Mixed Topics

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

For health professionals, the thought that our parents and grandparents don’t have sex – or didn’t – might be comforting.

The reality is that, for a significant proportion of our older patients, sex has no use-by date. Humans are sexual beings throughout their lives, yet the culture has concealed that fact.

According to Rome, the purpose of sex is to make children. According to Hollywood, sex is only for the young, the healthy, and the beautiful. For the medical profession, sex consists mainly of risks or dysfunctions.

The results of these biases? Many middle-aged people fear their later sexual life. And medical professionals rarely ask about sexuality. That failing can be harmful. Sexuality and intimacy are essential elements for quality of life, with clear physical, emotional, and relational benefits.

Let’s look at the data when researchers dared to ask seniors about their sexuality.

We start with the 2015 U.K. national research on sexuality. The study found a link between age and a decline in various aspects of sexual activity – but not a zeroing-out. For example, among men aged 70-79, 59% reported having had sex in the past year, with 19% having intercourse at least twice a month and 18% masturbating at least that often. Above age 80, those numbers dropped to 39%, 6%, and 5%, respectively. The reason behind the declines? A combination of taboo, fear of disease, use of medications or other interventions that disrupt sexual function or cause disfigurement, and a little bit of age itself.

What about women? Among women ages 70-79, 39% said they’d had sex in the past year, with 6% having intercourse at least twice per month and 5% masturbating two times or more monthly. Above age 80, those numbers were 10%, 4.5%, and 1%, respectively. Driving the falloff in women were the same factors as for men, plus the sad reality that many heterosexual women become widowed because their older male partners die earlier.

The male-female difference also reflects lower levels of testosterone in women. And, because women say they value intimacy more than performance, we have two explanations for their lower frequency of masturbation. After all, a lot of intimacy occurs without either intercourse or masturbation.

Surprising and relevant is the amount of distress – or rather, their relative lack thereof – older patients report because of sexual problems. At age 18-44, 11% of U.S. women indicated sexual distress; at age 45-64, the figure was 15%; and at age 65 and up, 9%.

For clinicians, those figures should prompt us to look more closely at alternative forms of sexual expression – those not involving intercourse or masturbation – in the aged, a field physicians typically do not consider.

Although dyspareunia or erectile problems affect many in long-standing relationships, neither is a reason to abstain from sexual pleasure. Indeed, in many couples, oral sex will replace vaginal intercourse, and if urinary, fecal, or flatal incontinence intrude, couples often waive oral sex in favor of more cuddling, kissing, digital stimulation, and other forms of sexual pleasure.
 

What about the expiry date for sex?

Fascinating research from Nils Beckman, PhD, and colleagues found that the sex drive persists even as people (and men in particular) reach their 100th year. Dr. Beckman’s group interviewed 269 Swedish seniors, all without dementia, at age 97. Sexual desire was affirmed by 27% of men and 5% of women in the survey. Among the men, 32% said they still had sexual thoughts, compared with 18% of women. Meanwhile, 26% of the men and 15% of the women said they missed sexual activity.

What should clinicians do with this information? First, we could start talking about sex with our older patients. According to the 97-year-old Swedes, most want us to! More than 8 in 10 of both women and men in the survey expressed positive views about questions on sexuality. And please don’t be scared to address the subject in the single senior. They, too, can have a sexual or relationship issue and are happy when we raise the subject. They’re not scared to talk about masturbation, either.

When caring for those with chronic diseases, cancer, in the course of physical rehabilitation, and even in the last phase of life, the clinical experience indicates that our patients are happy when we address sexuality and intimacy. Doing so can open the door to the admission of a problem and a corresponding solution, a lubricant or a PDE5 inhibitor.

But sometimes the solution is the conversation itself: Roughly 25% of patients are sufficiently helped simply by talking about sex. Addressing the importance of sexual pleasure is nearly always valuable.

Here are a few ice-breakers I find helpful:

• Did taking this medication change aspects of sexuality? If so, does that bother you?
• Knowing that continuing intimacy is healthy, do you mind if I address that subject?
• We know that aspects of sexuality and intimacy are healthy. Without a partner, some people become sexually isolated. Would you like to talk about that?’

If addressing sexuality has benefits, what about sex itself?

We are gradually learning more about the many short-, intermediate-, and long-term health benefits of solo and joint sexual activity. Short-term benefits include muscle relaxation, pain relief (even, perhaps ironically, for headaches), and better sleep – all pretty valuable for older adults. Examples of intermediate-term benefits include stress relief and less depression. Research from the United States has found that hugging can reduce the concentrations of proinflammatory cytokines, and kissing positively influences cholesterol levels.

Finally, while the long-term benefits of sex might be less relevant for seniors, they do exist.

Among them are delayed onset of dementia and a substantial reduction in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular problems in men. More sex has been linked to longevity, with men benefiting a bit more than women from going through the entire process, including an orgasm, whereas women appear to gain from having a “satisfying” sex life, which does not always require an orgasm.

Let us not forget that these benefits apply to both patients and clinicians alike. Addressing intimacy and sexuality can ease eventual sexual concerns and potentially create a stronger clinician-patient relationship.

Dr. Gianotten, MD is emeritus senior lecturer in medical sexology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For health professionals, the thought that our parents and grandparents don’t have sex – or didn’t – might be comforting.

The reality is that, for a significant proportion of our older patients, sex has no use-by date. Humans are sexual beings throughout their lives, yet the culture has concealed that fact.

According to Rome, the purpose of sex is to make children. According to Hollywood, sex is only for the young, the healthy, and the beautiful. For the medical profession, sex consists mainly of risks or dysfunctions.

The results of these biases? Many middle-aged people fear their later sexual life. And medical professionals rarely ask about sexuality. That failing can be harmful. Sexuality and intimacy are essential elements for quality of life, with clear physical, emotional, and relational benefits.

Let’s look at the data when researchers dared to ask seniors about their sexuality.

We start with the 2015 U.K. national research on sexuality. The study found a link between age and a decline in various aspects of sexual activity – but not a zeroing-out. For example, among men aged 70-79, 59% reported having had sex in the past year, with 19% having intercourse at least twice a month and 18% masturbating at least that often. Above age 80, those numbers dropped to 39%, 6%, and 5%, respectively. The reason behind the declines? A combination of taboo, fear of disease, use of medications or other interventions that disrupt sexual function or cause disfigurement, and a little bit of age itself.

What about women? Among women ages 70-79, 39% said they’d had sex in the past year, with 6% having intercourse at least twice per month and 5% masturbating two times or more monthly. Above age 80, those numbers were 10%, 4.5%, and 1%, respectively. Driving the falloff in women were the same factors as for men, plus the sad reality that many heterosexual women become widowed because their older male partners die earlier.

The male-female difference also reflects lower levels of testosterone in women. And, because women say they value intimacy more than performance, we have two explanations for their lower frequency of masturbation. After all, a lot of intimacy occurs without either intercourse or masturbation.

Surprising and relevant is the amount of distress – or rather, their relative lack thereof – older patients report because of sexual problems. At age 18-44, 11% of U.S. women indicated sexual distress; at age 45-64, the figure was 15%; and at age 65 and up, 9%.

For clinicians, those figures should prompt us to look more closely at alternative forms of sexual expression – those not involving intercourse or masturbation – in the aged, a field physicians typically do not consider.

Although dyspareunia or erectile problems affect many in long-standing relationships, neither is a reason to abstain from sexual pleasure. Indeed, in many couples, oral sex will replace vaginal intercourse, and if urinary, fecal, or flatal incontinence intrude, couples often waive oral sex in favor of more cuddling, kissing, digital stimulation, and other forms of sexual pleasure.
 

What about the expiry date for sex?

Fascinating research from Nils Beckman, PhD, and colleagues found that the sex drive persists even as people (and men in particular) reach their 100th year. Dr. Beckman’s group interviewed 269 Swedish seniors, all without dementia, at age 97. Sexual desire was affirmed by 27% of men and 5% of women in the survey. Among the men, 32% said they still had sexual thoughts, compared with 18% of women. Meanwhile, 26% of the men and 15% of the women said they missed sexual activity.

What should clinicians do with this information? First, we could start talking about sex with our older patients. According to the 97-year-old Swedes, most want us to! More than 8 in 10 of both women and men in the survey expressed positive views about questions on sexuality. And please don’t be scared to address the subject in the single senior. They, too, can have a sexual or relationship issue and are happy when we raise the subject. They’re not scared to talk about masturbation, either.

When caring for those with chronic diseases, cancer, in the course of physical rehabilitation, and even in the last phase of life, the clinical experience indicates that our patients are happy when we address sexuality and intimacy. Doing so can open the door to the admission of a problem and a corresponding solution, a lubricant or a PDE5 inhibitor.

But sometimes the solution is the conversation itself: Roughly 25% of patients are sufficiently helped simply by talking about sex. Addressing the importance of sexual pleasure is nearly always valuable.

Here are a few ice-breakers I find helpful:

• Did taking this medication change aspects of sexuality? If so, does that bother you?
• Knowing that continuing intimacy is healthy, do you mind if I address that subject?
• We know that aspects of sexuality and intimacy are healthy. Without a partner, some people become sexually isolated. Would you like to talk about that?’

If addressing sexuality has benefits, what about sex itself?

We are gradually learning more about the many short-, intermediate-, and long-term health benefits of solo and joint sexual activity. Short-term benefits include muscle relaxation, pain relief (even, perhaps ironically, for headaches), and better sleep – all pretty valuable for older adults. Examples of intermediate-term benefits include stress relief and less depression. Research from the United States has found that hugging can reduce the concentrations of proinflammatory cytokines, and kissing positively influences cholesterol levels.

Finally, while the long-term benefits of sex might be less relevant for seniors, they do exist.

Among them are delayed onset of dementia and a substantial reduction in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular problems in men. More sex has been linked to longevity, with men benefiting a bit more than women from going through the entire process, including an orgasm, whereas women appear to gain from having a “satisfying” sex life, which does not always require an orgasm.

Let us not forget that these benefits apply to both patients and clinicians alike. Addressing intimacy and sexuality can ease eventual sexual concerns and potentially create a stronger clinician-patient relationship.

Dr. Gianotten, MD is emeritus senior lecturer in medical sexology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For health professionals, the thought that our parents and grandparents don’t have sex – or didn’t – might be comforting.

The reality is that, for a significant proportion of our older patients, sex has no use-by date. Humans are sexual beings throughout their lives, yet the culture has concealed that fact.

According to Rome, the purpose of sex is to make children. According to Hollywood, sex is only for the young, the healthy, and the beautiful. For the medical profession, sex consists mainly of risks or dysfunctions.

The results of these biases? Many middle-aged people fear their later sexual life. And medical professionals rarely ask about sexuality. That failing can be harmful. Sexuality and intimacy are essential elements for quality of life, with clear physical, emotional, and relational benefits.

Let’s look at the data when researchers dared to ask seniors about their sexuality.

We start with the 2015 U.K. national research on sexuality. The study found a link between age and a decline in various aspects of sexual activity – but not a zeroing-out. For example, among men aged 70-79, 59% reported having had sex in the past year, with 19% having intercourse at least twice a month and 18% masturbating at least that often. Above age 80, those numbers dropped to 39%, 6%, and 5%, respectively. The reason behind the declines? A combination of taboo, fear of disease, use of medications or other interventions that disrupt sexual function or cause disfigurement, and a little bit of age itself.

What about women? Among women ages 70-79, 39% said they’d had sex in the past year, with 6% having intercourse at least twice per month and 5% masturbating two times or more monthly. Above age 80, those numbers were 10%, 4.5%, and 1%, respectively. Driving the falloff in women were the same factors as for men, plus the sad reality that many heterosexual women become widowed because their older male partners die earlier.

The male-female difference also reflects lower levels of testosterone in women. And, because women say they value intimacy more than performance, we have two explanations for their lower frequency of masturbation. After all, a lot of intimacy occurs without either intercourse or masturbation.

Surprising and relevant is the amount of distress – or rather, their relative lack thereof – older patients report because of sexual problems. At age 18-44, 11% of U.S. women indicated sexual distress; at age 45-64, the figure was 15%; and at age 65 and up, 9%.

For clinicians, those figures should prompt us to look more closely at alternative forms of sexual expression – those not involving intercourse or masturbation – in the aged, a field physicians typically do not consider.

Although dyspareunia or erectile problems affect many in long-standing relationships, neither is a reason to abstain from sexual pleasure. Indeed, in many couples, oral sex will replace vaginal intercourse, and if urinary, fecal, or flatal incontinence intrude, couples often waive oral sex in favor of more cuddling, kissing, digital stimulation, and other forms of sexual pleasure.
 

What about the expiry date for sex?

Fascinating research from Nils Beckman, PhD, and colleagues found that the sex drive persists even as people (and men in particular) reach their 100th year. Dr. Beckman’s group interviewed 269 Swedish seniors, all without dementia, at age 97. Sexual desire was affirmed by 27% of men and 5% of women in the survey. Among the men, 32% said they still had sexual thoughts, compared with 18% of women. Meanwhile, 26% of the men and 15% of the women said they missed sexual activity.

What should clinicians do with this information? First, we could start talking about sex with our older patients. According to the 97-year-old Swedes, most want us to! More than 8 in 10 of both women and men in the survey expressed positive views about questions on sexuality. And please don’t be scared to address the subject in the single senior. They, too, can have a sexual or relationship issue and are happy when we raise the subject. They’re not scared to talk about masturbation, either.

When caring for those with chronic diseases, cancer, in the course of physical rehabilitation, and even in the last phase of life, the clinical experience indicates that our patients are happy when we address sexuality and intimacy. Doing so can open the door to the admission of a problem and a corresponding solution, a lubricant or a PDE5 inhibitor.

But sometimes the solution is the conversation itself: Roughly 25% of patients are sufficiently helped simply by talking about sex. Addressing the importance of sexual pleasure is nearly always valuable.

Here are a few ice-breakers I find helpful:

• Did taking this medication change aspects of sexuality? If so, does that bother you?
• Knowing that continuing intimacy is healthy, do you mind if I address that subject?
• We know that aspects of sexuality and intimacy are healthy. Without a partner, some people become sexually isolated. Would you like to talk about that?’

If addressing sexuality has benefits, what about sex itself?

We are gradually learning more about the many short-, intermediate-, and long-term health benefits of solo and joint sexual activity. Short-term benefits include muscle relaxation, pain relief (even, perhaps ironically, for headaches), and better sleep – all pretty valuable for older adults. Examples of intermediate-term benefits include stress relief and less depression. Research from the United States has found that hugging can reduce the concentrations of proinflammatory cytokines, and kissing positively influences cholesterol levels.

Finally, while the long-term benefits of sex might be less relevant for seniors, they do exist.

Among them are delayed onset of dementia and a substantial reduction in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular problems in men. More sex has been linked to longevity, with men benefiting a bit more than women from going through the entire process, including an orgasm, whereas women appear to gain from having a “satisfying” sex life, which does not always require an orgasm.

Let us not forget that these benefits apply to both patients and clinicians alike. Addressing intimacy and sexuality can ease eventual sexual concerns and potentially create a stronger clinician-patient relationship.

Dr. Gianotten, MD is emeritus senior lecturer in medical sexology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

Depression rates among U.S. adults have reached the highest levels ever recorded since the national public opinion firm Gallup started tracking the mental illness in 2015.
 

In a survey, 29% of adults said they had been diagnosed with depression during their lifetime, and 18% said they currently have depression or are being treated for it. Those rates are up from the baseline 2015 rates of 20% of people ever having depression and 11% of people with a current diagnosis.

Depression had been steadily rising before the pandemic, and the Gallup analysts wrote that “social isolation, loneliness, fear of infection, psychological exhaustion (particularly among frontline responders such as health care workers), elevated substance abuse, and disruptions in mental health services have all likely played a role” in the increase.

“The fact that Americans are more depressed and struggling after this time of incredible stress and isolation is perhaps not surprising,” American Psychiatric Association president Rebecca Brendel, MD, told CNN. “There are lingering effects on our health, especially our mental health, from the past 3 years that disrupted everything we knew.”

The new estimates are based on online survey responses collected in February from 5,167 adults in the United States who answered the questions:

• Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?
• Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?

Depression, which is also called major depressive disorder, is a treatable illness that negatively affects how someone feels, thinks, and acts. The symptoms can be both emotional (such as sadness or loss of interest in activities) and physical (such as fatigue or slowed movements or speech).

The latest study found that depression rates increased the most among women, young adults, Black people, and Hispanic people. For the first time, more Black and Hispanic people than White people reported ever being diagnosed with depression. The lifetime depression rate among Black people was 34%, compared with 31% for Hispanic people and 29% for White people.

The rate of lifetime depression among women jumped 10 percentage points in the past 5 years, to 37%, in February, the survey results showed. About 1 in 4 women said they currently had depression or were being treated for it, up 6 percentage points compared with 5 years ago.

When responses were analyzed by age, those 18-44 years old were the most likely to report ever being diagnosed with depression or currently having the illness. About one-third of younger adults have ever been diagnosed, and more than 1 in 5 said they currently have depression.

Dr. Brendel said awareness and reduced stigma could be adding to the rising rates of depression.

“We’re making it easier to talk about mental health and looking at it as part of our overall wellness, just like physical health,” she said. “People are aware of depression, and people are seeking help for it.”

If you or someone you know needs help, dial 988 for support from the national Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. It’s free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can also visit 988lifeline.org and choose the chat feature.

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

Depression rates among U.S. adults have reached the highest levels ever recorded since the national public opinion firm Gallup started tracking the mental illness in 2015.
 

In a survey, 29% of adults said they had been diagnosed with depression during their lifetime, and 18% said they currently have depression or are being treated for it. Those rates are up from the baseline 2015 rates of 20% of people ever having depression and 11% of people with a current diagnosis.

Depression had been steadily rising before the pandemic, and the Gallup analysts wrote that “social isolation, loneliness, fear of infection, psychological exhaustion (particularly among frontline responders such as health care workers), elevated substance abuse, and disruptions in mental health services have all likely played a role” in the increase.

“The fact that Americans are more depressed and struggling after this time of incredible stress and isolation is perhaps not surprising,” American Psychiatric Association president Rebecca Brendel, MD, told CNN. “There are lingering effects on our health, especially our mental health, from the past 3 years that disrupted everything we knew.”

The new estimates are based on online survey responses collected in February from 5,167 adults in the United States who answered the questions:

• Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?
• Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?

Depression, which is also called major depressive disorder, is a treatable illness that negatively affects how someone feels, thinks, and acts. The symptoms can be both emotional (such as sadness or loss of interest in activities) and physical (such as fatigue or slowed movements or speech).

The latest study found that depression rates increased the most among women, young adults, Black people, and Hispanic people. For the first time, more Black and Hispanic people than White people reported ever being diagnosed with depression. The lifetime depression rate among Black people was 34%, compared with 31% for Hispanic people and 29% for White people.

The rate of lifetime depression among women jumped 10 percentage points in the past 5 years, to 37%, in February, the survey results showed. About 1 in 4 women said they currently had depression or were being treated for it, up 6 percentage points compared with 5 years ago.

When responses were analyzed by age, those 18-44 years old were the most likely to report ever being diagnosed with depression or currently having the illness. About one-third of younger adults have ever been diagnosed, and more than 1 in 5 said they currently have depression.

Dr. Brendel said awareness and reduced stigma could be adding to the rising rates of depression.

“We’re making it easier to talk about mental health and looking at it as part of our overall wellness, just like physical health,” she said. “People are aware of depression, and people are seeking help for it.”

If you or someone you know needs help, dial 988 for support from the national Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. It’s free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can also visit 988lifeline.org and choose the chat feature.

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

Depression rates among U.S. adults have reached the highest levels ever recorded since the national public opinion firm Gallup started tracking the mental illness in 2015.
 

In a survey, 29% of adults said they had been diagnosed with depression during their lifetime, and 18% said they currently have depression or are being treated for it. Those rates are up from the baseline 2015 rates of 20% of people ever having depression and 11% of people with a current diagnosis.

Depression had been steadily rising before the pandemic, and the Gallup analysts wrote that “social isolation, loneliness, fear of infection, psychological exhaustion (particularly among frontline responders such as health care workers), elevated substance abuse, and disruptions in mental health services have all likely played a role” in the increase.

“The fact that Americans are more depressed and struggling after this time of incredible stress and isolation is perhaps not surprising,” American Psychiatric Association president Rebecca Brendel, MD, told CNN. “There are lingering effects on our health, especially our mental health, from the past 3 years that disrupted everything we knew.”

The new estimates are based on online survey responses collected in February from 5,167 adults in the United States who answered the questions:

• Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?
• Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?

Depression, which is also called major depressive disorder, is a treatable illness that negatively affects how someone feels, thinks, and acts. The symptoms can be both emotional (such as sadness or loss of interest in activities) and physical (such as fatigue or slowed movements or speech).

The latest study found that depression rates increased the most among women, young adults, Black people, and Hispanic people. For the first time, more Black and Hispanic people than White people reported ever being diagnosed with depression. The lifetime depression rate among Black people was 34%, compared with 31% for Hispanic people and 29% for White people.

The rate of lifetime depression among women jumped 10 percentage points in the past 5 years, to 37%, in February, the survey results showed. About 1 in 4 women said they currently had depression or were being treated for it, up 6 percentage points compared with 5 years ago.

When responses were analyzed by age, those 18-44 years old were the most likely to report ever being diagnosed with depression or currently having the illness. About one-third of younger adults have ever been diagnosed, and more than 1 in 5 said they currently have depression.

Dr. Brendel said awareness and reduced stigma could be adding to the rising rates of depression.

“We’re making it easier to talk about mental health and looking at it as part of our overall wellness, just like physical health,” she said. “People are aware of depression, and people are seeking help for it.”

If you or someone you know needs help, dial 988 for support from the national Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. It’s free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can also visit 988lifeline.org and choose the chat feature.

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

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) made headlines earlier this year with the high-profile case of prominent U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Yet, until very recently, progress in treating this most common form of lymphoma has been stalled for more than 2 decades.

Significant breakthroughs have come in just the past few weeks and months, through the use of CAR T-cell and immunotherapies and with the approval in April by the Food and Drug Administration of polatuzumab for frontline DLBCL.

“Until the publishing of data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492), which led to the approval of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola + R-CHP), we had not had a breakthrough in frontline DLBCL therapies since the addition of rituximab 22 years ago,” said Dr. Charalambos Andreadis, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

University of California, San Francisco

“Pola + R-CHP is an improvement over the standard-of-care treatment, R-CHOP (rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), giving treatment naive patients an increase in PFS without an increase in side effects,” Dr. Andreadis said.

R-CHP-polatuzumab was approved only for patients with an International Prognostic Indices score between 2 and 5, leaving patients with IPI scores of 0 or 1 with the frontline standard of care (SoC) treatment of R-CHOP, which has a cure rate of between 60% and 70%.

“The highest likelihood of relapse is in the first year following treatment. After 2 years in remission, patients’ chance of relapsing is the same as the general populations’ chance of getting DLBCL for the first time. This is why even a slight increase in the progression-free survival rate with the addition of pola is so significant,” Dr. Andreadis noted.

Historically, patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL who did not respond to R-CHOP or who experienced disease relapse less than a year after primary intervention were treated with alternative chemotherapy regimens, often followed by autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT). Randomized control studies have shown that CAR T-cell therapies yield higher success rates than chemotherapy and ASCT, leading to the SoC in RR patients being CAR-T cell therapy directly following failed primary treatment.

“There are many new CAR T-cell platforms in development, as well as novel combination strategies that aim to target critical genetic pathways,” Kieron Dunleavy, MD, professor of medicine at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Hospital, said in an interview. “While access to CAR T-cell therapies is becoming easier and more feasible in many centers, fast access continues to be an issue for many patients, often depending on geography and socioeconomic factors.”

Asked about the latest breakthroughs in treating DLBCL, Dr. Dunleavy said, “A significant proportion of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL do not have easy access to CAR T-cell therapies, so this needs to be addressed and improved. Sometimes the rapidity of clinical progression in DLBCL can make these therapies challenging to deliver, considering logistical issues like apheresis and insurance approvals, which are frequently complex. This highlights the need for alternative and ‘easier to deliver’ CAR-T cells and our continued prioritization of developing alternative effective agents for DLBCL.

“Currently, commercially approved CAR T-cells in DLBCL target the CD-19 marker on lymphoma cells but CAR T-cells targeting other and more than one antigen as well as alternative anti CD19 agents like loncastuximab and tafasitamab are similarly FDA approved and available for patients,” Dr. Dunleavy concluded.

Dr. Dunleavy is affiliated with the MedStar Georgetown Lymphoma group, where Rep. Raskin publicly announced that he had completed 4 months of chemotherapy treatment for DLBCL. On April 27, in an open letter to the U.S. public, he wrote that he rang the bell at MedStar to mark his preliminary diagnosis of being “in remission,” with a “90% prognosis of no relapse.”

Interviewed about the latest advances in treating DLBCL, Jason Westin, MD, associate professor of lymphoma and myeloma at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that even with improvements in overall survival possible with CAR T-cell therapies, “usually, a clinical trial should be considered strongly, as it is often the best option for patients, both in a newly diagnosed or in a relapsed setting, as they allow access to tomorrow’s breakthrough therapies today.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Westin cited the example of bispecific T-cell engagers (BITE) as a promising therapy that is available to patients in clinical trials. These agents bind to one side to the lymphoma cell, but they also have a binding arm for T-cells, so they activate a patient’s own immune cells to kill lymphoma cells, in some cases offering a cure when CAR T-cell therapy has failed.

The first BITE to be approved, mosunetuzumab, is authorized only for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. However, data from a recent clinical study indicated that the agent yields complete responses in 24% of heavily pretreated patients with RR DLBCL.

Another BITE, glofitamab, was approved in Canada in March 2023 for use in RR DLBCL. Based on its high efficacy, it soon may be approved elsewhere.

Dr. Andreadis noted, “We are finally at a point where for both treatment naive and RR DLBCL patients, there are several promising options on the horizon that don’t involve ASCT. Furthermore, these breakthroughs reinforce each other, as there are studies in which therapies like BITE are being brought to the front line and pola to RR cases.”

The growing field of new frontline and RR DLBCL therapies lend credence to the optimism of specialists who treat DLBCL – and to the sanguine note that Congressman Raskin struck in published comments about his treatment for DLBCL.

Dr. Andreadis reported ties with BMS, Novartis, Roche, Genmab, Merck, Gilead, AbbVie, and J&J. Dr. Dunleavy disclosed relationships with ONO Pharmaceuticals, Kymera, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Amgen, ADC Therapeutics, MorphoSys and Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Cellectar. Dr. Westin reported ties with Kite/Gilead, BMS, Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Morphosys/Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Kymera, Nurix, and MonteRosa.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) made headlines earlier this year with the high-profile case of prominent U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Yet, until very recently, progress in treating this most common form of lymphoma has been stalled for more than 2 decades.

Significant breakthroughs have come in just the past few weeks and months, through the use of CAR T-cell and immunotherapies and with the approval in April by the Food and Drug Administration of polatuzumab for frontline DLBCL.

“Until the publishing of data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492), which led to the approval of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola + R-CHP), we had not had a breakthrough in frontline DLBCL therapies since the addition of rituximab 22 years ago,” said Dr. Charalambos Andreadis, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

University of California, San Francisco

“Pola + R-CHP is an improvement over the standard-of-care treatment, R-CHOP (rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), giving treatment naive patients an increase in PFS without an increase in side effects,” Dr. Andreadis said.

R-CHP-polatuzumab was approved only for patients with an International Prognostic Indices score between 2 and 5, leaving patients with IPI scores of 0 or 1 with the frontline standard of care (SoC) treatment of R-CHOP, which has a cure rate of between 60% and 70%.

“The highest likelihood of relapse is in the first year following treatment. After 2 years in remission, patients’ chance of relapsing is the same as the general populations’ chance of getting DLBCL for the first time. This is why even a slight increase in the progression-free survival rate with the addition of pola is so significant,” Dr. Andreadis noted.

Historically, patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL who did not respond to R-CHOP or who experienced disease relapse less than a year after primary intervention were treated with alternative chemotherapy regimens, often followed by autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT). Randomized control studies have shown that CAR T-cell therapies yield higher success rates than chemotherapy and ASCT, leading to the SoC in RR patients being CAR-T cell therapy directly following failed primary treatment.

“There are many new CAR T-cell platforms in development, as well as novel combination strategies that aim to target critical genetic pathways,” Kieron Dunleavy, MD, professor of medicine at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Hospital, said in an interview. “While access to CAR T-cell therapies is becoming easier and more feasible in many centers, fast access continues to be an issue for many patients, often depending on geography and socioeconomic factors.”

Asked about the latest breakthroughs in treating DLBCL, Dr. Dunleavy said, “A significant proportion of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL do not have easy access to CAR T-cell therapies, so this needs to be addressed and improved. Sometimes the rapidity of clinical progression in DLBCL can make these therapies challenging to deliver, considering logistical issues like apheresis and insurance approvals, which are frequently complex. This highlights the need for alternative and ‘easier to deliver’ CAR-T cells and our continued prioritization of developing alternative effective agents for DLBCL.

“Currently, commercially approved CAR T-cells in DLBCL target the CD-19 marker on lymphoma cells but CAR T-cells targeting other and more than one antigen as well as alternative anti CD19 agents like loncastuximab and tafasitamab are similarly FDA approved and available for patients,” Dr. Dunleavy concluded.

Dr. Dunleavy is affiliated with the MedStar Georgetown Lymphoma group, where Rep. Raskin publicly announced that he had completed 4 months of chemotherapy treatment for DLBCL. On April 27, in an open letter to the U.S. public, he wrote that he rang the bell at MedStar to mark his preliminary diagnosis of being “in remission,” with a “90% prognosis of no relapse.”

Interviewed about the latest advances in treating DLBCL, Jason Westin, MD, associate professor of lymphoma and myeloma at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that even with improvements in overall survival possible with CAR T-cell therapies, “usually, a clinical trial should be considered strongly, as it is often the best option for patients, both in a newly diagnosed or in a relapsed setting, as they allow access to tomorrow’s breakthrough therapies today.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Westin cited the example of bispecific T-cell engagers (BITE) as a promising therapy that is available to patients in clinical trials. These agents bind to one side to the lymphoma cell, but they also have a binding arm for T-cells, so they activate a patient’s own immune cells to kill lymphoma cells, in some cases offering a cure when CAR T-cell therapy has failed.

The first BITE to be approved, mosunetuzumab, is authorized only for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. However, data from a recent clinical study indicated that the agent yields complete responses in 24% of heavily pretreated patients with RR DLBCL.

Another BITE, glofitamab, was approved in Canada in March 2023 for use in RR DLBCL. Based on its high efficacy, it soon may be approved elsewhere.

Dr. Andreadis noted, “We are finally at a point where for both treatment naive and RR DLBCL patients, there are several promising options on the horizon that don’t involve ASCT. Furthermore, these breakthroughs reinforce each other, as there are studies in which therapies like BITE are being brought to the front line and pola to RR cases.”

The growing field of new frontline and RR DLBCL therapies lend credence to the optimism of specialists who treat DLBCL – and to the sanguine note that Congressman Raskin struck in published comments about his treatment for DLBCL.

Dr. Andreadis reported ties with BMS, Novartis, Roche, Genmab, Merck, Gilead, AbbVie, and J&J. Dr. Dunleavy disclosed relationships with ONO Pharmaceuticals, Kymera, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Amgen, ADC Therapeutics, MorphoSys and Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Cellectar. Dr. Westin reported ties with Kite/Gilead, BMS, Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Morphosys/Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Kymera, Nurix, and MonteRosa.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) made headlines earlier this year with the high-profile case of prominent U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Yet, until very recently, progress in treating this most common form of lymphoma has been stalled for more than 2 decades.

Significant breakthroughs have come in just the past few weeks and months, through the use of CAR T-cell and immunotherapies and with the approval in April by the Food and Drug Administration of polatuzumab for frontline DLBCL.

“Until the publishing of data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492), which led to the approval of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola + R-CHP), we had not had a breakthrough in frontline DLBCL therapies since the addition of rituximab 22 years ago,” said Dr. Charalambos Andreadis, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

University of California, San Francisco

“Pola + R-CHP is an improvement over the standard-of-care treatment, R-CHOP (rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), giving treatment naive patients an increase in PFS without an increase in side effects,” Dr. Andreadis said.

R-CHP-polatuzumab was approved only for patients with an International Prognostic Indices score between 2 and 5, leaving patients with IPI scores of 0 or 1 with the frontline standard of care (SoC) treatment of R-CHOP, which has a cure rate of between 60% and 70%.

“The highest likelihood of relapse is in the first year following treatment. After 2 years in remission, patients’ chance of relapsing is the same as the general populations’ chance of getting DLBCL for the first time. This is why even a slight increase in the progression-free survival rate with the addition of pola is so significant,” Dr. Andreadis noted.

Historically, patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL who did not respond to R-CHOP or who experienced disease relapse less than a year after primary intervention were treated with alternative chemotherapy regimens, often followed by autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT). Randomized control studies have shown that CAR T-cell therapies yield higher success rates than chemotherapy and ASCT, leading to the SoC in RR patients being CAR-T cell therapy directly following failed primary treatment.

“There are many new CAR T-cell platforms in development, as well as novel combination strategies that aim to target critical genetic pathways,” Kieron Dunleavy, MD, professor of medicine at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Hospital, said in an interview. “While access to CAR T-cell therapies is becoming easier and more feasible in many centers, fast access continues to be an issue for many patients, often depending on geography and socioeconomic factors.”

Asked about the latest breakthroughs in treating DLBCL, Dr. Dunleavy said, “A significant proportion of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL do not have easy access to CAR T-cell therapies, so this needs to be addressed and improved. Sometimes the rapidity of clinical progression in DLBCL can make these therapies challenging to deliver, considering logistical issues like apheresis and insurance approvals, which are frequently complex. This highlights the need for alternative and ‘easier to deliver’ CAR-T cells and our continued prioritization of developing alternative effective agents for DLBCL.

“Currently, commercially approved CAR T-cells in DLBCL target the CD-19 marker on lymphoma cells but CAR T-cells targeting other and more than one antigen as well as alternative anti CD19 agents like loncastuximab and tafasitamab are similarly FDA approved and available for patients,” Dr. Dunleavy concluded.

Dr. Dunleavy is affiliated with the MedStar Georgetown Lymphoma group, where Rep. Raskin publicly announced that he had completed 4 months of chemotherapy treatment for DLBCL. On April 27, in an open letter to the U.S. public, he wrote that he rang the bell at MedStar to mark his preliminary diagnosis of being “in remission,” with a “90% prognosis of no relapse.”

Interviewed about the latest advances in treating DLBCL, Jason Westin, MD, associate professor of lymphoma and myeloma at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that even with improvements in overall survival possible with CAR T-cell therapies, “usually, a clinical trial should be considered strongly, as it is often the best option for patients, both in a newly diagnosed or in a relapsed setting, as they allow access to tomorrow’s breakthrough therapies today.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Westin cited the example of bispecific T-cell engagers (BITE) as a promising therapy that is available to patients in clinical trials. These agents bind to one side to the lymphoma cell, but they also have a binding arm for T-cells, so they activate a patient’s own immune cells to kill lymphoma cells, in some cases offering a cure when CAR T-cell therapy has failed.

The first BITE to be approved, mosunetuzumab, is authorized only for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. However, data from a recent clinical study indicated that the agent yields complete responses in 24% of heavily pretreated patients with RR DLBCL.

Another BITE, glofitamab, was approved in Canada in March 2023 for use in RR DLBCL. Based on its high efficacy, it soon may be approved elsewhere.

Dr. Andreadis noted, “We are finally at a point where for both treatment naive and RR DLBCL patients, there are several promising options on the horizon that don’t involve ASCT. Furthermore, these breakthroughs reinforce each other, as there are studies in which therapies like BITE are being brought to the front line and pola to RR cases.”

The growing field of new frontline and RR DLBCL therapies lend credence to the optimism of specialists who treat DLBCL – and to the sanguine note that Congressman Raskin struck in published comments about his treatment for DLBCL.

Dr. Andreadis reported ties with BMS, Novartis, Roche, Genmab, Merck, Gilead, AbbVie, and J&J. Dr. Dunleavy disclosed relationships with ONO Pharmaceuticals, Kymera, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Amgen, ADC Therapeutics, MorphoSys and Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Cellectar. Dr. Westin reported ties with Kite/Gilead, BMS, Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Morphosys/Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Kymera, Nurix, and MonteRosa.

Hagop Kantarjian, MD, has been named the recipient of the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in recognition of his practice-changing clinical-translational research in leukemia.

This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.

The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
 

From Lebanon to Texas

Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.

It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.

“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
 

Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes

The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:

• Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
• Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
• Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
• Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
• Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.

“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
 

Giving back

Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.

He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.

Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.

He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.

Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.

“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.

Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.

Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.

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

Hagop Kantarjian, MD, has been named the recipient of the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in recognition of his practice-changing clinical-translational research in leukemia.

This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.

The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
 

From Lebanon to Texas

Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.

It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.

“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
 

Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes

The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:

• Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
• Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
• Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
• Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
• Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.

“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
 

Giving back

Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.

He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.

Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.

He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.

Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.

“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.

Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.

Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.

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

Hagop Kantarjian, MD, has been named the recipient of the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in recognition of his practice-changing clinical-translational research in leukemia.

This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.

The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
 

From Lebanon to Texas

Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.

It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.

“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
 

Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes

The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:

• Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
• Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
• Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
• Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
• Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.

“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
 

Giving back

Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.

He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.

Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.

He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.

Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.

“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.

Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.

Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.

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

Approximately 1 in 4 people ages 18 years and older and 1 in 3 people ages 18 to 25 years had a mental illness in the past year, according to the 2021 National Survey of Drug Use and Health.¹ The survey also found that adults ages 18 to 25 years had the highest rate of serious mental illness but the lowest treatment rate compared to other adult age groups.¹ Unfortunately, more than 60% of patients receiving mental health treatment fail to benefit to a clinically meaningful degree.²

However, there is growing evidence that referring patients to behavioral health practitioners (BHPs) with outcome-measured skills that meet the patient’s specific needs can have a dramatic and positive impact. There are 2 main steps to pairing patients with an appropriate BHP: (1) use of measurement-based care data that can be analyzed at the patient and therapist level, and (2) data-driven referrals that pair patients with BHPs based on such routine outcome monitoring data (paired-on outcome data).

Psychotherapy’s slow road toward measurement-based care

Routine outcome monitoring is the systematic measurement of symptoms and functioning during treatment. It serves multiple functions, including program evaluation and benchmarking of patient improvement rates. Moreover, routine outcome monitoring–­derived feedback (based on repeated patient outcome measurements) can inform personalized and responsive care decisions throughout treatment.

For all intents and purposes, routine outcome monitoring plus feedback is synonymous with measurement-based care, which is becoming the preferred term in psychotherapy.³ Although measurement-based care is often the standard of practice for treating physical health conditions, the adoption of measurement-based care practices for treating mental health conditions remains low.³ The implementation of routine outcome monitoring is the lynchpin of measurement-based care, which in psychotherapy includes³:

• routinely administered symptom/functioning measure, ideally before each clinical encounter,
• practitioner review of these patient-level data,
• patient review of these data with their practitioner, and
• collaborative reevaluation of the person-specific treatment plan informed by these data.

CASE SCENARIO

Violeta W is a 33-year-old woman who presented to her family physician for her annual wellness exam. Prior to the exam, the medical assistant administered a Patient Health ­Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to screen for depressive symptoms. Ms. W’s score was 20 out of 27, suggestive of depression. To further assess the severity of depressive symptoms and their effect on daily function, the physician reviewed responses to the questionnaire with her and discussed treatment options. Ms. W was most interested in trying a low-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

At her follow-up visit 4 weeks later, the medical assistant re-administered the PHQ-9. The physician then reviewed Ms. W’s responses­ with her and, based on Ms. W’s subjective report and objective symptoms (still a score of 20 out of 27 on the PHQ-9), increased her SSRI dose. At each subsequent visit, Ms. W completed a PHQ-9 and reviewed responses and depressive symptoms with her physician.

The value of measurement-based care in mental health care

A narrative review by Lewis et al³ of 21 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) across a range of age groups (eg, adolescents, young adults, adults), disorders (eg, anxiety, mood), and settings (eg, outpatient, inpatient) found that in at least 9 review articles, measurement-based care was associated with significantly improved outcomes vs usual care (ie, treatment without routine outcome monitoring plus feedback). The average increase in treatment effect size was about 30% when treatment was accompanied by measurement-based care.³

Continue to: Moreover, a recent within-patient meta-analysis...

Routine outcome monitoring– derived feedback can inform personalized and responsive care decisions throughout treatment.

Moreover, a recent within-patient meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ shows that ­measurement-based care yields a small but significant increase in therapeutic outcomes (d = .15). Use of measurement-based care also is associated with improved communication between the patient and therapist.⁵ In pharmacotherapy practice, measurement-based care has been shown to predict rapid dose increases and changes in medication, when necessary; faster recovery rates; higher response rates to treatment³; and fewer ­dropouts.⁴

Perhaps one of the best-studied benefits of measurement-based mental health care is the ability to predict deterioration in care (ie, patients who are off-track in a way that practitioners often miss without the help of routine outcome monitoring data).^6,7 Studies show that without a data-informed approach to care, some forms of psychotherapy or therapy with BHPs who are not sufficiently skilled in treating a given diagnosis increase symptoms or create significant harmful and iatrogenic effects.^8-10 Conversely, the meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ found a lower percentage of deterioration in patients receiving ­measurement-based care. The difference in deterioration was significant: An average of 5.4% of patients in control conditions deteriorated compared to an average of 4.6% in feedback (measurement-based care) groups. There were even larger effect sizes when therapists received training in the feedback system.⁴

Routine outcome monitoring without a dialogue between patient and practitioner about the assessments (eg, ignoring complete measurement-based care requirements) may be inadequate. A recent review by Muir et al⁶ found no differences in patient outcomes when data were used solely for aggregate quality improvement activities, suggesting the need for practitioners to review results of routine outcome monitoring assessments with patients and use data to alter care when necessary.

Measurement-based care is believed to deliver benefits and reduce harm by enhancing and encouraging active patient involvement, improving patient understanding of symptoms, promoting better communication, and facilitating better care coordination.³ The benefits of measurement-based care can be enhanced with a comprehensive core routine outcome monitoring tool and the level of monitoring-generated information delivered for multiple stakeholders (eg, patient, therapist, clinic).¹¹

A look at multidimensional assessment

The features of routine outcome monitoring tools vary significantly.¹² Some measures assess single-symptom or problem domains (eg, PHQ-9 for depression or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7] scale for anxiety) or multiple dimensions (multidimensional routine outcome monitoring). Multidimensional routine outcome monitoring may have benefits over single-domain measures. Single­-domain measures and the subscales or factors of more comprehensive multidimensional routine outcome monitoring assessments should possess adequate specificity and sensitivity.

Continue to: Some recent research findings...

Some recent research findings question the construct validity of brief single-domain measures of common presenting problems, such as depression and anxiety. For example, results from a factor analysis of the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scale in patients with traumatic brain injury suggest these tools measure 1 psychological construct that includes depression and the cognitive components of anxiety (eg, worry)¹³—a finding consistent with those of other tools.¹⁴ Similarly, a larger study of 7763 BH patients found that a single factor accounted for most of the variance of the 2 combined measures, with no set of factors meeting the exacting standards used to develop multidimensional routine outcome monitoring.¹⁵ These findings suggest that the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 largely overlap and are not measuring different aspects of health as most practitioners believe (eg, depression and anxiety).

In commonly used assessments, ­multiple-factor analytic studies with high standards have supported the construct validity of domain-specific subscales, indicating that the various questions tap into different constructs of psychological health.^14,16,17

Perhaps one of the best-studied benefits of mental health measurementbased care is the ability to predict deterioration in care.

Beyond multiple domain–specific indicators, multidimensional routine outcome measurements provide a global total score that minimizes Type I (false-positive conclusion) and Type II (false-negative conclusion) errors in tracking patient improvement or deterioration.¹⁸ As one would expect, multidimensional routine outcome monitoring generally includes more items than single-domain measures; however, this comes with a trade-off. If there are specificity and sensitivity concerns with an ultra-brief single-domain measure, an alternative to a core multidimensional routine outcome measurement is to aggregate a series of single-domain measures into a battery of patient self-reports. However, this approach may take longer for patients to complete since they would have to shift among the varying response sets and wording across the unique single-domain measures.

In addition, the standardization/­normalization of multidimensional routine outcome monitoring likely makes interpretation easier than referring to norms and clinical severity cutoffs for many distinct measures. Furthermore, increased specificity enhances predictive power and allows BHPs to screen and track other conditions besides depression and anxiety. (It is worth noting that there are no known studies that have looked at the difference in time to administer or ease of interpretation of multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tools vs multiple single-domain measures.)

Two multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tools that cover a comprehensive series of discrete symptom and functional domains are the Treatment Outcome Package¹² and Counseling Center ­Assessment of Psychological Symptoms.¹⁶ These tools, which include subscales beyond general depression and anxiety (eg, sleep, substance misuse, social conflict), take 7 to 10 minutes to complete and provide outcome results across 12 symptom and 8 functional dimensions. As an example, the Treatment Outcome Package has good psychometric qualities (eg, reliability, construct and concurrent validity) for adults,¹² children,^14,19 and adolescents,¹⁹ and can be administered through a secure online data collection portal. The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms has demonstrated high construct validity and good convergent validity.¹⁶ These assessments can be administered in paper or digital (eg, electronic medical record portal, smartphone) format.²⁰

Continue to: CASE SCENARIO

CASE SCENARIO

Ms. W’s physician asked her to go online using her phone and answer the questions in the Treatment Outcome Package. Her results, which she viewed with her physician, were displayed in graph form (FIGURE). Her scores were represented in Z scores normalized to the general population, with “0” representing the general, nontreatment-seeking population average and positive scores representing the number of standard deviations (SDs) more severe than the general population average.

Although this assessment scored Ms. W’s clinically elevated depression as mild, it revealed abnormalities in 3 other domains. Sexual functioning issues represented the most abnormal domain at greater than 3 SDs (more severe than the general population), followed by poor life quality and school/work functioning.

After reviewing Ms. W’s report, her physician decided that pharmacologic management alone (for depression) was not the most appropriate treatment course. Therefore, her physician recommended psychotherapy in addition to the SSRI she was taking. Ms. W agreed to a customized referral for psychotherapy.

Data-driven referrals

When psychotherapy is chosen as a treatment, the individual BHP is an active component of that treatment. Consequently, it is essential to customize referrals to match a patient’s most elevated mental health concerns with a therapist who will most effectively treat those domains. It is rare for a BHP to be skilled in treating every mental health domain.⁹ Multiple studies have shown that BHPs have identifiable treatment skills in specific domains, which physicians should consider when making referrals.^9,21,22 These studies demonstrate the utility of aggregating patient-level routine outcome monitoring data to better understand therapist-level (and ultimately clinic- and system-level) outcomes.

It is essential to customize referrals to match a patient’s most elevated mental health concerns with a therapist who will most effectively treat those domains.

Additionally, recent research has tested this idea prospectively. An RCT funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute and published in JAMA Psychiatry showed a significant and positive effect on patient outcomes (ie, reductions in general impairment, impairment involving a patient’s most elevated domain, and global distress) using paired-on outcome data matching vs as-usual matching protocols (eg, therapist self-defined areas of specialty).²² In the RCT, the most effective matching protocol was a combination of eliminating harm and matching the patient on their 3 most problematic domains (the highest match level). These patients ended care as healthy as the general population after 16 weeks of treatment. A random 1-year follow-up assessment from the original RCT showed that most patients who had been matched had maintained their improvement.²³

Continue to: Therefore, a multidimensional routine outcome...

Therefore, a multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tool can be used to identify a BHP’s relative strengths and weaknesses across multiple outcome domains. Within a system of care, a sample of BHPs will possess varying outcome-domain profiles. When a new patient is seeking a referral to a BHP, these profiles (or domain-specific outcome track records) can be used to support paired-on outcome data matching. Specifically, a new patient completes the multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tool at pretreatment, and the results reveal the outcome domains on which the patient is most clinically severe. This pattern of domain-specific severity then can be used to pair the new patient with a BHP who has demonstrated success in addressing the same outcome domain(s). This approach matches a new patient to a BHP with established expertise based on routine outcome monitoring.

Retrospective and prospective studies have found that most BHPs have stable performance in their strengths and weaknesses.^11,21 One study found that assessing BHP performance with their most recent 30 patients can reliably predict future performance with their next 30 patients.²⁴ This predictability in a practitioner’s outcomes suggests report cards that are updated frequently can be utilized to make case assignments within BH or referrals to a specific BHP from primary care.

Making a paired-on outcome data–matched referral

Making customized BH referrals requires access to information about a practitioner’s previous routine outcome monitoring data per clinical domain (eg, suicidality, violence, quality of life) from their most recent patients. Previous research suggests that follow-up data from a minimum of 15 patients is necessary to make a reliable evaluation of a practitioner’s strengths and weaknesses (ie, effectiveness “report card”) per clinical ­domain.²⁴

Previous research suggests that follow-up data from a minimum of 15 patients is necessary to make a reliable evaluation of a practitioner’s strengths and weaknesses.

Few, if any, physicians have access to this level of updated outcome data from their referral network. To facilitate widespread use of paired-on outcome data matching, a new Web system (MatchedTherapists.com) will allow the general public and PCPs to access these grades. As a public service option, this site currently allows for a self-assessment using the Treatment Outcome Package. Pending versions will generate paired-on outcome data grades, and users will receive a list of local therapists available for in-person appointments as well as therapists available for virtual appointments. The paired-on outcome data grades are delivered in school-based letter grades. An “A+,” for example, represents the best matching grade. Users also will be able to sort and filter results for other criteria such as telemedicine, insurance, age, gender, and appointment availability. Currently, there are more than 77,000 therapists listed on the site nationwide. A basic listing is free.

CASE SCENARIO

After Ms. W took the multidimensional routine outcome assessment online, she received a list of therapists rank-ordered by paired-on outcome data grade, with the “A+” matches listed first. Three of the best-matched referrals accepted her insurance and were willing to see her through telemedicine. Therapists with available in-person appointments had a “B” grade. After discussing the options with her physician, Ms. W opted for telehealth counseling with the therapist whose profile she liked best. The therapist and PCP tracked her progress through routine outcome monitoring reporting until all her symptoms became subclinical.

Continue to: The future of a "referral bridge"

 

 

The future of a “referral bridge”

In this article, we present a solution to a common issue faced by mental health care patients: failure to benefit meaningfully from mental health treatment. Matching patients to specific BHPs based on effectiveness data regarding the therapist’s strengths and skills can improve patient outcomes and reduce harm. In addition, patients appear to value this approach. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation–­funded study demonstrated that patients value seeing practitioners who have a track record of successfully treating previous patients with similar issues.^25,26 In many cases, patients indicated they would prioritize this matching process over other factors such as practitioners with a higher number of years of experience or the same demographic characteristics as the patient.^25,26

In many cases, patients indicated they would prioritize this matching process over other factors such as practitioners with a higher number of years of experience.

These findings may represent a new area in the science of health care. Over the past century, major advances in diagnosis and treatment—the 2 primary pillars of health care—have turned the art of medicine into a science. However, the art of making referrals has not advanced commensurately, as there has been little attention focused on the “referral bridge” between these 2 pillars. As the studies reviewed in this paper demonstrate, a referral bridge deserves exploration in all fields of medicine.

CORRESPONDENCE
David R. Kraus, PhD, 1 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701; dkraus@outcomereferrals.com

Approximately 1 in 4 people ages 18 years and older and 1 in 3 people ages 18 to 25 years had a mental illness in the past year, according to the 2021 National Survey of Drug Use and Health.¹ The survey also found that adults ages 18 to 25 years had the highest rate of serious mental illness but the lowest treatment rate compared to other adult age groups.¹ Unfortunately, more than 60% of patients receiving mental health treatment fail to benefit to a clinically meaningful degree.²

However, there is growing evidence that referring patients to behavioral health practitioners (BHPs) with outcome-measured skills that meet the patient’s specific needs can have a dramatic and positive impact. There are 2 main steps to pairing patients with an appropriate BHP: (1) use of measurement-based care data that can be analyzed at the patient and therapist level, and (2) data-driven referrals that pair patients with BHPs based on such routine outcome monitoring data (paired-on outcome data).

Psychotherapy’s slow road toward measurement-based care

Routine outcome monitoring is the systematic measurement of symptoms and functioning during treatment. It serves multiple functions, including program evaluation and benchmarking of patient improvement rates. Moreover, routine outcome monitoring–­derived feedback (based on repeated patient outcome measurements) can inform personalized and responsive care decisions throughout treatment.

For all intents and purposes, routine outcome monitoring plus feedback is synonymous with measurement-based care, which is becoming the preferred term in psychotherapy.³ Although measurement-based care is often the standard of practice for treating physical health conditions, the adoption of measurement-based care practices for treating mental health conditions remains low.³ The implementation of routine outcome monitoring is the lynchpin of measurement-based care, which in psychotherapy includes³:

• routinely administered symptom/functioning measure, ideally before each clinical encounter,
• practitioner review of these patient-level data,
• patient review of these data with their practitioner, and
• collaborative reevaluation of the person-specific treatment plan informed by these data.

CASE SCENARIO

Violeta W is a 33-year-old woman who presented to her family physician for her annual wellness exam. Prior to the exam, the medical assistant administered a Patient Health ­Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to screen for depressive symptoms. Ms. W’s score was 20 out of 27, suggestive of depression. To further assess the severity of depressive symptoms and their effect on daily function, the physician reviewed responses to the questionnaire with her and discussed treatment options. Ms. W was most interested in trying a low-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

At her follow-up visit 4 weeks later, the medical assistant re-administered the PHQ-9. The physician then reviewed Ms. W’s responses­ with her and, based on Ms. W’s subjective report and objective symptoms (still a score of 20 out of 27 on the PHQ-9), increased her SSRI dose. At each subsequent visit, Ms. W completed a PHQ-9 and reviewed responses and depressive symptoms with her physician.

The value of measurement-based care in mental health care

A narrative review by Lewis et al³ of 21 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) across a range of age groups (eg, adolescents, young adults, adults), disorders (eg, anxiety, mood), and settings (eg, outpatient, inpatient) found that in at least 9 review articles, measurement-based care was associated with significantly improved outcomes vs usual care (ie, treatment without routine outcome monitoring plus feedback). The average increase in treatment effect size was about 30% when treatment was accompanied by measurement-based care.³

Continue to: Moreover, a recent within-patient meta-analysis...

Routine outcome monitoring– derived feedback can inform personalized and responsive care decisions throughout treatment.

Moreover, a recent within-patient meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ shows that ­measurement-based care yields a small but significant increase in therapeutic outcomes (d = .15). Use of measurement-based care also is associated with improved communication between the patient and therapist.⁵ In pharmacotherapy practice, measurement-based care has been shown to predict rapid dose increases and changes in medication, when necessary; faster recovery rates; higher response rates to treatment³; and fewer ­dropouts.⁴

Perhaps one of the best-studied benefits of measurement-based mental health care is the ability to predict deterioration in care (ie, patients who are off-track in a way that practitioners often miss without the help of routine outcome monitoring data).^6,7 Studies show that without a data-informed approach to care, some forms of psychotherapy or therapy with BHPs who are not sufficiently skilled in treating a given diagnosis increase symptoms or create significant harmful and iatrogenic effects.^8-10 Conversely, the meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ found a lower percentage of deterioration in patients receiving ­measurement-based care. The difference in deterioration was significant: An average of 5.4% of patients in control conditions deteriorated compared to an average of 4.6% in feedback (measurement-based care) groups. There were even larger effect sizes when therapists received training in the feedback system.⁴

Routine outcome monitoring without a dialogue between patient and practitioner about the assessments (eg, ignoring complete measurement-based care requirements) may be inadequate. A recent review by Muir et al⁶ found no differences in patient outcomes when data were used solely for aggregate quality improvement activities, suggesting the need for practitioners to review results of routine outcome monitoring assessments with patients and use data to alter care when necessary.

Measurement-based care is believed to deliver benefits and reduce harm by enhancing and encouraging active patient involvement, improving patient understanding of symptoms, promoting better communication, and facilitating better care coordination.³ The benefits of measurement-based care can be enhanced with a comprehensive core routine outcome monitoring tool and the level of monitoring-generated information delivered for multiple stakeholders (eg, patient, therapist, clinic).¹¹

A look at multidimensional assessment

The features of routine outcome monitoring tools vary significantly.¹² Some measures assess single-symptom or problem domains (eg, PHQ-9 for depression or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7] scale for anxiety) or multiple dimensions (multidimensional routine outcome monitoring). Multidimensional routine outcome monitoring may have benefits over single-domain measures. Single­-domain measures and the subscales or factors of more comprehensive multidimensional routine outcome monitoring assessments should possess adequate specificity and sensitivity.

Continue to: Some recent research findings...

Some recent research findings question the construct validity of brief single-domain measures of common presenting problems, such as depression and anxiety. For example, results from a factor analysis of the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scale in patients with traumatic brain injury suggest these tools measure 1 psychological construct that includes depression and the cognitive components of anxiety (eg, worry)¹³—a finding consistent with those of other tools.¹⁴ Similarly, a larger study of 7763 BH patients found that a single factor accounted for most of the variance of the 2 combined measures, with no set of factors meeting the exacting standards used to develop multidimensional routine outcome monitoring.¹⁵ These findings suggest that the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 largely overlap and are not measuring different aspects of health as most practitioners believe (eg, depression and anxiety).

In commonly used assessments, ­multiple-factor analytic studies with high standards have supported the construct validity of domain-specific subscales, indicating that the various questions tap into different constructs of psychological health.^14,16,17

Perhaps one of the best-studied benefits of mental health measurementbased care is the ability to predict deterioration in care.

Beyond multiple domain–specific indicators, multidimensional routine outcome measurements provide a global total score that minimizes Type I (false-positive conclusion) and Type II (false-negative conclusion) errors in tracking patient improvement or deterioration.¹⁸ As one would expect, multidimensional routine outcome monitoring generally includes more items than single-domain measures; however, this comes with a trade-off. If there are specificity and sensitivity concerns with an ultra-brief single-domain measure, an alternative to a core multidimensional routine outcome measurement is to aggregate a series of single-domain measures into a battery of patient self-reports. However, this approach may take longer for patients to complete since they would have to shift among the varying response sets and wording across the unique single-domain measures.

In addition, the standardization/­normalization of multidimensional routine outcome monitoring likely makes interpretation easier than referring to norms and clinical severity cutoffs for many distinct measures. Furthermore, increased specificity enhances predictive power and allows BHPs to screen and track other conditions besides depression and anxiety. (It is worth noting that there are no known studies that have looked at the difference in time to administer or ease of interpretation of multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tools vs multiple single-domain measures.)

Two multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tools that cover a comprehensive series of discrete symptom and functional domains are the Treatment Outcome Package¹² and Counseling Center ­Assessment of Psychological Symptoms.¹⁶ These tools, which include subscales beyond general depression and anxiety (eg, sleep, substance misuse, social conflict), take 7 to 10 minutes to complete and provide outcome results across 12 symptom and 8 functional dimensions. As an example, the Treatment Outcome Package has good psychometric qualities (eg, reliability, construct and concurrent validity) for adults,¹² children,^14,19 and adolescents,¹⁹ and can be administered through a secure online data collection portal. The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms has demonstrated high construct validity and good convergent validity.¹⁶ These assessments can be administered in paper or digital (eg, electronic medical record portal, smartphone) format.²⁰

Continue to: CASE SCENARIO

CASE SCENARIO

Ms. W’s physician asked her to go online using her phone and answer the questions in the Treatment Outcome Package. Her results, which she viewed with her physician, were displayed in graph form (FIGURE). Her scores were represented in Z scores normalized to the general population, with “0” representing the general, nontreatment-seeking population average and positive scores representing the number of standard deviations (SDs) more severe than the general population average.

Although this assessment scored Ms. W’s clinically elevated depression as mild, it revealed abnormalities in 3 other domains. Sexual functioning issues represented the most abnormal domain at greater than 3 SDs (more severe than the general population), followed by poor life quality and school/work functioning.

After reviewing Ms. W’s report, her physician decided that pharmacologic management alone (for depression) was not the most appropriate treatment course. Therefore, her physician recommended psychotherapy in addition to the SSRI she was taking. Ms. W agreed to a customized referral for psychotherapy.

Data-driven referrals

When psychotherapy is chosen as a treatment, the individual BHP is an active component of that treatment. Consequently, it is essential to customize referrals to match a patient’s most elevated mental health concerns with a therapist who will most effectively treat those domains. It is rare for a BHP to be skilled in treating every mental health domain.⁹ Multiple studies have shown that BHPs have identifiable treatment skills in specific domains, which physicians should consider when making referrals.^9,21,22 These studies demonstrate the utility of aggregating patient-level routine outcome monitoring data to better understand therapist-level (and ultimately clinic- and system-level) outcomes.

It is essential to customize referrals to match a patient’s most elevated mental health concerns with a therapist who will most effectively treat those domains.

Additionally, recent research has tested this idea prospectively. An RCT funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute and published in JAMA Psychiatry showed a significant and positive effect on patient outcomes (ie, reductions in general impairment, impairment involving a patient’s most elevated domain, and global distress) using paired-on outcome data matching vs as-usual matching protocols (eg, therapist self-defined areas of specialty).²² In the RCT, the most effective matching protocol was a combination of eliminating harm and matching the patient on their 3 most problematic domains (the highest match level). These patients ended care as healthy as the general population after 16 weeks of treatment. A random 1-year follow-up assessment from the original RCT showed that most patients who had been matched had maintained their improvement.²³

Continue to: Therefore, a multidimensional routine outcome...

Therefore, a multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tool can be used to identify a BHP’s relative strengths and weaknesses across multiple outcome domains. Within a system of care, a sample of BHPs will possess varying outcome-domain profiles. When a new patient is seeking a referral to a BHP, these profiles (or domain-specific outcome track records) can be used to support paired-on outcome data matching. Specifically, a new patient completes the multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tool at pretreatment, and the results reveal the outcome domains on which the patient is most clinically severe. This pattern of domain-specific severity then can be used to pair the new patient with a BHP who has demonstrated success in addressing the same outcome domain(s). This approach matches a new patient to a BHP with established expertise based on routine outcome monitoring.

Retrospective and prospective studies have found that most BHPs have stable performance in their strengths and weaknesses.^11,21 One study found that assessing BHP performance with their most recent 30 patients can reliably predict future performance with their next 30 patients.²⁴ This predictability in a practitioner’s outcomes suggests report cards that are updated frequently can be utilized to make case assignments within BH or referrals to a specific BHP from primary care.

Making a paired-on outcome data–matched referral

Making customized BH referrals requires access to information about a practitioner’s previous routine outcome monitoring data per clinical domain (eg, suicidality, violence, quality of life) from their most recent patients. Previous research suggests that follow-up data from a minimum of 15 patients is necessary to make a reliable evaluation of a practitioner’s strengths and weaknesses (ie, effectiveness “report card”) per clinical ­domain.²⁴

Previous research suggests that follow-up data from a minimum of 15 patients is necessary to make a reliable evaluation of a practitioner’s strengths and weaknesses.

Few, if any, physicians have access to this level of updated outcome data from their referral network. To facilitate widespread use of paired-on outcome data matching, a new Web system (MatchedTherapists.com) will allow the general public and PCPs to access these grades. As a public service option, this site currently allows for a self-assessment using the Treatment Outcome Package. Pending versions will generate paired-on outcome data grades, and users will receive a list of local therapists available for in-person appointments as well as therapists available for virtual appointments. The paired-on outcome data grades are delivered in school-based letter grades. An “A+,” for example, represents the best matching grade. Users also will be able to sort and filter results for other criteria such as telemedicine, insurance, age, gender, and appointment availability. Currently, there are more than 77,000 therapists listed on the site nationwide. A basic listing is free.

CASE SCENARIO

After Ms. W took the multidimensional routine outcome assessment online, she received a list of therapists rank-ordered by paired-on outcome data grade, with the “A+” matches listed first. Three of the best-matched referrals accepted her insurance and were willing to see her through telemedicine. Therapists with available in-person appointments had a “B” grade. After discussing the options with her physician, Ms. W opted for telehealth counseling with the therapist whose profile she liked best. The therapist and PCP tracked her progress through routine outcome monitoring reporting until all her symptoms became subclinical.

Continue to: The future of a "referral bridge"

 

 

The future of a “referral bridge”

In this article, we present a solution to a common issue faced by mental health care patients: failure to benefit meaningfully from mental health treatment. Matching patients to specific BHPs based on effectiveness data regarding the therapist’s strengths and skills can improve patient outcomes and reduce harm. In addition, patients appear to value this approach. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation–­funded study demonstrated that patients value seeing practitioners who have a track record of successfully treating previous patients with similar issues.^25,26 In many cases, patients indicated they would prioritize this matching process over other factors such as practitioners with a higher number of years of experience or the same demographic characteristics as the patient.^25,26

In many cases, patients indicated they would prioritize this matching process over other factors such as practitioners with a higher number of years of experience.

These findings may represent a new area in the science of health care. Over the past century, major advances in diagnosis and treatment—the 2 primary pillars of health care—have turned the art of medicine into a science. However, the art of making referrals has not advanced commensurately, as there has been little attention focused on the “referral bridge” between these 2 pillars. As the studies reviewed in this paper demonstrate, a referral bridge deserves exploration in all fields of medicine.

CORRESPONDENCE
David R. Kraus, PhD, 1 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701; dkraus@outcomereferrals.com

Approximately 1 in 4 people ages 18 years and older and 1 in 3 people ages 18 to 25 years had a mental illness in the past year, according to the 2021 National Survey of Drug Use and Health.¹ The survey also found that adults ages 18 to 25 years had the highest rate of serious mental illness but the lowest treatment rate compared to other adult age groups.¹ Unfortunately, more than 60% of patients receiving mental health treatment fail to benefit to a clinically meaningful degree.²

However, there is growing evidence that referring patients to behavioral health practitioners (BHPs) with outcome-measured skills that meet the patient’s specific needs can have a dramatic and positive impact. There are 2 main steps to pairing patients with an appropriate BHP: (1) use of measurement-based care data that can be analyzed at the patient and therapist level, and (2) data-driven referrals that pair patients with BHPs based on such routine outcome monitoring data (paired-on outcome data).

Psychotherapy’s slow road toward measurement-based care

Routine outcome monitoring is the systematic measurement of symptoms and functioning during treatment. It serves multiple functions, including program evaluation and benchmarking of patient improvement rates. Moreover, routine outcome monitoring–­derived feedback (based on repeated patient outcome measurements) can inform personalized and responsive care decisions throughout treatment.

For all intents and purposes, routine outcome monitoring plus feedback is synonymous with measurement-based care, which is becoming the preferred term in psychotherapy.³ Although measurement-based care is often the standard of practice for treating physical health conditions, the adoption of measurement-based care practices for treating mental health conditions remains low.³ The implementation of routine outcome monitoring is the lynchpin of measurement-based care, which in psychotherapy includes³:

• routinely administered symptom/functioning measure, ideally before each clinical encounter,
• practitioner review of these patient-level data,
• patient review of these data with their practitioner, and
• collaborative reevaluation of the person-specific treatment plan informed by these data.

CASE SCENARIO

Violeta W is a 33-year-old woman who presented to her family physician for her annual wellness exam. Prior to the exam, the medical assistant administered a Patient Health ­Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to screen for depressive symptoms. Ms. W’s score was 20 out of 27, suggestive of depression. To further assess the severity of depressive symptoms and their effect on daily function, the physician reviewed responses to the questionnaire with her and discussed treatment options. Ms. W was most interested in trying a low-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

At her follow-up visit 4 weeks later, the medical assistant re-administered the PHQ-9. The physician then reviewed Ms. W’s responses­ with her and, based on Ms. W’s subjective report and objective symptoms (still a score of 20 out of 27 on the PHQ-9), increased her SSRI dose. At each subsequent visit, Ms. W completed a PHQ-9 and reviewed responses and depressive symptoms with her physician.

The value of measurement-based care in mental health care

A narrative review by Lewis et al³ of 21 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) across a range of age groups (eg, adolescents, young adults, adults), disorders (eg, anxiety, mood), and settings (eg, outpatient, inpatient) found that in at least 9 review articles, measurement-based care was associated with significantly improved outcomes vs usual care (ie, treatment without routine outcome monitoring plus feedback). The average increase in treatment effect size was about 30% when treatment was accompanied by measurement-based care.³

Continue to: Moreover, a recent within-patient meta-analysis...

Routine outcome monitoring– derived feedback can inform personalized and responsive care decisions throughout treatment.

Moreover, a recent within-patient meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ shows that ­measurement-based care yields a small but significant increase in therapeutic outcomes (d = .15). Use of measurement-based care also is associated with improved communication between the patient and therapist.⁵ In pharmacotherapy practice, measurement-based care has been shown to predict rapid dose increases and changes in medication, when necessary; faster recovery rates; higher response rates to treatment³; and fewer ­dropouts.⁴

Perhaps one of the best-studied benefits of measurement-based mental health care is the ability to predict deterioration in care (ie, patients who are off-track in a way that practitioners often miss without the help of routine outcome monitoring data).^6,7 Studies show that without a data-informed approach to care, some forms of psychotherapy or therapy with BHPs who are not sufficiently skilled in treating a given diagnosis increase symptoms or create significant harmful and iatrogenic effects.^8-10 Conversely, the meta-analysis by de Jong et al⁴ found a lower percentage of deterioration in patients receiving ­measurement-based care. The difference in deterioration was significant: An average of 5.4% of patients in control conditions deteriorated compared to an average of 4.6% in feedback (measurement-based care) groups. There were even larger effect sizes when therapists received training in the feedback system.⁴

Routine outcome monitoring without a dialogue between patient and practitioner about the assessments (eg, ignoring complete measurement-based care requirements) may be inadequate. A recent review by Muir et al⁶ found no differences in patient outcomes when data were used solely for aggregate quality improvement activities, suggesting the need for practitioners to review results of routine outcome monitoring assessments with patients and use data to alter care when necessary.

Measurement-based care is believed to deliver benefits and reduce harm by enhancing and encouraging active patient involvement, improving patient understanding of symptoms, promoting better communication, and facilitating better care coordination.³ The benefits of measurement-based care can be enhanced with a comprehensive core routine outcome monitoring tool and the level of monitoring-generated information delivered for multiple stakeholders (eg, patient, therapist, clinic).¹¹

A look at multidimensional assessment

The features of routine outcome monitoring tools vary significantly.¹² Some measures assess single-symptom or problem domains (eg, PHQ-9 for depression or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7] scale for anxiety) or multiple dimensions (multidimensional routine outcome monitoring). Multidimensional routine outcome monitoring may have benefits over single-domain measures. Single­-domain measures and the subscales or factors of more comprehensive multidimensional routine outcome monitoring assessments should possess adequate specificity and sensitivity.

Continue to: Some recent research findings...

Some recent research findings question the construct validity of brief single-domain measures of common presenting problems, such as depression and anxiety. For example, results from a factor analysis of the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scale in patients with traumatic brain injury suggest these tools measure 1 psychological construct that includes depression and the cognitive components of anxiety (eg, worry)¹³—a finding consistent with those of other tools.¹⁴ Similarly, a larger study of 7763 BH patients found that a single factor accounted for most of the variance of the 2 combined measures, with no set of factors meeting the exacting standards used to develop multidimensional routine outcome monitoring.¹⁵ These findings suggest that the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 largely overlap and are not measuring different aspects of health as most practitioners believe (eg, depression and anxiety).

In commonly used assessments, ­multiple-factor analytic studies with high standards have supported the construct validity of domain-specific subscales, indicating that the various questions tap into different constructs of psychological health.^14,16,17

Perhaps one of the best-studied benefits of mental health measurementbased care is the ability to predict deterioration in care.

Beyond multiple domain–specific indicators, multidimensional routine outcome measurements provide a global total score that minimizes Type I (false-positive conclusion) and Type II (false-negative conclusion) errors in tracking patient improvement or deterioration.¹⁸ As one would expect, multidimensional routine outcome monitoring generally includes more items than single-domain measures; however, this comes with a trade-off. If there are specificity and sensitivity concerns with an ultra-brief single-domain measure, an alternative to a core multidimensional routine outcome measurement is to aggregate a series of single-domain measures into a battery of patient self-reports. However, this approach may take longer for patients to complete since they would have to shift among the varying response sets and wording across the unique single-domain measures.

In addition, the standardization/­normalization of multidimensional routine outcome monitoring likely makes interpretation easier than referring to norms and clinical severity cutoffs for many distinct measures. Furthermore, increased specificity enhances predictive power and allows BHPs to screen and track other conditions besides depression and anxiety. (It is worth noting that there are no known studies that have looked at the difference in time to administer or ease of interpretation of multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tools vs multiple single-domain measures.)

Two multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tools that cover a comprehensive series of discrete symptom and functional domains are the Treatment Outcome Package¹² and Counseling Center ­Assessment of Psychological Symptoms.¹⁶ These tools, which include subscales beyond general depression and anxiety (eg, sleep, substance misuse, social conflict), take 7 to 10 minutes to complete and provide outcome results across 12 symptom and 8 functional dimensions. As an example, the Treatment Outcome Package has good psychometric qualities (eg, reliability, construct and concurrent validity) for adults,¹² children,^14,19 and adolescents,¹⁹ and can be administered through a secure online data collection portal. The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms has demonstrated high construct validity and good convergent validity.¹⁶ These assessments can be administered in paper or digital (eg, electronic medical record portal, smartphone) format.²⁰

Continue to: CASE SCENARIO

CASE SCENARIO

Ms. W’s physician asked her to go online using her phone and answer the questions in the Treatment Outcome Package. Her results, which she viewed with her physician, were displayed in graph form (FIGURE). Her scores were represented in Z scores normalized to the general population, with “0” representing the general, nontreatment-seeking population average and positive scores representing the number of standard deviations (SDs) more severe than the general population average.

Although this assessment scored Ms. W’s clinically elevated depression as mild, it revealed abnormalities in 3 other domains. Sexual functioning issues represented the most abnormal domain at greater than 3 SDs (more severe than the general population), followed by poor life quality and school/work functioning.

After reviewing Ms. W’s report, her physician decided that pharmacologic management alone (for depression) was not the most appropriate treatment course. Therefore, her physician recommended psychotherapy in addition to the SSRI she was taking. Ms. W agreed to a customized referral for psychotherapy.

Data-driven referrals

When psychotherapy is chosen as a treatment, the individual BHP is an active component of that treatment. Consequently, it is essential to customize referrals to match a patient’s most elevated mental health concerns with a therapist who will most effectively treat those domains. It is rare for a BHP to be skilled in treating every mental health domain.⁹ Multiple studies have shown that BHPs have identifiable treatment skills in specific domains, which physicians should consider when making referrals.^9,21,22 These studies demonstrate the utility of aggregating patient-level routine outcome monitoring data to better understand therapist-level (and ultimately clinic- and system-level) outcomes.

It is essential to customize referrals to match a patient’s most elevated mental health concerns with a therapist who will most effectively treat those domains.

Additionally, recent research has tested this idea prospectively. An RCT funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute and published in JAMA Psychiatry showed a significant and positive effect on patient outcomes (ie, reductions in general impairment, impairment involving a patient’s most elevated domain, and global distress) using paired-on outcome data matching vs as-usual matching protocols (eg, therapist self-defined areas of specialty).²² In the RCT, the most effective matching protocol was a combination of eliminating harm and matching the patient on their 3 most problematic domains (the highest match level). These patients ended care as healthy as the general population after 16 weeks of treatment. A random 1-year follow-up assessment from the original RCT showed that most patients who had been matched had maintained their improvement.²³

Continue to: Therefore, a multidimensional routine outcome...

Therefore, a multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tool can be used to identify a BHP’s relative strengths and weaknesses across multiple outcome domains. Within a system of care, a sample of BHPs will possess varying outcome-domain profiles. When a new patient is seeking a referral to a BHP, these profiles (or domain-specific outcome track records) can be used to support paired-on outcome data matching. Specifically, a new patient completes the multidimensional routine outcome monitoring tool at pretreatment, and the results reveal the outcome domains on which the patient is most clinically severe. This pattern of domain-specific severity then can be used to pair the new patient with a BHP who has demonstrated success in addressing the same outcome domain(s). This approach matches a new patient to a BHP with established expertise based on routine outcome monitoring.

Retrospective and prospective studies have found that most BHPs have stable performance in their strengths and weaknesses.^11,21 One study found that assessing BHP performance with their most recent 30 patients can reliably predict future performance with their next 30 patients.²⁴ This predictability in a practitioner’s outcomes suggests report cards that are updated frequently can be utilized to make case assignments within BH or referrals to a specific BHP from primary care.

Making a paired-on outcome data–matched referral

Making customized BH referrals requires access to information about a practitioner’s previous routine outcome monitoring data per clinical domain (eg, suicidality, violence, quality of life) from their most recent patients. Previous research suggests that follow-up data from a minimum of 15 patients is necessary to make a reliable evaluation of a practitioner’s strengths and weaknesses (ie, effectiveness “report card”) per clinical ­domain.²⁴

Previous research suggests that follow-up data from a minimum of 15 patients is necessary to make a reliable evaluation of a practitioner’s strengths and weaknesses.

Few, if any, physicians have access to this level of updated outcome data from their referral network. To facilitate widespread use of paired-on outcome data matching, a new Web system (MatchedTherapists.com) will allow the general public and PCPs to access these grades. As a public service option, this site currently allows for a self-assessment using the Treatment Outcome Package. Pending versions will generate paired-on outcome data grades, and users will receive a list of local therapists available for in-person appointments as well as therapists available for virtual appointments. The paired-on outcome data grades are delivered in school-based letter grades. An “A+,” for example, represents the best matching grade. Users also will be able to sort and filter results for other criteria such as telemedicine, insurance, age, gender, and appointment availability. Currently, there are more than 77,000 therapists listed on the site nationwide. A basic listing is free.

CASE SCENARIO

After Ms. W took the multidimensional routine outcome assessment online, she received a list of therapists rank-ordered by paired-on outcome data grade, with the “A+” matches listed first. Three of the best-matched referrals accepted her insurance and were willing to see her through telemedicine. Therapists with available in-person appointments had a “B” grade. After discussing the options with her physician, Ms. W opted for telehealth counseling with the therapist whose profile she liked best. The therapist and PCP tracked her progress through routine outcome monitoring reporting until all her symptoms became subclinical.

Continue to: The future of a "referral bridge"

 

 

The future of a “referral bridge”

In this article, we present a solution to a common issue faced by mental health care patients: failure to benefit meaningfully from mental health treatment. Matching patients to specific BHPs based on effectiveness data regarding the therapist’s strengths and skills can improve patient outcomes and reduce harm. In addition, patients appear to value this approach. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation–­funded study demonstrated that patients value seeing practitioners who have a track record of successfully treating previous patients with similar issues.^25,26 In many cases, patients indicated they would prioritize this matching process over other factors such as practitioners with a higher number of years of experience or the same demographic characteristics as the patient.^25,26

In many cases, patients indicated they would prioritize this matching process over other factors such as practitioners with a higher number of years of experience.

These findings may represent a new area in the science of health care. Over the past century, major advances in diagnosis and treatment—the 2 primary pillars of health care—have turned the art of medicine into a science. However, the art of making referrals has not advanced commensurately, as there has been little attention focused on the “referral bridge” between these 2 pillars. As the studies reviewed in this paper demonstrate, a referral bridge deserves exploration in all fields of medicine.

CORRESPONDENCE
David R. Kraus, PhD, 1 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701; dkraus@outcomereferrals.com