges. Lean principles helped them problem-solve and develop strategies to both recover from the pandemic surge and adapt to future problems that could occur. Geographic clustering of patients, PPE supply, OR shut down and ramp up, emergency management offices at the peak of the pandemic, telehealth streamlining, and post-COVID-19 care planning are some areas where the application of Lean resulted in successful responses to the challenges that 2020 brought to our work.
As Warren Bennis said, ‘The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.’ As hospitalists, we can lead the way our hospitals provide care. Lean is not just a way for hospitals to cut costs (although it helps quite a bit there). Its processes and philosophies could enable hospitalists to maximize potential, efficiency, quality of care, and allow for a balanced work environment. When applied in a manner that focuses on continuous improvement (and is cognizant of its limitations), it has the potential to increase the capability of our service lines and streamline our processes and workday for greater efficiency. As a specialty, we stand to benefit by taking the lead role in choosing how best to improve how we work. We should think outside the box. What better time to do this than now?
Dr. Kanikkannan is a practicing hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at Albany (N.Y) Medical College. She is a former hospitalist medical director and has served on SHM’s national committees, and is a certified Lean Six Sigma black belt and MBA candidate.
Updated ACC decision pathway embraces new heart failure treatment strategies
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
AGA News
Career Development Workshops Series
The AGA Career Development Workshops equip trainees and early-career GIs with indispensable knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the career path ahead. Over the course of the workshops, you will gain vital insights and advice to advance in your career with education not formally part of the training program curriculum. Workshops take place virtually and include topics like “How to Evaluate a Job in 2021,” “How to Succeed in Academic or Private Practice During COVID-19,” “Life in Industry,” and more. Workshops continue to be added monthly. Register today.
Save the date for DDW Virtual™
In 2021, Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.
For more than 50 years, members of the digestive disease community have connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.
Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk.
DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
Gastro.org/DDW2021.
We did it!
Thank you for helping us raise $231,357 on AGA Giving Day to fund health disparity research!
The past few months were unlike any we’ve ever experienced, and above all we knew we needed to take action to provide a better future for digestive health patients. That’s why AGA and the AGA Research Foundation launched AGA Giving Day to address health disparities that negatively affect our patients head on. We couldn’t have led the fight to eradicate disparities in GI without our loyal supporters.
AGA Giving Day provided an opportunity to do something about health care differences that lead to poorer outcomes due to race and socioeconomic status. Thanks to the support of all our donors and funders, we raised $231,357 to fund health disparities research.
All donations will go directly into research awards earmarked for GI health disparities research. Health disparities research is the key to understanding how we can improve disease management for every patient.
During these trying times, there is one thing that hasn’t and won’t change: our commitment to our mission of raising funds to support talented researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology. While there is still more work ahead, we know we can move forward with the help of friends like you.
Thank you for being part of our fight to eradicate disparities in GI. Learn more about our other efforts through the AGA Equity Project.
Gastro.org/GivingDay
Career Development Workshops Series
The AGA Career Development Workshops equip trainees and early-career GIs with indispensable knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the career path ahead. Over the course of the workshops, you will gain vital insights and advice to advance in your career with education not formally part of the training program curriculum. Workshops take place virtually and include topics like “How to Evaluate a Job in 2021,” “How to Succeed in Academic or Private Practice During COVID-19,” “Life in Industry,” and more. Workshops continue to be added monthly. Register today.
Save the date for DDW Virtual™
In 2021, Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.
For more than 50 years, members of the digestive disease community have connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.
Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk.
DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
Gastro.org/DDW2021.
We did it!
Thank you for helping us raise $231,357 on AGA Giving Day to fund health disparity research!
The past few months were unlike any we’ve ever experienced, and above all we knew we needed to take action to provide a better future for digestive health patients. That’s why AGA and the AGA Research Foundation launched AGA Giving Day to address health disparities that negatively affect our patients head on. We couldn’t have led the fight to eradicate disparities in GI without our loyal supporters.
AGA Giving Day provided an opportunity to do something about health care differences that lead to poorer outcomes due to race and socioeconomic status. Thanks to the support of all our donors and funders, we raised $231,357 to fund health disparities research.
All donations will go directly into research awards earmarked for GI health disparities research. Health disparities research is the key to understanding how we can improve disease management for every patient.
During these trying times, there is one thing that hasn’t and won’t change: our commitment to our mission of raising funds to support talented researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology. While there is still more work ahead, we know we can move forward with the help of friends like you.
Thank you for being part of our fight to eradicate disparities in GI. Learn more about our other efforts through the AGA Equity Project.
Gastro.org/GivingDay
Career Development Workshops Series
The AGA Career Development Workshops equip trainees and early-career GIs with indispensable knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the career path ahead. Over the course of the workshops, you will gain vital insights and advice to advance in your career with education not formally part of the training program curriculum. Workshops take place virtually and include topics like “How to Evaluate a Job in 2021,” “How to Succeed in Academic or Private Practice During COVID-19,” “Life in Industry,” and more. Workshops continue to be added monthly. Register today.
Save the date for DDW Virtual™
In 2021, Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.
For more than 50 years, members of the digestive disease community have connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.
Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk.
DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
Gastro.org/DDW2021.
We did it!
Thank you for helping us raise $231,357 on AGA Giving Day to fund health disparity research!
The past few months were unlike any we’ve ever experienced, and above all we knew we needed to take action to provide a better future for digestive health patients. That’s why AGA and the AGA Research Foundation launched AGA Giving Day to address health disparities that negatively affect our patients head on. We couldn’t have led the fight to eradicate disparities in GI without our loyal supporters.
AGA Giving Day provided an opportunity to do something about health care differences that lead to poorer outcomes due to race and socioeconomic status. Thanks to the support of all our donors and funders, we raised $231,357 to fund health disparities research.
All donations will go directly into research awards earmarked for GI health disparities research. Health disparities research is the key to understanding how we can improve disease management for every patient.
During these trying times, there is one thing that hasn’t and won’t change: our commitment to our mission of raising funds to support talented researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology. While there is still more work ahead, we know we can move forward with the help of friends like you.
Thank you for being part of our fight to eradicate disparities in GI. Learn more about our other efforts through the AGA Equity Project.
Gastro.org/GivingDay
Calendar
For more information about the American Gastroenterological Association’s upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
Upcoming Events
May 1, 2021
2021 AGA Postgraduate Course (Virtual Event)
Discover emerging science, leverage new tools and technologies and build lasting collaborations that will transform GI research and patient care at the AGA Postgraduate Course. Receive updates here.
May 21-23, 2021
Digestive Disease Week® (Virtual Event)
Save the date for the world’s leading event in digestive disease. DDW® brings professionals in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, and GI surgery together. Experience growth when you share your research, converge with trailblazers, and improve the lives of patients suffering from GI and liver diseases.
Early bird registration: Jan. 20 to Mar. 31, 2021.
Award Deadlines
AGA Student Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year 3) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Student Abstract of the Year.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA–Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This award provides support to early career (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at DDW.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)
These fellowships support undergraduate students from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research to perform 10 weeks of research related to digestive diseases under the mentorship of top investigators in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The award provides a stipend, funding to offset travel and meal expenses, and opportunities to learn about future training and career options.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
For more information about the American Gastroenterological Association’s upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
Upcoming Events
May 1, 2021
2021 AGA Postgraduate Course (Virtual Event)
Discover emerging science, leverage new tools and technologies and build lasting collaborations that will transform GI research and patient care at the AGA Postgraduate Course. Receive updates here.
May 21-23, 2021
Digestive Disease Week® (Virtual Event)
Save the date for the world’s leading event in digestive disease. DDW® brings professionals in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, and GI surgery together. Experience growth when you share your research, converge with trailblazers, and improve the lives of patients suffering from GI and liver diseases.
Early bird registration: Jan. 20 to Mar. 31, 2021.
Award Deadlines
AGA Student Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year 3) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Student Abstract of the Year.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA–Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This award provides support to early career (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at DDW.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)
These fellowships support undergraduate students from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research to perform 10 weeks of research related to digestive diseases under the mentorship of top investigators in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The award provides a stipend, funding to offset travel and meal expenses, and opportunities to learn about future training and career options.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
For more information about the American Gastroenterological Association’s upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
Upcoming Events
May 1, 2021
2021 AGA Postgraduate Course (Virtual Event)
Discover emerging science, leverage new tools and technologies and build lasting collaborations that will transform GI research and patient care at the AGA Postgraduate Course. Receive updates here.
May 21-23, 2021
Digestive Disease Week® (Virtual Event)
Save the date for the world’s leading event in digestive disease. DDW® brings professionals in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, and GI surgery together. Experience growth when you share your research, converge with trailblazers, and improve the lives of patients suffering from GI and liver diseases.
Early bird registration: Jan. 20 to Mar. 31, 2021.
Award Deadlines
AGA Student Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year 3) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Student Abstract of the Year.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA–Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This award provides support to early career (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at DDW.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)
These fellowships support undergraduate students from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research to perform 10 weeks of research related to digestive diseases under the mentorship of top investigators in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The award provides a stipend, funding to offset travel and meal expenses, and opportunities to learn about future training and career options.
Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
Recent Developments in Psychodermatology and Psychopharmacology for Delusional Patients
The management of delusional infestation (DI), also known as Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis, can lead to some of the most difficult and stressful patient encounters in dermatology. As a specialty, dermatology providers are trained to respect scientific objectivity and pride themselves on their visual diagnostic acumen. Therefore, having to accommodate a patient’s erroneous ideations and potentially treat a psychiatric pathology poses a challenge for many dermatology providers because it requires shifting their mindset to where the subjective reality becomes the primary issue during the visit. This disconnect may lead to strife between the patient and the provider. All of these issues may make it difficult for dermatologists to connect with DI patients with the usual courtesy and consideration given to other patients. Moreover, some dermatologists find it difficult to respect the chief concern, which often is seen as purely psychological because there may be some lingering bias where psychological concerns perhaps are not seen as bona fide or legitimate disorders.
Is There a Biologic Basis for DI? A New Theory on the Etiology of Delusional Parasitosis
It is important to distinguish DI phenomenology into primary and secondary causes. Primary DI refers to cases where the delusion and formication occur spontaneously. In contrast, in secondary DI the delusion and other manifestations (eg, formication) happen secondarily to underlying broader diagnoses such as illicit substance abuse, primary psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, organic brain syndrome, and vitamin B12 deficiency.
It is well known that primary DI overwhelmingly occurs in older women, whereas secondary DI does not show this same predilection. It has been a big unanswered question as to why primary DI so often occurs not only in women but specifically in older women. The latest theory that has been advancing in Europe and is supported by some data, including magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, involves the dopamine transporter (DAT) system, which is important in making sure the dopamine level in the intersynaptic space is not excessive.1 The DAT system is much more prominent in woman vs men and deteriorates with age due to declining estrogen levels. This age-related loss of striatal DAT is thought to be one possible etiology of DI. It has been hypothesized that decreased DAT functioning may cause an increase in extracellular striatal dopamine levels in the synapse that can lead to tactile hallucinations and delusions, which are hallmark symptoms seen in DI. Given that women experience a greater age-related DAT decline in striatal subregions than men, it is thought that primary DI mainly affects older women due to the decline of neuroprotective effects of estrogen on DAT activity with age.2 Further studies should evaluate the possibility of estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of DI.
Improving Care of Psychodermatology Patients in Clinic
There are several medications that are known to be effective for the treatment of DI, including pimozide, risperidone, aripiprazole, and olanzapine, among others. Pimozide is uniquely accepted by DI patients because it has no official psychiatric indication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); it is only indicated in the United States for Tourette syndrome, which is a neurologic disorder. Therefore, pimozide arguably can be disregarded as a true antipsychotic agent. The fact that its chemical structure is similar to those of bona fide antipsychotic medications does not necessarily put it in this same category, as there also are antiemetic and antitussive medications (eg, prochlorperazine, promethazine) with chemical structures similar to antipsychotics, but clinicians generally do not think of these drugs as antipsychotics despite the similarities. This nuanced and admittedly somewhat arbitrary categorization is critical to patient care; in our clinic, we have found that patients who categorically refuse to consider all psychiatric medications are much more willing to try pimozide for this very reason, that this medication can uniquely be presented to the DI patient as an agent not used in psychiatry. We have found great success in treatment with pimozide, even with relatively low doses.3,4
One of the main reasons dermatologists are reluctant to prescribe antipsychotic medications or even pimozide is the concern for side effects, especially tardive dyskinesia (TD), which is thought to be irreversible and untreatable. However, after a half century of worldwide use of pimozide in dermatology, a PubMed search of English-language articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pimozide and tardive dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia and delusions of parasitosis, tardive dyskinesia and dermatology, and tardive dyskinesia and delusional infestation/Morgellons disease yielded only 1 known case of TD reported in dermatologic use for DI.5 In this particular case, TD-like symptoms did not appear until after pimozide had been discontinued for 1 month. Therefore, it is not clear if this case was true TD or a condition known as withdrawal dyskinesia, which mimics TD and usually is self-limiting.5
The senior author (J.K.) has been using pimozide for treatment of DI for more than 30 years and has not encountered TD or any other notable side effects. The reason for this extremely low incidence of side effects may be due to its high efficacy in treating DI; hence, only a low dose of pimozide usually is needed. At the University of California, San Francisco, Psychodermatology Clinic, pimozide typically is used to treat DI at a low dose of 3 mg or less daily, starting with 0.5 or 1 mg and slowly titrating upward until a clinically effective dose is reached. Pimozide rarely is used long-term; after the resolution of symptoms, the dose usually is continued at the clinically effective dose for a few months and then is slowly tapered off. In contrast, for a condition such as schizophrenia, an antipsychotic medication often is needed at high doses for life, resulting in higher TD occurrences being reported. Therefore, even though the newer antipsychotic agents are preferable to pimozide because of their somewhat lower risk for TD, in actual clinical practice many, if not most, DI patients detest any suggestion of taking a medication for “crazy people.” Thus, we find that pimozide’s inherent superior acceptability among DI patients often is critical to enabling any effective treatment to occur at all due to the fact that the provider can honestly say that pimozide has no FDA psychiatric indication.
Still, one of the biggest apprehensions with initiating and continuing these medications in dermatology is fear of TD. Now, dermatologists can be made aware that if this very rare side effect occurs, there are medications approved to treat TD, even if the anti-TD therapy is administered by a neurologist. For the first time, 2 medications were approved by the FDA for treatment of TD in 2017, namely valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. These medications represent a class known as vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 inhibitors and function by ultimately reducing the amount of dopamine released from the presynaptic dopaminergic neurons. In phase 3 trials for valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, 40% (N=234) and 34% (N=222) of patients, respectively, achieved a response, which was defined as at least a 50% decrease from baseline on the abnormal involuntary movement scale dyskinesia score in 6 to 12 weeks compared to 9% and 12%, respectively, with placebo.Discontinuation because of an adverse event was seldom encountered with both medications.6
Conclusion
The recent developments in psychodermatology with regard to DI are encouraging. The advent of new evidence and theories suggestive of an organic basis for DI could help this condition become more respected in the eyes of the dermatologist as a bona fide disorder. Moreover, the new developments and availability of medications that can treat TD can further make it easier for dermatologists to consider offering DI patients truly meaningful treatment that they desperately need. Therefore, both of these developments are welcomed for our specialty.
- Huber M, Kirchler E, Karner M, et al. Delusional parasitosis and the dopamine transporter. a new insight of etiology? Med Hypotheses. 2007;68:1351-1358.
- Chan SY, Koo J. Sex differences in primary delusional infestation: an insight into etiology and potential novel therapy. Int J Women Dermatol. 2020;6:226.
- Lorenzo CR, Koo J. Pimozide in dermatologic practice: a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5:339-349.
- Brownstone ND, Beck K, Sekhon S, et al. Morgellons Disease. 2nd ed. Kindle Direct Publishing; 2020.
- Thomson AM, Wallace J, Kobylecki C. Tardive dyskinesia after drug withdrawal in two older adults: clinical features, complications and management. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019;19:563-564.
- Citrome L. Tardive dyskinesia: placing vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors into clinical perspective. Expert Rev Neurother. 2018;18:323-332.
The management of delusional infestation (DI), also known as Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis, can lead to some of the most difficult and stressful patient encounters in dermatology. As a specialty, dermatology providers are trained to respect scientific objectivity and pride themselves on their visual diagnostic acumen. Therefore, having to accommodate a patient’s erroneous ideations and potentially treat a psychiatric pathology poses a challenge for many dermatology providers because it requires shifting their mindset to where the subjective reality becomes the primary issue during the visit. This disconnect may lead to strife between the patient and the provider. All of these issues may make it difficult for dermatologists to connect with DI patients with the usual courtesy and consideration given to other patients. Moreover, some dermatologists find it difficult to respect the chief concern, which often is seen as purely psychological because there may be some lingering bias where psychological concerns perhaps are not seen as bona fide or legitimate disorders.
Is There a Biologic Basis for DI? A New Theory on the Etiology of Delusional Parasitosis
It is important to distinguish DI phenomenology into primary and secondary causes. Primary DI refers to cases where the delusion and formication occur spontaneously. In contrast, in secondary DI the delusion and other manifestations (eg, formication) happen secondarily to underlying broader diagnoses such as illicit substance abuse, primary psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, organic brain syndrome, and vitamin B12 deficiency.
It is well known that primary DI overwhelmingly occurs in older women, whereas secondary DI does not show this same predilection. It has been a big unanswered question as to why primary DI so often occurs not only in women but specifically in older women. The latest theory that has been advancing in Europe and is supported by some data, including magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, involves the dopamine transporter (DAT) system, which is important in making sure the dopamine level in the intersynaptic space is not excessive.1 The DAT system is much more prominent in woman vs men and deteriorates with age due to declining estrogen levels. This age-related loss of striatal DAT is thought to be one possible etiology of DI. It has been hypothesized that decreased DAT functioning may cause an increase in extracellular striatal dopamine levels in the synapse that can lead to tactile hallucinations and delusions, which are hallmark symptoms seen in DI. Given that women experience a greater age-related DAT decline in striatal subregions than men, it is thought that primary DI mainly affects older women due to the decline of neuroprotective effects of estrogen on DAT activity with age.2 Further studies should evaluate the possibility of estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of DI.
Improving Care of Psychodermatology Patients in Clinic
There are several medications that are known to be effective for the treatment of DI, including pimozide, risperidone, aripiprazole, and olanzapine, among others. Pimozide is uniquely accepted by DI patients because it has no official psychiatric indication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); it is only indicated in the United States for Tourette syndrome, which is a neurologic disorder. Therefore, pimozide arguably can be disregarded as a true antipsychotic agent. The fact that its chemical structure is similar to those of bona fide antipsychotic medications does not necessarily put it in this same category, as there also are antiemetic and antitussive medications (eg, prochlorperazine, promethazine) with chemical structures similar to antipsychotics, but clinicians generally do not think of these drugs as antipsychotics despite the similarities. This nuanced and admittedly somewhat arbitrary categorization is critical to patient care; in our clinic, we have found that patients who categorically refuse to consider all psychiatric medications are much more willing to try pimozide for this very reason, that this medication can uniquely be presented to the DI patient as an agent not used in psychiatry. We have found great success in treatment with pimozide, even with relatively low doses.3,4
One of the main reasons dermatologists are reluctant to prescribe antipsychotic medications or even pimozide is the concern for side effects, especially tardive dyskinesia (TD), which is thought to be irreversible and untreatable. However, after a half century of worldwide use of pimozide in dermatology, a PubMed search of English-language articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pimozide and tardive dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia and delusions of parasitosis, tardive dyskinesia and dermatology, and tardive dyskinesia and delusional infestation/Morgellons disease yielded only 1 known case of TD reported in dermatologic use for DI.5 In this particular case, TD-like symptoms did not appear until after pimozide had been discontinued for 1 month. Therefore, it is not clear if this case was true TD or a condition known as withdrawal dyskinesia, which mimics TD and usually is self-limiting.5
The senior author (J.K.) has been using pimozide for treatment of DI for more than 30 years and has not encountered TD or any other notable side effects. The reason for this extremely low incidence of side effects may be due to its high efficacy in treating DI; hence, only a low dose of pimozide usually is needed. At the University of California, San Francisco, Psychodermatology Clinic, pimozide typically is used to treat DI at a low dose of 3 mg or less daily, starting with 0.5 or 1 mg and slowly titrating upward until a clinically effective dose is reached. Pimozide rarely is used long-term; after the resolution of symptoms, the dose usually is continued at the clinically effective dose for a few months and then is slowly tapered off. In contrast, for a condition such as schizophrenia, an antipsychotic medication often is needed at high doses for life, resulting in higher TD occurrences being reported. Therefore, even though the newer antipsychotic agents are preferable to pimozide because of their somewhat lower risk for TD, in actual clinical practice many, if not most, DI patients detest any suggestion of taking a medication for “crazy people.” Thus, we find that pimozide’s inherent superior acceptability among DI patients often is critical to enabling any effective treatment to occur at all due to the fact that the provider can honestly say that pimozide has no FDA psychiatric indication.
Still, one of the biggest apprehensions with initiating and continuing these medications in dermatology is fear of TD. Now, dermatologists can be made aware that if this very rare side effect occurs, there are medications approved to treat TD, even if the anti-TD therapy is administered by a neurologist. For the first time, 2 medications were approved by the FDA for treatment of TD in 2017, namely valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. These medications represent a class known as vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 inhibitors and function by ultimately reducing the amount of dopamine released from the presynaptic dopaminergic neurons. In phase 3 trials for valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, 40% (N=234) and 34% (N=222) of patients, respectively, achieved a response, which was defined as at least a 50% decrease from baseline on the abnormal involuntary movement scale dyskinesia score in 6 to 12 weeks compared to 9% and 12%, respectively, with placebo.Discontinuation because of an adverse event was seldom encountered with both medications.6
Conclusion
The recent developments in psychodermatology with regard to DI are encouraging. The advent of new evidence and theories suggestive of an organic basis for DI could help this condition become more respected in the eyes of the dermatologist as a bona fide disorder. Moreover, the new developments and availability of medications that can treat TD can further make it easier for dermatologists to consider offering DI patients truly meaningful treatment that they desperately need. Therefore, both of these developments are welcomed for our specialty.
The management of delusional infestation (DI), also known as Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis, can lead to some of the most difficult and stressful patient encounters in dermatology. As a specialty, dermatology providers are trained to respect scientific objectivity and pride themselves on their visual diagnostic acumen. Therefore, having to accommodate a patient’s erroneous ideations and potentially treat a psychiatric pathology poses a challenge for many dermatology providers because it requires shifting their mindset to where the subjective reality becomes the primary issue during the visit. This disconnect may lead to strife between the patient and the provider. All of these issues may make it difficult for dermatologists to connect with DI patients with the usual courtesy and consideration given to other patients. Moreover, some dermatologists find it difficult to respect the chief concern, which often is seen as purely psychological because there may be some lingering bias where psychological concerns perhaps are not seen as bona fide or legitimate disorders.
Is There a Biologic Basis for DI? A New Theory on the Etiology of Delusional Parasitosis
It is important to distinguish DI phenomenology into primary and secondary causes. Primary DI refers to cases where the delusion and formication occur spontaneously. In contrast, in secondary DI the delusion and other manifestations (eg, formication) happen secondarily to underlying broader diagnoses such as illicit substance abuse, primary psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, organic brain syndrome, and vitamin B12 deficiency.
It is well known that primary DI overwhelmingly occurs in older women, whereas secondary DI does not show this same predilection. It has been a big unanswered question as to why primary DI so often occurs not only in women but specifically in older women. The latest theory that has been advancing in Europe and is supported by some data, including magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, involves the dopamine transporter (DAT) system, which is important in making sure the dopamine level in the intersynaptic space is not excessive.1 The DAT system is much more prominent in woman vs men and deteriorates with age due to declining estrogen levels. This age-related loss of striatal DAT is thought to be one possible etiology of DI. It has been hypothesized that decreased DAT functioning may cause an increase in extracellular striatal dopamine levels in the synapse that can lead to tactile hallucinations and delusions, which are hallmark symptoms seen in DI. Given that women experience a greater age-related DAT decline in striatal subregions than men, it is thought that primary DI mainly affects older women due to the decline of neuroprotective effects of estrogen on DAT activity with age.2 Further studies should evaluate the possibility of estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of DI.
Improving Care of Psychodermatology Patients in Clinic
There are several medications that are known to be effective for the treatment of DI, including pimozide, risperidone, aripiprazole, and olanzapine, among others. Pimozide is uniquely accepted by DI patients because it has no official psychiatric indication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); it is only indicated in the United States for Tourette syndrome, which is a neurologic disorder. Therefore, pimozide arguably can be disregarded as a true antipsychotic agent. The fact that its chemical structure is similar to those of bona fide antipsychotic medications does not necessarily put it in this same category, as there also are antiemetic and antitussive medications (eg, prochlorperazine, promethazine) with chemical structures similar to antipsychotics, but clinicians generally do not think of these drugs as antipsychotics despite the similarities. This nuanced and admittedly somewhat arbitrary categorization is critical to patient care; in our clinic, we have found that patients who categorically refuse to consider all psychiatric medications are much more willing to try pimozide for this very reason, that this medication can uniquely be presented to the DI patient as an agent not used in psychiatry. We have found great success in treatment with pimozide, even with relatively low doses.3,4
One of the main reasons dermatologists are reluctant to prescribe antipsychotic medications or even pimozide is the concern for side effects, especially tardive dyskinesia (TD), which is thought to be irreversible and untreatable. However, after a half century of worldwide use of pimozide in dermatology, a PubMed search of English-language articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pimozide and tardive dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia and delusions of parasitosis, tardive dyskinesia and dermatology, and tardive dyskinesia and delusional infestation/Morgellons disease yielded only 1 known case of TD reported in dermatologic use for DI.5 In this particular case, TD-like symptoms did not appear until after pimozide had been discontinued for 1 month. Therefore, it is not clear if this case was true TD or a condition known as withdrawal dyskinesia, which mimics TD and usually is self-limiting.5
The senior author (J.K.) has been using pimozide for treatment of DI for more than 30 years and has not encountered TD or any other notable side effects. The reason for this extremely low incidence of side effects may be due to its high efficacy in treating DI; hence, only a low dose of pimozide usually is needed. At the University of California, San Francisco, Psychodermatology Clinic, pimozide typically is used to treat DI at a low dose of 3 mg or less daily, starting with 0.5 or 1 mg and slowly titrating upward until a clinically effective dose is reached. Pimozide rarely is used long-term; after the resolution of symptoms, the dose usually is continued at the clinically effective dose for a few months and then is slowly tapered off. In contrast, for a condition such as schizophrenia, an antipsychotic medication often is needed at high doses for life, resulting in higher TD occurrences being reported. Therefore, even though the newer antipsychotic agents are preferable to pimozide because of their somewhat lower risk for TD, in actual clinical practice many, if not most, DI patients detest any suggestion of taking a medication for “crazy people.” Thus, we find that pimozide’s inherent superior acceptability among DI patients often is critical to enabling any effective treatment to occur at all due to the fact that the provider can honestly say that pimozide has no FDA psychiatric indication.
Still, one of the biggest apprehensions with initiating and continuing these medications in dermatology is fear of TD. Now, dermatologists can be made aware that if this very rare side effect occurs, there are medications approved to treat TD, even if the anti-TD therapy is administered by a neurologist. For the first time, 2 medications were approved by the FDA for treatment of TD in 2017, namely valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. These medications represent a class known as vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 inhibitors and function by ultimately reducing the amount of dopamine released from the presynaptic dopaminergic neurons. In phase 3 trials for valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, 40% (N=234) and 34% (N=222) of patients, respectively, achieved a response, which was defined as at least a 50% decrease from baseline on the abnormal involuntary movement scale dyskinesia score in 6 to 12 weeks compared to 9% and 12%, respectively, with placebo.Discontinuation because of an adverse event was seldom encountered with both medications.6
Conclusion
The recent developments in psychodermatology with regard to DI are encouraging. The advent of new evidence and theories suggestive of an organic basis for DI could help this condition become more respected in the eyes of the dermatologist as a bona fide disorder. Moreover, the new developments and availability of medications that can treat TD can further make it easier for dermatologists to consider offering DI patients truly meaningful treatment that they desperately need. Therefore, both of these developments are welcomed for our specialty.
- Huber M, Kirchler E, Karner M, et al. Delusional parasitosis and the dopamine transporter. a new insight of etiology? Med Hypotheses. 2007;68:1351-1358.
- Chan SY, Koo J. Sex differences in primary delusional infestation: an insight into etiology and potential novel therapy. Int J Women Dermatol. 2020;6:226.
- Lorenzo CR, Koo J. Pimozide in dermatologic practice: a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5:339-349.
- Brownstone ND, Beck K, Sekhon S, et al. Morgellons Disease. 2nd ed. Kindle Direct Publishing; 2020.
- Thomson AM, Wallace J, Kobylecki C. Tardive dyskinesia after drug withdrawal in two older adults: clinical features, complications and management. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019;19:563-564.
- Citrome L. Tardive dyskinesia: placing vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors into clinical perspective. Expert Rev Neurother. 2018;18:323-332.
- Huber M, Kirchler E, Karner M, et al. Delusional parasitosis and the dopamine transporter. a new insight of etiology? Med Hypotheses. 2007;68:1351-1358.
- Chan SY, Koo J. Sex differences in primary delusional infestation: an insight into etiology and potential novel therapy. Int J Women Dermatol. 2020;6:226.
- Lorenzo CR, Koo J. Pimozide in dermatologic practice: a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5:339-349.
- Brownstone ND, Beck K, Sekhon S, et al. Morgellons Disease. 2nd ed. Kindle Direct Publishing; 2020.
- Thomson AM, Wallace J, Kobylecki C. Tardive dyskinesia after drug withdrawal in two older adults: clinical features, complications and management. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019;19:563-564.
- Citrome L. Tardive dyskinesia: placing vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors into clinical perspective. Expert Rev Neurother. 2018;18:323-332.
Unilateral Alar Ulceration
The Diagnosis: Trigeminal Trophic Syndrome (Self-induced Trauma)
The patient admitted to manipulation of the ala in response to persistent pain despite resolution of the herpes zoster, for which he recently had completed a course of oral acyclovir. A preliminary diagnosis of trigeminal trophic syndrome (TTS) was made, and a subsequent punch biopsy revealed no evidence of malignancy. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed, and he was instructed to avoid manipulation of the affected area. Treatment was initiated in consultation with pain specialists, and over the following 3 years our patient experienced a waxing and waning course of persistent pain complicated by new scalp and oral ulcers as well as alar impetigo. His condition eventually stabilized with tolerable pain on oral gabapentin and doxepin cream 5% applied up to 4 times daily. The alar lesion healed following sufficient abstinence from manipulation, leaving a crescent-shaped rim defect.
Trigeminal trophic syndrome classically is characterized by a triad of cutaneous anesthesia, paresthesia and/or pain, and ulceration secondary to pathology of trigeminal nerve sensory branches. Ulceration arises primarily through excoriation in response to paresthetic pruritus or pain. The differential diagnosis for TTS includes ulcerating cutaneous neoplasms (eg, basal cell carcinoma); mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infections (especially herpetic lesions); and cutaneous involvement of systemic vasculitides (eg, granulomatosis with polyangiitis).1 Biopsy is necessary to exclude malignancy, and ulcers may be scraped for viral diagnosis. Complete blood cell count and serologic testing also may help to exclude immunodeficiencies or disorders. Apart from viral neuropathy, common etiologies of TTS include iatrogenic trigeminal injury (eg, in ablation treatment for trigeminal neuralgia) and stroke (eg, lateral medullary syndrome).
- Khan AU, Khachemoune A. Trigeminal trophic syndrome: an updated review. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58:530-537.
The Diagnosis: Trigeminal Trophic Syndrome (Self-induced Trauma)
The patient admitted to manipulation of the ala in response to persistent pain despite resolution of the herpes zoster, for which he recently had completed a course of oral acyclovir. A preliminary diagnosis of trigeminal trophic syndrome (TTS) was made, and a subsequent punch biopsy revealed no evidence of malignancy. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed, and he was instructed to avoid manipulation of the affected area. Treatment was initiated in consultation with pain specialists, and over the following 3 years our patient experienced a waxing and waning course of persistent pain complicated by new scalp and oral ulcers as well as alar impetigo. His condition eventually stabilized with tolerable pain on oral gabapentin and doxepin cream 5% applied up to 4 times daily. The alar lesion healed following sufficient abstinence from manipulation, leaving a crescent-shaped rim defect.
Trigeminal trophic syndrome classically is characterized by a triad of cutaneous anesthesia, paresthesia and/or pain, and ulceration secondary to pathology of trigeminal nerve sensory branches. Ulceration arises primarily through excoriation in response to paresthetic pruritus or pain. The differential diagnosis for TTS includes ulcerating cutaneous neoplasms (eg, basal cell carcinoma); mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infections (especially herpetic lesions); and cutaneous involvement of systemic vasculitides (eg, granulomatosis with polyangiitis).1 Biopsy is necessary to exclude malignancy, and ulcers may be scraped for viral diagnosis. Complete blood cell count and serologic testing also may help to exclude immunodeficiencies or disorders. Apart from viral neuropathy, common etiologies of TTS include iatrogenic trigeminal injury (eg, in ablation treatment for trigeminal neuralgia) and stroke (eg, lateral medullary syndrome).
The Diagnosis: Trigeminal Trophic Syndrome (Self-induced Trauma)
The patient admitted to manipulation of the ala in response to persistent pain despite resolution of the herpes zoster, for which he recently had completed a course of oral acyclovir. A preliminary diagnosis of trigeminal trophic syndrome (TTS) was made, and a subsequent punch biopsy revealed no evidence of malignancy. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed, and he was instructed to avoid manipulation of the affected area. Treatment was initiated in consultation with pain specialists, and over the following 3 years our patient experienced a waxing and waning course of persistent pain complicated by new scalp and oral ulcers as well as alar impetigo. His condition eventually stabilized with tolerable pain on oral gabapentin and doxepin cream 5% applied up to 4 times daily. The alar lesion healed following sufficient abstinence from manipulation, leaving a crescent-shaped rim defect.
Trigeminal trophic syndrome classically is characterized by a triad of cutaneous anesthesia, paresthesia and/or pain, and ulceration secondary to pathology of trigeminal nerve sensory branches. Ulceration arises primarily through excoriation in response to paresthetic pruritus or pain. The differential diagnosis for TTS includes ulcerating cutaneous neoplasms (eg, basal cell carcinoma); mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infections (especially herpetic lesions); and cutaneous involvement of systemic vasculitides (eg, granulomatosis with polyangiitis).1 Biopsy is necessary to exclude malignancy, and ulcers may be scraped for viral diagnosis. Complete blood cell count and serologic testing also may help to exclude immunodeficiencies or disorders. Apart from viral neuropathy, common etiologies of TTS include iatrogenic trigeminal injury (eg, in ablation treatment for trigeminal neuralgia) and stroke (eg, lateral medullary syndrome).
- Khan AU, Khachemoune A. Trigeminal trophic syndrome: an updated review. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58:530-537.
- Khan AU, Khachemoune A. Trigeminal trophic syndrome: an updated review. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58:530-537.
A 68-year-old man presented with a new left nasal alar ulcer following a recent episode of primary herpes zoster. Physical examination revealed erythema, erosion, and necrosis of the left naris with partial loss of the alar rim. Additional erythema was present without vesicles around the left eye and on the forehead.
