Mixed Topics

It was my dream from an early age to become a physician. Even as a child I was fascinated by medical procedures and interventions. As I pursued my medical degree, I became increasingly interested in a career where I could integrate patient care and the latest innovations in technology.

Training in gastroenterology has provided me an exciting mix of patient care and procedures, with medical devices and technologies that are constantly evolving. As I began my career, I joined Dayton Gastroenterology, a private practice affiliated with GI fellowship at Wright State University, Fairborn, Ohio, because the practice provided an opportunity to care for patients, train GI fellows, and provide employment opportunities to the community I serve.

After spending so many years to become an expert in medicine and then training in gastroenterology, it might have seemed daunting to go back to school to get an education in another field. But we all know the medical environment is constantly changing – in the last decade dramatically so, in technology as well as in how groups are organizing themselves in response to health care consolidation and other external forces. Developing expertise in both medicine and business can prepare physicians to be better advocates and leaders as health care continues to change.
 

The importance of understanding the business of health care

Consolidation in health care has increasingly impacted private practices, with more primary care and specialty physicians being employed by hospitals. In some areas of the country, this has affected the flow of patient referrals to independent GI practices, and these practices must now adapt to continue serving their communities. This is being amplified by the increasing demands for patient services coupled with staffing issues and reimbursement cuts.

These challenges have resulted in some smaller practices joining local hospitals systems. Others have come together to form larger groups or managed services organizations (MSO), and some have partnered with private equity firms to compete in response to these market forces.

During our training and education in medical school, we aren’t taught how to run a successful practice. We aren’t taught how to bring together different industry partners, collaborators, and payers or how to build patient-centric practice models. But sometimes the best method of learning is by doing, and my experiences during the merger of Dayton Gastroenterology with One GI, a physician-focused MSO with practices in six states, was invaluable.

That merger process taught me a lot about how companies are valued, the nuances in determining deal flow, networking, human capital, and everything else involved in how a transaction takes place. I developed a greater understanding about how to develop and build successful large practices, with improved employee satisfaction, company culture, and great patient experience.
 

Developing a positive practice culture

It was during the process of partnering with One GI and during the pandemic that I decided to pursue my desire to get a formal business education, and I’m glad I did. The executive MBA program at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University allowed me to gain an in-depth understanding of various aspects of business, finance, accounting, marketing, leadership, governance, organizational transformation, negotiations, and so much more, all while continuing to work full time as a gastroenterologist in private practice.

We met for classes in-person each month over the course of four days. There were also live and recorded virtual sessions in between each monthly class. The program was rigorous, but worth it. Connecting with leaders from different industries and learning from exceptional professors alongside these professionals was an invaluable experience.

Two of the most vital things I learned were the importance of team building and development of a company culture that will sustain an organization over the long term. I learned management strategies to empower employees, governance best practices, and how to align the interests of internal and external stakeholders.

Anyone can buy a practice, and anyone can merge their practice into a larger entity, but it is critical to understand the components of a successful integration. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. You can have the best minds, develop the best processes, but if there is not a strong culture with the alignment of physicians, staff, and practice management, even the best strategies can easily fail.

What to look for in joining a practice

As physicians, we all want to be the best at what we do. It’s important to be intentional about what you value and how you would like to shape your career. When considering which practice you might join, there are several things to consider, such as the location, medical needs of the community, and services offered by the practice. Equally important is understanding how the practice is managed.

Does the practice promote growth opportunities for its physicians and staff? Are there governance structures and processes in place to empower and retain talented staff? What values does the practice portray? Is there a buy-in or buy-out when becoming a partner in the practice, and are there equity opportunities? These are just some of many questions early-career physicians should ask.
 

My MBA helped me become a better leader

A physician understands the needs of delivering exceptional medical care, the challenges involved, and the resources required. Increasing the depth and breadth of our knowledge is power. Good people make good organizations, but great people make great organizations. Those of us who are on the front lines are the best advocates for our patients and other frontline workers. We can become powerful advocates and leaders when we better understand how business trends and other external forces affect our ability to care for the patients in the future.

Pursuing a business education provides a strong foundation for physician leaders who have strong analytical intuition and focus on patient-centric practice models. If you are considering a career in private practice and are interested in practice management or growing a practice, an MBA or similar educational programs will provide an understanding of finance, accounting, and other business-related fields that can enable physicians to become agile and empathic leaders.
 

Dr. Appalaneni is a practicing gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology in Ohio. She is Executive Vice President of Clinical Innovation at One GI, a physician-led managed services organization. Dr. Appalaneni has no conflicts to declare.

It was my dream from an early age to become a physician. Even as a child I was fascinated by medical procedures and interventions. As I pursued my medical degree, I became increasingly interested in a career where I could integrate patient care and the latest innovations in technology.

Training in gastroenterology has provided me an exciting mix of patient care and procedures, with medical devices and technologies that are constantly evolving. As I began my career, I joined Dayton Gastroenterology, a private practice affiliated with GI fellowship at Wright State University, Fairborn, Ohio, because the practice provided an opportunity to care for patients, train GI fellows, and provide employment opportunities to the community I serve.

After spending so many years to become an expert in medicine and then training in gastroenterology, it might have seemed daunting to go back to school to get an education in another field. But we all know the medical environment is constantly changing – in the last decade dramatically so, in technology as well as in how groups are organizing themselves in response to health care consolidation and other external forces. Developing expertise in both medicine and business can prepare physicians to be better advocates and leaders as health care continues to change.
 

The importance of understanding the business of health care

Consolidation in health care has increasingly impacted private practices, with more primary care and specialty physicians being employed by hospitals. In some areas of the country, this has affected the flow of patient referrals to independent GI practices, and these practices must now adapt to continue serving their communities. This is being amplified by the increasing demands for patient services coupled with staffing issues and reimbursement cuts.

These challenges have resulted in some smaller practices joining local hospitals systems. Others have come together to form larger groups or managed services organizations (MSO), and some have partnered with private equity firms to compete in response to these market forces.

During our training and education in medical school, we aren’t taught how to run a successful practice. We aren’t taught how to bring together different industry partners, collaborators, and payers or how to build patient-centric practice models. But sometimes the best method of learning is by doing, and my experiences during the merger of Dayton Gastroenterology with One GI, a physician-focused MSO with practices in six states, was invaluable.

That merger process taught me a lot about how companies are valued, the nuances in determining deal flow, networking, human capital, and everything else involved in how a transaction takes place. I developed a greater understanding about how to develop and build successful large practices, with improved employee satisfaction, company culture, and great patient experience.
 

Developing a positive practice culture

It was during the process of partnering with One GI and during the pandemic that I decided to pursue my desire to get a formal business education, and I’m glad I did. The executive MBA program at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University allowed me to gain an in-depth understanding of various aspects of business, finance, accounting, marketing, leadership, governance, organizational transformation, negotiations, and so much more, all while continuing to work full time as a gastroenterologist in private practice.

We met for classes in-person each month over the course of four days. There were also live and recorded virtual sessions in between each monthly class. The program was rigorous, but worth it. Connecting with leaders from different industries and learning from exceptional professors alongside these professionals was an invaluable experience.

Two of the most vital things I learned were the importance of team building and development of a company culture that will sustain an organization over the long term. I learned management strategies to empower employees, governance best practices, and how to align the interests of internal and external stakeholders.

Anyone can buy a practice, and anyone can merge their practice into a larger entity, but it is critical to understand the components of a successful integration. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. You can have the best minds, develop the best processes, but if there is not a strong culture with the alignment of physicians, staff, and practice management, even the best strategies can easily fail.

What to look for in joining a practice

As physicians, we all want to be the best at what we do. It’s important to be intentional about what you value and how you would like to shape your career. When considering which practice you might join, there are several things to consider, such as the location, medical needs of the community, and services offered by the practice. Equally important is understanding how the practice is managed.

Does the practice promote growth opportunities for its physicians and staff? Are there governance structures and processes in place to empower and retain talented staff? What values does the practice portray? Is there a buy-in or buy-out when becoming a partner in the practice, and are there equity opportunities? These are just some of many questions early-career physicians should ask.
 

My MBA helped me become a better leader

A physician understands the needs of delivering exceptional medical care, the challenges involved, and the resources required. Increasing the depth and breadth of our knowledge is power. Good people make good organizations, but great people make great organizations. Those of us who are on the front lines are the best advocates for our patients and other frontline workers. We can become powerful advocates and leaders when we better understand how business trends and other external forces affect our ability to care for the patients in the future.

Pursuing a business education provides a strong foundation for physician leaders who have strong analytical intuition and focus on patient-centric practice models. If you are considering a career in private practice and are interested in practice management or growing a practice, an MBA or similar educational programs will provide an understanding of finance, accounting, and other business-related fields that can enable physicians to become agile and empathic leaders.
 

Dr. Appalaneni is a practicing gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology in Ohio. She is Executive Vice President of Clinical Innovation at One GI, a physician-led managed services organization. Dr. Appalaneni has no conflicts to declare.

It was my dream from an early age to become a physician. Even as a child I was fascinated by medical procedures and interventions. As I pursued my medical degree, I became increasingly interested in a career where I could integrate patient care and the latest innovations in technology.

Training in gastroenterology has provided me an exciting mix of patient care and procedures, with medical devices and technologies that are constantly evolving. As I began my career, I joined Dayton Gastroenterology, a private practice affiliated with GI fellowship at Wright State University, Fairborn, Ohio, because the practice provided an opportunity to care for patients, train GI fellows, and provide employment opportunities to the community I serve.

After spending so many years to become an expert in medicine and then training in gastroenterology, it might have seemed daunting to go back to school to get an education in another field. But we all know the medical environment is constantly changing – in the last decade dramatically so, in technology as well as in how groups are organizing themselves in response to health care consolidation and other external forces. Developing expertise in both medicine and business can prepare physicians to be better advocates and leaders as health care continues to change.
 

The importance of understanding the business of health care

Consolidation in health care has increasingly impacted private practices, with more primary care and specialty physicians being employed by hospitals. In some areas of the country, this has affected the flow of patient referrals to independent GI practices, and these practices must now adapt to continue serving their communities. This is being amplified by the increasing demands for patient services coupled with staffing issues and reimbursement cuts.

These challenges have resulted in some smaller practices joining local hospitals systems. Others have come together to form larger groups or managed services organizations (MSO), and some have partnered with private equity firms to compete in response to these market forces.

During our training and education in medical school, we aren’t taught how to run a successful practice. We aren’t taught how to bring together different industry partners, collaborators, and payers or how to build patient-centric practice models. But sometimes the best method of learning is by doing, and my experiences during the merger of Dayton Gastroenterology with One GI, a physician-focused MSO with practices in six states, was invaluable.

That merger process taught me a lot about how companies are valued, the nuances in determining deal flow, networking, human capital, and everything else involved in how a transaction takes place. I developed a greater understanding about how to develop and build successful large practices, with improved employee satisfaction, company culture, and great patient experience.
 

Developing a positive practice culture

It was during the process of partnering with One GI and during the pandemic that I decided to pursue my desire to get a formal business education, and I’m glad I did. The executive MBA program at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University allowed me to gain an in-depth understanding of various aspects of business, finance, accounting, marketing, leadership, governance, organizational transformation, negotiations, and so much more, all while continuing to work full time as a gastroenterologist in private practice.

We met for classes in-person each month over the course of four days. There were also live and recorded virtual sessions in between each monthly class. The program was rigorous, but worth it. Connecting with leaders from different industries and learning from exceptional professors alongside these professionals was an invaluable experience.

Two of the most vital things I learned were the importance of team building and development of a company culture that will sustain an organization over the long term. I learned management strategies to empower employees, governance best practices, and how to align the interests of internal and external stakeholders.

Anyone can buy a practice, and anyone can merge their practice into a larger entity, but it is critical to understand the components of a successful integration. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. You can have the best minds, develop the best processes, but if there is not a strong culture with the alignment of physicians, staff, and practice management, even the best strategies can easily fail.

What to look for in joining a practice

As physicians, we all want to be the best at what we do. It’s important to be intentional about what you value and how you would like to shape your career. When considering which practice you might join, there are several things to consider, such as the location, medical needs of the community, and services offered by the practice. Equally important is understanding how the practice is managed.

Does the practice promote growth opportunities for its physicians and staff? Are there governance structures and processes in place to empower and retain talented staff? What values does the practice portray? Is there a buy-in or buy-out when becoming a partner in the practice, and are there equity opportunities? These are just some of many questions early-career physicians should ask.
 

My MBA helped me become a better leader

A physician understands the needs of delivering exceptional medical care, the challenges involved, and the resources required. Increasing the depth and breadth of our knowledge is power. Good people make good organizations, but great people make great organizations. Those of us who are on the front lines are the best advocates for our patients and other frontline workers. We can become powerful advocates and leaders when we better understand how business trends and other external forces affect our ability to care for the patients in the future.

Pursuing a business education provides a strong foundation for physician leaders who have strong analytical intuition and focus on patient-centric practice models. If you are considering a career in private practice and are interested in practice management or growing a practice, an MBA or similar educational programs will provide an understanding of finance, accounting, and other business-related fields that can enable physicians to become agile and empathic leaders.
 

Dr. Appalaneni is a practicing gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology in Ohio. She is Executive Vice President of Clinical Innovation at One GI, a physician-led managed services organization. Dr. Appalaneni has no conflicts to declare.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

A common refrain in psychiatry is that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, (DSM-5-TR), published in 2022, is the best we can do.

Since the DSM-III was released in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the manual, has espoused the position that we should list symptoms, in a manner that is reminiscent of a checklist. For example, having a depressed mood on most days for a 2-week period, or a loss of interest in pleasurable things, as well as 4 additional symptoms – among them changes in appetite, changes in sleep, changes in psychomotor activity, fatigue, worthlessness, poor concentration, or thoughts of death – can lead to a diagnosis of a major depressive episode as part of a major depressive disorder.

Criticisms of this approach can be apparent. Patients subjected to such checklists, including being repeatedly asked to complete the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), which closely follows those criteria, can feel lost and even alienated by their providers. After all, one can ask all those questions and make a diagnosis of depression without even knowing about the patient’s stressors, their history, or their social context.

The DSM permits the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders without an understanding of the narrative of the patient. In its defense, the DSM is not a textbook of psychiatry, it is a guide on how to diagnose individuals. The DSM does not demand that psychiatrists only ask about the symptoms on the checklists; it is the providers who can choose to dismiss asking about the important facets of one’s life.

Yet every time we attend a lecture that starts by enumerating the DSM symptoms of the disorder being discussed, we are left with the dissatisfying impression that a specialist of this disorder should have a more nuanced and interesting description of their disorder of study. This feeling of discontent is compounded when we see a movie that encompasses so much of what is missing in today’s psychiatric parlance, and even more so if that movie is ostensibly made for children. Movies, by design, are particularly adept at encapsulating the narrative of someone’s life in a way that psychiatry can learn from.

Other than the embarrassment of not knowing a patient outside the checklist, the importance of narrative cannot be understated. Dr. Erik Erikson rightfully suggested that the point of life is “the acceptance of one’s one and only life cycle”¹ or rather to know it was okay to have been oneself without additions or substitutions. Therefore, one must know what it has meant to be themselves to reconcile this question and achieve Ego Integrity rather than disgust and despair. Narrative is the way in which we understand who we are and what it has meant to be ourselves. An understanding of our personal narrative presents a unique opportunity in expressing what is missing in the DSM. Below, we provide two of our favorite examples in Disney films, among many.
 

‘Ratatouille’ (2007)

One of the missing features of the DSM is its inability to explain to patients the intrapsychic processes that guide us. One of these processes is how our values can lead us to a deep sense of guilt, shame, and the resulting feelings of alienation. It is extremely common for patients to enter our clinical practice feeling shackled by beliefs that they should accomplish more and be more than they are.

The animated film “Ratatouille” does an excellent job at addressing this feeling. The film follows Remy, the protagonist rat, and his adventures as he explores his passion for cooking. Remy teams up with the inept but good-natured human Alfredo Linguini and guides him through cooking while hiding under his chef’s hat. The primary antagonist, Anton Ego, is a particularly harsh food critic. His presence and appearance are somber. He exudes disdain. His trim physique and scarf suggest a man that will break and react to anything, and his skull-shaped typewriter in his coffin-shaped office informs the viewer that he is out to kill with his cruel words. Anton Ego serves as our projected super-ego. He is not an external judge but the judgment deep inside ourselves, goading us to be better with such severity that we are ultimately left feeling condemned.

Remy is the younger of two siblings. He is less physically adept but more intellectual than his older brother, who does not understand why Remy isn’t content eating scraps from the garbage like the rest of their rat clan. Remy is the creative part within us that wants to challenge the status quo and try something new. Remy also represents our shame and guilt for leaving our home. On one hand, we want to dare greatly, in this case at being an extraordinary chef, but on the other we are shy and cook in secret, hiding within the hat of another person. Remy struggles with the deep feeling that we do not deserve our success, that our family will leave us for being who we are, and that we are better off isolating and segregating from our challenges.

The movie concludes that through talent and hard work, our critics will accept us. Furthermore, once accepted for what we do, we can be further accepted for who we are. The movie ends with Remy cooking the eponymous dish ratatouille. He prepares it so remarkably well, the dish transports Anton Ego back to a sublime experience of eating ratatouille as a child, a touching moment which not only underscores food’s evocative link to memory but gives a glimpse at Anton Ego’s own narrative.

Ego is first won over by the dish, and only afterward learns of Remy’s true identity. Remy’s talent is undeniable though, and even the stuffy Ego must accept the film’s theme that “Anyone can cook,” even a rat – the rat that we all sometimes feel we are deep inside, rotten to the core but trying so hard to be accepted by others, and ultimately by ourselves. In the end, we overcome the disgust inherent in the imagery of a rat in a kitchen and instead embrace our hero’s achievement of ego integrity as he combines his identities as a member of a clan of rats, and one of Paris’s finest chefs.

While modern psychiatry can favor looking at people through the lens of biology rather than narrative, “Ratatouille” can serve as a reminder of the powerful unconscious forces that guide our lives. “Ratatouille” is not a successful movie only because of the compelling narrative, but also because the narrative matches the important psychic paradigms that psychiatry once embraced.
 

‘Inside Out’ (2015)

Another missing feature of the DSM is its inability to explain how symptoms feel and manifest psychologically. One such feeling is that of control – whether one is in control of one’s life, feelings, and action or rather a victim of external forces. It is extremely common for patients to enter our clinical practice feeling traumatized by the life they’ve lived and powerless to produce any change. Part of our role is to guide them through this journey from the object of their lives to the subject of their lives.

In the animated feature “Inside Out,” Riley, a preteen girl, goes through the tribulation of growing up and learning about herself. This seemingly happy child, content playing hockey with her best friend, Meg, on the picturesque frozen lakes of Minnesota, reaches her inevitable conflict. Her parents uproot her life, moving the family to San Francisco. By doing so, they disconnect her from her school, her friends, and her hobbies. While all this is happening, we spend time inside Riley’s psyche with the personified characters of Riley’s emotions as they affect her decisions and daily actions amidst the backdrop of her core memories and islands of personality.

During the move, her parents seemingly change and ultimately destroy every facet of Riley’s sense of self, which is animated as the collapse of her personality islands. Her best friend engages Riley in a video call just to inform her that she has a new friend who plays hockey equally well. Her parents do not hear Riley’s concerns and are portrayed as distracted by their adult problems. Riley feels ridiculed in her new school and unable to share her feelings with her parents, who ask her to still be their “happy girl” and indirectly ask her to fake pleasure to alleviate their own anxiety.

The climax of the movie is when Riley decides to run away from San Francisco and her parents, to return to her perceived true home, Minnesota. The climax is resolved when Riley realizes that her parents’ love, representing the connection we have to others, transcends her need for control. To some degree, we are all powerless in the face of the tremendous forces of life and share the difficult task of accepting the cards we were dealt, thus making the story of Riley so compelling.

Additionally, the climax is further resolved by another argument that psychiatry (and the DSM) should consider embracing. Emotions are not all symptoms and living without negative emotion is not the goal of life. Riley grows from preteen to teenager, and from object to subject of her life, by realizing that her symptoms/feelings are not just nuisances to avoid and hide, but the key to meaning. Our anger drives us to try hard. Our fear protects us from harm. Our sadness attracts the warmth and care of others. Our disgust protects us physically from noxious material (symbolized as a dreaded broccoli floret for preteen Riley) and socially by encouraging us to share societal norms. Similarly, patients and people in general would benefit by being taught that, while symptoms may permit the better assessment of psychiatric conditions using the DSM, life is much more than that.

It is unfair to blame the DSM for things it was not designed to do. The DSM doesn’t advertise itself as a guidebook of all behaviors, at all times. However, for a variety of reasons, it has become the main way psychiatry describes people. While we commend the APA for its effort and do not know that we could make it any better, we are frequently happily reminded that in about 90 minutes, filmmakers are able to display an empathic understanding of personal narratives that biologic psychiatry can miss.

Dr. Pulido is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in women’s mental health, medical education, and outpatient psychiatry. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Erikson, EH. Childhood and society (New York: WW Norton, 1950).

A common refrain in psychiatry is that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, (DSM-5-TR), published in 2022, is the best we can do.

Since the DSM-III was released in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the manual, has espoused the position that we should list symptoms, in a manner that is reminiscent of a checklist. For example, having a depressed mood on most days for a 2-week period, or a loss of interest in pleasurable things, as well as 4 additional symptoms – among them changes in appetite, changes in sleep, changes in psychomotor activity, fatigue, worthlessness, poor concentration, or thoughts of death – can lead to a diagnosis of a major depressive episode as part of a major depressive disorder.

Criticisms of this approach can be apparent. Patients subjected to such checklists, including being repeatedly asked to complete the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), which closely follows those criteria, can feel lost and even alienated by their providers. After all, one can ask all those questions and make a diagnosis of depression without even knowing about the patient’s stressors, their history, or their social context.

The DSM permits the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders without an understanding of the narrative of the patient. In its defense, the DSM is not a textbook of psychiatry, it is a guide on how to diagnose individuals. The DSM does not demand that psychiatrists only ask about the symptoms on the checklists; it is the providers who can choose to dismiss asking about the important facets of one’s life.

Yet every time we attend a lecture that starts by enumerating the DSM symptoms of the disorder being discussed, we are left with the dissatisfying impression that a specialist of this disorder should have a more nuanced and interesting description of their disorder of study. This feeling of discontent is compounded when we see a movie that encompasses so much of what is missing in today’s psychiatric parlance, and even more so if that movie is ostensibly made for children. Movies, by design, are particularly adept at encapsulating the narrative of someone’s life in a way that psychiatry can learn from.

Other than the embarrassment of not knowing a patient outside the checklist, the importance of narrative cannot be understated. Dr. Erik Erikson rightfully suggested that the point of life is “the acceptance of one’s one and only life cycle”¹ or rather to know it was okay to have been oneself without additions or substitutions. Therefore, one must know what it has meant to be themselves to reconcile this question and achieve Ego Integrity rather than disgust and despair. Narrative is the way in which we understand who we are and what it has meant to be ourselves. An understanding of our personal narrative presents a unique opportunity in expressing what is missing in the DSM. Below, we provide two of our favorite examples in Disney films, among many.
 

‘Ratatouille’ (2007)

One of the missing features of the DSM is its inability to explain to patients the intrapsychic processes that guide us. One of these processes is how our values can lead us to a deep sense of guilt, shame, and the resulting feelings of alienation. It is extremely common for patients to enter our clinical practice feeling shackled by beliefs that they should accomplish more and be more than they are.

The animated film “Ratatouille” does an excellent job at addressing this feeling. The film follows Remy, the protagonist rat, and his adventures as he explores his passion for cooking. Remy teams up with the inept but good-natured human Alfredo Linguini and guides him through cooking while hiding under his chef’s hat. The primary antagonist, Anton Ego, is a particularly harsh food critic. His presence and appearance are somber. He exudes disdain. His trim physique and scarf suggest a man that will break and react to anything, and his skull-shaped typewriter in his coffin-shaped office informs the viewer that he is out to kill with his cruel words. Anton Ego serves as our projected super-ego. He is not an external judge but the judgment deep inside ourselves, goading us to be better with such severity that we are ultimately left feeling condemned.

Remy is the younger of two siblings. He is less physically adept but more intellectual than his older brother, who does not understand why Remy isn’t content eating scraps from the garbage like the rest of their rat clan. Remy is the creative part within us that wants to challenge the status quo and try something new. Remy also represents our shame and guilt for leaving our home. On one hand, we want to dare greatly, in this case at being an extraordinary chef, but on the other we are shy and cook in secret, hiding within the hat of another person. Remy struggles with the deep feeling that we do not deserve our success, that our family will leave us for being who we are, and that we are better off isolating and segregating from our challenges.

The movie concludes that through talent and hard work, our critics will accept us. Furthermore, once accepted for what we do, we can be further accepted for who we are. The movie ends with Remy cooking the eponymous dish ratatouille. He prepares it so remarkably well, the dish transports Anton Ego back to a sublime experience of eating ratatouille as a child, a touching moment which not only underscores food’s evocative link to memory but gives a glimpse at Anton Ego’s own narrative.

Ego is first won over by the dish, and only afterward learns of Remy’s true identity. Remy’s talent is undeniable though, and even the stuffy Ego must accept the film’s theme that “Anyone can cook,” even a rat – the rat that we all sometimes feel we are deep inside, rotten to the core but trying so hard to be accepted by others, and ultimately by ourselves. In the end, we overcome the disgust inherent in the imagery of a rat in a kitchen and instead embrace our hero’s achievement of ego integrity as he combines his identities as a member of a clan of rats, and one of Paris’s finest chefs.

While modern psychiatry can favor looking at people through the lens of biology rather than narrative, “Ratatouille” can serve as a reminder of the powerful unconscious forces that guide our lives. “Ratatouille” is not a successful movie only because of the compelling narrative, but also because the narrative matches the important psychic paradigms that psychiatry once embraced.
 

‘Inside Out’ (2015)

Another missing feature of the DSM is its inability to explain how symptoms feel and manifest psychologically. One such feeling is that of control – whether one is in control of one’s life, feelings, and action or rather a victim of external forces. It is extremely common for patients to enter our clinical practice feeling traumatized by the life they’ve lived and powerless to produce any change. Part of our role is to guide them through this journey from the object of their lives to the subject of their lives.

In the animated feature “Inside Out,” Riley, a preteen girl, goes through the tribulation of growing up and learning about herself. This seemingly happy child, content playing hockey with her best friend, Meg, on the picturesque frozen lakes of Minnesota, reaches her inevitable conflict. Her parents uproot her life, moving the family to San Francisco. By doing so, they disconnect her from her school, her friends, and her hobbies. While all this is happening, we spend time inside Riley’s psyche with the personified characters of Riley’s emotions as they affect her decisions and daily actions amidst the backdrop of her core memories and islands of personality.

During the move, her parents seemingly change and ultimately destroy every facet of Riley’s sense of self, which is animated as the collapse of her personality islands. Her best friend engages Riley in a video call just to inform her that she has a new friend who plays hockey equally well. Her parents do not hear Riley’s concerns and are portrayed as distracted by their adult problems. Riley feels ridiculed in her new school and unable to share her feelings with her parents, who ask her to still be their “happy girl” and indirectly ask her to fake pleasure to alleviate their own anxiety.

The climax of the movie is when Riley decides to run away from San Francisco and her parents, to return to her perceived true home, Minnesota. The climax is resolved when Riley realizes that her parents’ love, representing the connection we have to others, transcends her need for control. To some degree, we are all powerless in the face of the tremendous forces of life and share the difficult task of accepting the cards we were dealt, thus making the story of Riley so compelling.

Additionally, the climax is further resolved by another argument that psychiatry (and the DSM) should consider embracing. Emotions are not all symptoms and living without negative emotion is not the goal of life. Riley grows from preteen to teenager, and from object to subject of her life, by realizing that her symptoms/feelings are not just nuisances to avoid and hide, but the key to meaning. Our anger drives us to try hard. Our fear protects us from harm. Our sadness attracts the warmth and care of others. Our disgust protects us physically from noxious material (symbolized as a dreaded broccoli floret for preteen Riley) and socially by encouraging us to share societal norms. Similarly, patients and people in general would benefit by being taught that, while symptoms may permit the better assessment of psychiatric conditions using the DSM, life is much more than that.

It is unfair to blame the DSM for things it was not designed to do. The DSM doesn’t advertise itself as a guidebook of all behaviors, at all times. However, for a variety of reasons, it has become the main way psychiatry describes people. While we commend the APA for its effort and do not know that we could make it any better, we are frequently happily reminded that in about 90 minutes, filmmakers are able to display an empathic understanding of personal narratives that biologic psychiatry can miss.

Dr. Pulido is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in women’s mental health, medical education, and outpatient psychiatry. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Erikson, EH. Childhood and society (New York: WW Norton, 1950).

A common refrain in psychiatry is that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, (DSM-5-TR), published in 2022, is the best we can do.

Since the DSM-III was released in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the manual, has espoused the position that we should list symptoms, in a manner that is reminiscent of a checklist. For example, having a depressed mood on most days for a 2-week period, or a loss of interest in pleasurable things, as well as 4 additional symptoms – among them changes in appetite, changes in sleep, changes in psychomotor activity, fatigue, worthlessness, poor concentration, or thoughts of death – can lead to a diagnosis of a major depressive episode as part of a major depressive disorder.

Criticisms of this approach can be apparent. Patients subjected to such checklists, including being repeatedly asked to complete the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), which closely follows those criteria, can feel lost and even alienated by their providers. After all, one can ask all those questions and make a diagnosis of depression without even knowing about the patient’s stressors, their history, or their social context.

The DSM permits the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders without an understanding of the narrative of the patient. In its defense, the DSM is not a textbook of psychiatry, it is a guide on how to diagnose individuals. The DSM does not demand that psychiatrists only ask about the symptoms on the checklists; it is the providers who can choose to dismiss asking about the important facets of one’s life.

Yet every time we attend a lecture that starts by enumerating the DSM symptoms of the disorder being discussed, we are left with the dissatisfying impression that a specialist of this disorder should have a more nuanced and interesting description of their disorder of study. This feeling of discontent is compounded when we see a movie that encompasses so much of what is missing in today’s psychiatric parlance, and even more so if that movie is ostensibly made for children. Movies, by design, are particularly adept at encapsulating the narrative of someone’s life in a way that psychiatry can learn from.

Other than the embarrassment of not knowing a patient outside the checklist, the importance of narrative cannot be understated. Dr. Erik Erikson rightfully suggested that the point of life is “the acceptance of one’s one and only life cycle”¹ or rather to know it was okay to have been oneself without additions or substitutions. Therefore, one must know what it has meant to be themselves to reconcile this question and achieve Ego Integrity rather than disgust and despair. Narrative is the way in which we understand who we are and what it has meant to be ourselves. An understanding of our personal narrative presents a unique opportunity in expressing what is missing in the DSM. Below, we provide two of our favorite examples in Disney films, among many.
 

‘Ratatouille’ (2007)

One of the missing features of the DSM is its inability to explain to patients the intrapsychic processes that guide us. One of these processes is how our values can lead us to a deep sense of guilt, shame, and the resulting feelings of alienation. It is extremely common for patients to enter our clinical practice feeling shackled by beliefs that they should accomplish more and be more than they are.

The animated film “Ratatouille” does an excellent job at addressing this feeling. The film follows Remy, the protagonist rat, and his adventures as he explores his passion for cooking. Remy teams up with the inept but good-natured human Alfredo Linguini and guides him through cooking while hiding under his chef’s hat. The primary antagonist, Anton Ego, is a particularly harsh food critic. His presence and appearance are somber. He exudes disdain. His trim physique and scarf suggest a man that will break and react to anything, and his skull-shaped typewriter in his coffin-shaped office informs the viewer that he is out to kill with his cruel words. Anton Ego serves as our projected super-ego. He is not an external judge but the judgment deep inside ourselves, goading us to be better with such severity that we are ultimately left feeling condemned.

Remy is the younger of two siblings. He is less physically adept but more intellectual than his older brother, who does not understand why Remy isn’t content eating scraps from the garbage like the rest of their rat clan. Remy is the creative part within us that wants to challenge the status quo and try something new. Remy also represents our shame and guilt for leaving our home. On one hand, we want to dare greatly, in this case at being an extraordinary chef, but on the other we are shy and cook in secret, hiding within the hat of another person. Remy struggles with the deep feeling that we do not deserve our success, that our family will leave us for being who we are, and that we are better off isolating and segregating from our challenges.

The movie concludes that through talent and hard work, our critics will accept us. Furthermore, once accepted for what we do, we can be further accepted for who we are. The movie ends with Remy cooking the eponymous dish ratatouille. He prepares it so remarkably well, the dish transports Anton Ego back to a sublime experience of eating ratatouille as a child, a touching moment which not only underscores food’s evocative link to memory but gives a glimpse at Anton Ego’s own narrative.

Ego is first won over by the dish, and only afterward learns of Remy’s true identity. Remy’s talent is undeniable though, and even the stuffy Ego must accept the film’s theme that “Anyone can cook,” even a rat – the rat that we all sometimes feel we are deep inside, rotten to the core but trying so hard to be accepted by others, and ultimately by ourselves. In the end, we overcome the disgust inherent in the imagery of a rat in a kitchen and instead embrace our hero’s achievement of ego integrity as he combines his identities as a member of a clan of rats, and one of Paris’s finest chefs.

While modern psychiatry can favor looking at people through the lens of biology rather than narrative, “Ratatouille” can serve as a reminder of the powerful unconscious forces that guide our lives. “Ratatouille” is not a successful movie only because of the compelling narrative, but also because the narrative matches the important psychic paradigms that psychiatry once embraced.
 

‘Inside Out’ (2015)

Another missing feature of the DSM is its inability to explain how symptoms feel and manifest psychologically. One such feeling is that of control – whether one is in control of one’s life, feelings, and action or rather a victim of external forces. It is extremely common for patients to enter our clinical practice feeling traumatized by the life they’ve lived and powerless to produce any change. Part of our role is to guide them through this journey from the object of their lives to the subject of their lives.

In the animated feature “Inside Out,” Riley, a preteen girl, goes through the tribulation of growing up and learning about herself. This seemingly happy child, content playing hockey with her best friend, Meg, on the picturesque frozen lakes of Minnesota, reaches her inevitable conflict. Her parents uproot her life, moving the family to San Francisco. By doing so, they disconnect her from her school, her friends, and her hobbies. While all this is happening, we spend time inside Riley’s psyche with the personified characters of Riley’s emotions as they affect her decisions and daily actions amidst the backdrop of her core memories and islands of personality.

During the move, her parents seemingly change and ultimately destroy every facet of Riley’s sense of self, which is animated as the collapse of her personality islands. Her best friend engages Riley in a video call just to inform her that she has a new friend who plays hockey equally well. Her parents do not hear Riley’s concerns and are portrayed as distracted by their adult problems. Riley feels ridiculed in her new school and unable to share her feelings with her parents, who ask her to still be their “happy girl” and indirectly ask her to fake pleasure to alleviate their own anxiety.

The climax of the movie is when Riley decides to run away from San Francisco and her parents, to return to her perceived true home, Minnesota. The climax is resolved when Riley realizes that her parents’ love, representing the connection we have to others, transcends her need for control. To some degree, we are all powerless in the face of the tremendous forces of life and share the difficult task of accepting the cards we were dealt, thus making the story of Riley so compelling.

Additionally, the climax is further resolved by another argument that psychiatry (and the DSM) should consider embracing. Emotions are not all symptoms and living without negative emotion is not the goal of life. Riley grows from preteen to teenager, and from object to subject of her life, by realizing that her symptoms/feelings are not just nuisances to avoid and hide, but the key to meaning. Our anger drives us to try hard. Our fear protects us from harm. Our sadness attracts the warmth and care of others. Our disgust protects us physically from noxious material (symbolized as a dreaded broccoli floret for preteen Riley) and socially by encouraging us to share societal norms. Similarly, patients and people in general would benefit by being taught that, while symptoms may permit the better assessment of psychiatric conditions using the DSM, life is much more than that.

It is unfair to blame the DSM for things it was not designed to do. The DSM doesn’t advertise itself as a guidebook of all behaviors, at all times. However, for a variety of reasons, it has become the main way psychiatry describes people. While we commend the APA for its effort and do not know that we could make it any better, we are frequently happily reminded that in about 90 minutes, filmmakers are able to display an empathic understanding of personal narratives that biologic psychiatry can miss.

Dr. Pulido is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in women’s mental health, medical education, and outpatient psychiatry. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Erikson, EH. Childhood and society (New York: WW Norton, 1950).

The number of young children unintentionally exposed to edible cannabis products in the United States jumped 1,375% over a 5-year period, according to a new analysis of data from poison control centers.

In 2017, centers received 207 reports of children aged 5 years and younger who ingested edible cannabis. In 2021, 3,054 such cases were reported, according to the study, which was published online in Pediatrics.

Many of the children experienced clinical effects, such as depression of the central nervous system, impaired coordination, confusion, agitation, an increase in heart rate, or dilated pupils. No deaths were reported.

“These exposures can cause significant toxicity and are responsible for an increasing number of hospitalizations,” study coauthor Marit S. Tweet, MD, of Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues wrote.

About 97% of the exposures occurred in residences – 90% at the child’s own home – and about half of the cases involved 2- and 3-year-olds, they noted.
 

Examining national trends

Twenty-one states have approved recreational cannabis for people aged 21 years and older.

Prior research has shown that calls to poison centers and visits to emergency departments for pediatric cannabis consumption increased in certain states after the drug became legal in those jurisdictions.

To assess national trends, Dr. Tweet’s group analyzed cases in the National Poison Data System, which tracks potentially toxic exposures reported to poison control centers in the United States.

During the 5-year period, they identified 7,043 exposures to edible cannabis by children younger than age 6. In 2.2% of the cases, the drug had a major effect, defined as being either life-threatening or causing residual disability. In 21.9% of cases, the effect was considered to be moderate, with symptoms that were more pronounced, prolonged, or systemic than minor effects.

About 8% of the children were admitted to critical care units; 14.6% were admitted to non–critical care units.

Of 4,827 cases for which there was information about the clinical effects of the exposure and therapies used, 70% involved CNS depression, including 1.9% with “more severe CNS effects, including major CNS depression or coma,” according to the report.

Patients also experienced ataxia (7.4%), agitation (7.1%), confusion (6.1%), tremor (2%), and seizures (1.6%). Other common symptoms included tachycardia (11.4%), vomiting (9.5%), mydriasis (5.9%), and respiratory depression (3.1%).

Treatments for the exposures included intravenous fluids (20.7%), food or snacks (10.3%), and oxygen therapy (4%). Some patients also received naloxone (1.4%) or charcoal (2.1%).

“The total number of children requiring intubation during the study period was 35, or approximately 1 in 140,” the researchers reported. “Although this was a relatively rare occurrence, it is important for clinicians to be aware that life-threatening sequelae can develop and may necessitate invasive supportive care measures.”
 

Tempting and toxic

For toddlers, edible cannabis may be especially tempting and toxic. Edibles can “resemble common treats such as candies, chocolates, cookies, or other baked goods,” the researchers wrote. Children would not recognize, for example, that one chocolate bar might contain multiple 10-mg servings of tetrahydrocannabinol intended for adults.

Poison centers have been fielding more calls about edible cannabis use by older children, as well.

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, recently found that many cases of intentional misuse and abuse by adolescents involve edible forms of cannabis.

“While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

Measures to keep edibles away from children could include changing how the products are packaged, limiting the maximum dose of drug per package, and educating the public about the risks to children, Dr. Tweet’s group wrote. They highlighted a 2019 position statement from the American College of Medical Toxicology that includes recommendations for responsible storage habits.

Dr. Hughes echoed one suggestion that is mentioned in the position statement: Parents should consider keeping their cannabis products locked up.

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of young children unintentionally exposed to edible cannabis products in the United States jumped 1,375% over a 5-year period, according to a new analysis of data from poison control centers.

In 2017, centers received 207 reports of children aged 5 years and younger who ingested edible cannabis. In 2021, 3,054 such cases were reported, according to the study, which was published online in Pediatrics.

Many of the children experienced clinical effects, such as depression of the central nervous system, impaired coordination, confusion, agitation, an increase in heart rate, or dilated pupils. No deaths were reported.

“These exposures can cause significant toxicity and are responsible for an increasing number of hospitalizations,” study coauthor Marit S. Tweet, MD, of Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues wrote.

About 97% of the exposures occurred in residences – 90% at the child’s own home – and about half of the cases involved 2- and 3-year-olds, they noted.
 

Examining national trends

Twenty-one states have approved recreational cannabis for people aged 21 years and older.

Prior research has shown that calls to poison centers and visits to emergency departments for pediatric cannabis consumption increased in certain states after the drug became legal in those jurisdictions.

To assess national trends, Dr. Tweet’s group analyzed cases in the National Poison Data System, which tracks potentially toxic exposures reported to poison control centers in the United States.

During the 5-year period, they identified 7,043 exposures to edible cannabis by children younger than age 6. In 2.2% of the cases, the drug had a major effect, defined as being either life-threatening or causing residual disability. In 21.9% of cases, the effect was considered to be moderate, with symptoms that were more pronounced, prolonged, or systemic than minor effects.

About 8% of the children were admitted to critical care units; 14.6% were admitted to non–critical care units.

Of 4,827 cases for which there was information about the clinical effects of the exposure and therapies used, 70% involved CNS depression, including 1.9% with “more severe CNS effects, including major CNS depression or coma,” according to the report.

Patients also experienced ataxia (7.4%), agitation (7.1%), confusion (6.1%), tremor (2%), and seizures (1.6%). Other common symptoms included tachycardia (11.4%), vomiting (9.5%), mydriasis (5.9%), and respiratory depression (3.1%).

Treatments for the exposures included intravenous fluids (20.7%), food or snacks (10.3%), and oxygen therapy (4%). Some patients also received naloxone (1.4%) or charcoal (2.1%).

“The total number of children requiring intubation during the study period was 35, or approximately 1 in 140,” the researchers reported. “Although this was a relatively rare occurrence, it is important for clinicians to be aware that life-threatening sequelae can develop and may necessitate invasive supportive care measures.”
 

Tempting and toxic

For toddlers, edible cannabis may be especially tempting and toxic. Edibles can “resemble common treats such as candies, chocolates, cookies, or other baked goods,” the researchers wrote. Children would not recognize, for example, that one chocolate bar might contain multiple 10-mg servings of tetrahydrocannabinol intended for adults.

Poison centers have been fielding more calls about edible cannabis use by older children, as well.

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, recently found that many cases of intentional misuse and abuse by adolescents involve edible forms of cannabis.

“While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

Measures to keep edibles away from children could include changing how the products are packaged, limiting the maximum dose of drug per package, and educating the public about the risks to children, Dr. Tweet’s group wrote. They highlighted a 2019 position statement from the American College of Medical Toxicology that includes recommendations for responsible storage habits.

Dr. Hughes echoed one suggestion that is mentioned in the position statement: Parents should consider keeping their cannabis products locked up.

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of young children unintentionally exposed to edible cannabis products in the United States jumped 1,375% over a 5-year period, according to a new analysis of data from poison control centers.

In 2017, centers received 207 reports of children aged 5 years and younger who ingested edible cannabis. In 2021, 3,054 such cases were reported, according to the study, which was published online in Pediatrics.

Many of the children experienced clinical effects, such as depression of the central nervous system, impaired coordination, confusion, agitation, an increase in heart rate, or dilated pupils. No deaths were reported.

“These exposures can cause significant toxicity and are responsible for an increasing number of hospitalizations,” study coauthor Marit S. Tweet, MD, of Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues wrote.

About 97% of the exposures occurred in residences – 90% at the child’s own home – and about half of the cases involved 2- and 3-year-olds, they noted.
 

Examining national trends

Twenty-one states have approved recreational cannabis for people aged 21 years and older.

Prior research has shown that calls to poison centers and visits to emergency departments for pediatric cannabis consumption increased in certain states after the drug became legal in those jurisdictions.

To assess national trends, Dr. Tweet’s group analyzed cases in the National Poison Data System, which tracks potentially toxic exposures reported to poison control centers in the United States.

During the 5-year period, they identified 7,043 exposures to edible cannabis by children younger than age 6. In 2.2% of the cases, the drug had a major effect, defined as being either life-threatening or causing residual disability. In 21.9% of cases, the effect was considered to be moderate, with symptoms that were more pronounced, prolonged, or systemic than minor effects.

About 8% of the children were admitted to critical care units; 14.6% were admitted to non–critical care units.

Of 4,827 cases for which there was information about the clinical effects of the exposure and therapies used, 70% involved CNS depression, including 1.9% with “more severe CNS effects, including major CNS depression or coma,” according to the report.

Patients also experienced ataxia (7.4%), agitation (7.1%), confusion (6.1%), tremor (2%), and seizures (1.6%). Other common symptoms included tachycardia (11.4%), vomiting (9.5%), mydriasis (5.9%), and respiratory depression (3.1%).

Treatments for the exposures included intravenous fluids (20.7%), food or snacks (10.3%), and oxygen therapy (4%). Some patients also received naloxone (1.4%) or charcoal (2.1%).

“The total number of children requiring intubation during the study period was 35, or approximately 1 in 140,” the researchers reported. “Although this was a relatively rare occurrence, it is important for clinicians to be aware that life-threatening sequelae can develop and may necessitate invasive supportive care measures.”
 

Tempting and toxic

For toddlers, edible cannabis may be especially tempting and toxic. Edibles can “resemble common treats such as candies, chocolates, cookies, or other baked goods,” the researchers wrote. Children would not recognize, for example, that one chocolate bar might contain multiple 10-mg servings of tetrahydrocannabinol intended for adults.

Poison centers have been fielding more calls about edible cannabis use by older children, as well.

Adrienne Hughes, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, recently found that many cases of intentional misuse and abuse by adolescents involve edible forms of cannabis.

“While marijuana carries a low risk for severe toxicity, it can be inebriating to the point of poor judgment, risk of falls or other injury, and occasionally a panic reaction in the novice user and unsuspecting children who accidentally ingest these products,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

Measures to keep edibles away from children could include changing how the products are packaged, limiting the maximum dose of drug per package, and educating the public about the risks to children, Dr. Tweet’s group wrote. They highlighted a 2019 position statement from the American College of Medical Toxicology that includes recommendations for responsible storage habits.

Dr. Hughes echoed one suggestion that is mentioned in the position statement: Parents should consider keeping their cannabis products locked up.

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

Happy New Year, everyone! In early December, I attended the 2022 AGA Women’s Leadership Collaboration Conference to discuss strategies to promote gender equity in our profession. It was an inspiring weekend and reminded me how many talented individuals we have in the field of gastroenterology, all with fascinating personal and professional stories and much to contribute. I think I speak for all attendees in saying that it was a privilege to have the opportunity to interact with this amazing group of women leaders, reflect on our shared experiences and visions for the future of GI, and expand our networks.

This month we are excited to launch a new recurring feature in the newspaper and online – the Member Spotlight column. AGA has more than16,000 members from varied backgrounds. Yet the reality is that each of our individual networks is much smaller, and we would all benefit from learning more about one other and building a greater sense of community. To that end, starting with this issue, we will feature a different AGA member each month in our Member Spotlight column. The goal of this new feature is to recognize AGA members’ accomplishments across all career stages and practice settings, to highlight the diversity of our membership, and to help AGA members feel more connected by learning more about each other. Our inaugural Member Spotlight column highlights Patricia Jones, MD, associate professor at the University of Miami and an accomplished hepatologist. We thank Dr. Jones for sharing her story with us.

This will be a recurring monthly feature, so please consider nominating your colleagues (including trainees, practicing GIs in academics and community practice, those with non-traditional careers or unique pursuits outside of medicine, and others) to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns! It’s a great way for the nominee’s accomplishments to be recognized and to build a sense of community among the broader AGA membership. To submit a nomination, please send the nominee’s name, email, and a brief description of why you are nominating them to: GINews@gastro.org. We look forward to reviewing your submissions and hope you will use these Member Spotlights as an opportunity to strike up a conversation with someone new and expand your networks.

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

Happy New Year, everyone! In early December, I attended the 2022 AGA Women’s Leadership Collaboration Conference to discuss strategies to promote gender equity in our profession. It was an inspiring weekend and reminded me how many talented individuals we have in the field of gastroenterology, all with fascinating personal and professional stories and much to contribute. I think I speak for all attendees in saying that it was a privilege to have the opportunity to interact with this amazing group of women leaders, reflect on our shared experiences and visions for the future of GI, and expand our networks.

This month we are excited to launch a new recurring feature in the newspaper and online – the Member Spotlight column. AGA has more than16,000 members from varied backgrounds. Yet the reality is that each of our individual networks is much smaller, and we would all benefit from learning more about one other and building a greater sense of community. To that end, starting with this issue, we will feature a different AGA member each month in our Member Spotlight column. The goal of this new feature is to recognize AGA members’ accomplishments across all career stages and practice settings, to highlight the diversity of our membership, and to help AGA members feel more connected by learning more about each other. Our inaugural Member Spotlight column highlights Patricia Jones, MD, associate professor at the University of Miami and an accomplished hepatologist. We thank Dr. Jones for sharing her story with us.

This will be a recurring monthly feature, so please consider nominating your colleagues (including trainees, practicing GIs in academics and community practice, those with non-traditional careers or unique pursuits outside of medicine, and others) to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns! It’s a great way for the nominee’s accomplishments to be recognized and to build a sense of community among the broader AGA membership. To submit a nomination, please send the nominee’s name, email, and a brief description of why you are nominating them to: GINews@gastro.org. We look forward to reviewing your submissions and hope you will use these Member Spotlights as an opportunity to strike up a conversation with someone new and expand your networks.

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

Happy New Year, everyone! In early December, I attended the 2022 AGA Women’s Leadership Collaboration Conference to discuss strategies to promote gender equity in our profession. It was an inspiring weekend and reminded me how many talented individuals we have in the field of gastroenterology, all with fascinating personal and professional stories and much to contribute. I think I speak for all attendees in saying that it was a privilege to have the opportunity to interact with this amazing group of women leaders, reflect on our shared experiences and visions for the future of GI, and expand our networks.

This month we are excited to launch a new recurring feature in the newspaper and online – the Member Spotlight column. AGA has more than16,000 members from varied backgrounds. Yet the reality is that each of our individual networks is much smaller, and we would all benefit from learning more about one other and building a greater sense of community. To that end, starting with this issue, we will feature a different AGA member each month in our Member Spotlight column. The goal of this new feature is to recognize AGA members’ accomplishments across all career stages and practice settings, to highlight the diversity of our membership, and to help AGA members feel more connected by learning more about each other. Our inaugural Member Spotlight column highlights Patricia Jones, MD, associate professor at the University of Miami and an accomplished hepatologist. We thank Dr. Jones for sharing her story with us.

This will be a recurring monthly feature, so please consider nominating your colleagues (including trainees, practicing GIs in academics and community practice, those with non-traditional careers or unique pursuits outside of medicine, and others) to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns! It’s a great way for the nominee’s accomplishments to be recognized and to build a sense of community among the broader AGA membership. To submit a nomination, please send the nominee’s name, email, and a brief description of why you are nominating them to: GINews@gastro.org. We look forward to reviewing your submissions and hope you will use these Member Spotlights as an opportunity to strike up a conversation with someone new and expand your networks.

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

Hepatologist Patricia Denise Jones, MD, recollects the balancing act of going through medical training while caring for her four children.

“I had them at every stage: my first one as a medical student; twins when I was a resident, and my last one at the end of fellowship. It was challenging, trying to put their needs first while trying to be a great doctor, learning how to do research,” said Dr. Jones, an associate professor at the University of Miami Health system.

She has no regrets. “I think I’m a better doctor and colleague because I have children. Showing my kids how important it is to help and serve others is one of the best legacies I can leave them.”

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

Q: Describe your current practice. What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Jones: Being able to make a difference in the lives of patients. A lot of the patients that I take care of have difficulty navigating the health system. That’s the population I feel most inclined to serve. It’s always rewarding to help someone make a connection that they couldn’t make on their own or help them understand something that wasn’t clear. Knowing that you’re helping someone to live a healthier life is deeply gratifying.



Q: Tell me about your patient population.

Dr. Jones: My focus is patients with liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma specifically, and cirrhosis patients. They tend to be sick relative to most Americans. I also take care of people who have other forms of liver disease like fatty liver and viral hepatitis. I live in Miami, so most of the patients that I take care of are going to be Hispanic. A good percentage are immigrants with limited health literacy.

Q: What is your biggest practice-related challenge? What are you doing to address it?

Dr. Jones: Lack of insurance and underinsurance. One patient of mine with Medicare and Humana has a carve out: She can see me and some of my colleagues but not the oncologist or a radiation oncologist. For her to be seen in our center, she would have to get a referral from a doctor in a different county. This makes no sense. It’s a hard problem to solve. To me, that’s the most challenging thing – not being able to help when something is beyond my control, beyond what I understand, and translating it into action. 

Q: What general principles guide you in your professional and personal life?

Dr. Jones: I try to think of the Golden Rule in every encounter with a person, either in clinic or in real life, as if they were my mother or sister. If I’m frustrated or having a bad day, what would I want that person’s experience to be with their doctor? I also try to assume the best possible intent with people.

Latosha Y. Flowers, MD

Q: What teacher, mentor, or other influences had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Jones: My father. He started out as a salesman, worked in legislation, and then retired early to focus on and build up our community, making sure that we were better off than we were before. In terms of my professional life, Robert Sandler, MD is one of my greatest mentors. He is at the University of North Carolina and was the division chief of gastroenterology. He saw potential in me and supports me to this day. If you need something, he’s there. If you need him to comment on your draft, he’s very reliable and gives you great, critical feedback.
 

Q: In 10 years, what do you hope you are doing or what do you hope you have accomplished?

Dr. Jones: In 10 years, I hope that my efforts will have revolutionized our approach to delivering care to vulnerable populations. Much of the work that has been done thus far in the field of disparities and liver disease has focused on describing the inequities. However, I have just started working in health equity. This will require partnering with patients and caregivers to get a better understanding of their needs and collaborating with legislators to increase funding directed towards building the infrastructure necessary to deliver health care to those who have been forgotten.

Lightning round questions

Favorite movie, show, or book
Forrest Gump, Blackish, anything by Toni Morrison

Favorite music genre
Hip Hop

Favorite food
Seafood

Favorite travel destination
Tanzania

Your ideal type of pet
Dog

Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist!

Dr. Jones is on Twitter @DrLiverPatty.

Hepatologist Patricia Denise Jones, MD, recollects the balancing act of going through medical training while caring for her four children.

“I had them at every stage: my first one as a medical student; twins when I was a resident, and my last one at the end of fellowship. It was challenging, trying to put their needs first while trying to be a great doctor, learning how to do research,” said Dr. Jones, an associate professor at the University of Miami Health system.

She has no regrets. “I think I’m a better doctor and colleague because I have children. Showing my kids how important it is to help and serve others is one of the best legacies I can leave them.”

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

Q: Describe your current practice. What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Jones: Being able to make a difference in the lives of patients. A lot of the patients that I take care of have difficulty navigating the health system. That’s the population I feel most inclined to serve. It’s always rewarding to help someone make a connection that they couldn’t make on their own or help them understand something that wasn’t clear. Knowing that you’re helping someone to live a healthier life is deeply gratifying.



Q: Tell me about your patient population.

Dr. Jones: My focus is patients with liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma specifically, and cirrhosis patients. They tend to be sick relative to most Americans. I also take care of people who have other forms of liver disease like fatty liver and viral hepatitis. I live in Miami, so most of the patients that I take care of are going to be Hispanic. A good percentage are immigrants with limited health literacy.

Q: What is your biggest practice-related challenge? What are you doing to address it?

Dr. Jones: Lack of insurance and underinsurance. One patient of mine with Medicare and Humana has a carve out: She can see me and some of my colleagues but not the oncologist or a radiation oncologist. For her to be seen in our center, she would have to get a referral from a doctor in a different county. This makes no sense. It’s a hard problem to solve. To me, that’s the most challenging thing – not being able to help when something is beyond my control, beyond what I understand, and translating it into action. 

Q: What general principles guide you in your professional and personal life?

Dr. Jones: I try to think of the Golden Rule in every encounter with a person, either in clinic or in real life, as if they were my mother or sister. If I’m frustrated or having a bad day, what would I want that person’s experience to be with their doctor? I also try to assume the best possible intent with people.

Latosha Y. Flowers, MD

Q: What teacher, mentor, or other influences had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Jones: My father. He started out as a salesman, worked in legislation, and then retired early to focus on and build up our community, making sure that we were better off than we were before. In terms of my professional life, Robert Sandler, MD is one of my greatest mentors. He is at the University of North Carolina and was the division chief of gastroenterology. He saw potential in me and supports me to this day. If you need something, he’s there. If you need him to comment on your draft, he’s very reliable and gives you great, critical feedback.
 

Q: In 10 years, what do you hope you are doing or what do you hope you have accomplished?

Dr. Jones: In 10 years, I hope that my efforts will have revolutionized our approach to delivering care to vulnerable populations. Much of the work that has been done thus far in the field of disparities and liver disease has focused on describing the inequities. However, I have just started working in health equity. This will require partnering with patients and caregivers to get a better understanding of their needs and collaborating with legislators to increase funding directed towards building the infrastructure necessary to deliver health care to those who have been forgotten.

Lightning round questions

Favorite movie, show, or book
Forrest Gump, Blackish, anything by Toni Morrison

Favorite music genre
Hip Hop

Favorite food
Seafood

Favorite travel destination
Tanzania

Your ideal type of pet
Dog

Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist!

Dr. Jones is on Twitter @DrLiverPatty.

Hepatologist Patricia Denise Jones, MD, recollects the balancing act of going through medical training while caring for her four children.

“I had them at every stage: my first one as a medical student; twins when I was a resident, and my last one at the end of fellowship. It was challenging, trying to put their needs first while trying to be a great doctor, learning how to do research,” said Dr. Jones, an associate professor at the University of Miami Health system.

She has no regrets. “I think I’m a better doctor and colleague because I have children. Showing my kids how important it is to help and serve others is one of the best legacies I can leave them.”

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

Q: Describe your current practice. What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Jones: Being able to make a difference in the lives of patients. A lot of the patients that I take care of have difficulty navigating the health system. That’s the population I feel most inclined to serve. It’s always rewarding to help someone make a connection that they couldn’t make on their own or help them understand something that wasn’t clear. Knowing that you’re helping someone to live a healthier life is deeply gratifying.



Q: Tell me about your patient population.

Dr. Jones: My focus is patients with liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma specifically, and cirrhosis patients. They tend to be sick relative to most Americans. I also take care of people who have other forms of liver disease like fatty liver and viral hepatitis. I live in Miami, so most of the patients that I take care of are going to be Hispanic. A good percentage are immigrants with limited health literacy.

Q: What is your biggest practice-related challenge? What are you doing to address it?

Dr. Jones: Lack of insurance and underinsurance. One patient of mine with Medicare and Humana has a carve out: She can see me and some of my colleagues but not the oncologist or a radiation oncologist. For her to be seen in our center, she would have to get a referral from a doctor in a different county. This makes no sense. It’s a hard problem to solve. To me, that’s the most challenging thing – not being able to help when something is beyond my control, beyond what I understand, and translating it into action. 

Q: What general principles guide you in your professional and personal life?

Dr. Jones: I try to think of the Golden Rule in every encounter with a person, either in clinic or in real life, as if they were my mother or sister. If I’m frustrated or having a bad day, what would I want that person’s experience to be with their doctor? I also try to assume the best possible intent with people.

Latosha Y. Flowers, MD

Q: What teacher, mentor, or other influences had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Jones: My father. He started out as a salesman, worked in legislation, and then retired early to focus on and build up our community, making sure that we were better off than we were before. In terms of my professional life, Robert Sandler, MD is one of my greatest mentors. He is at the University of North Carolina and was the division chief of gastroenterology. He saw potential in me and supports me to this day. If you need something, he’s there. If you need him to comment on your draft, he’s very reliable and gives you great, critical feedback.
 

Q: In 10 years, what do you hope you are doing or what do you hope you have accomplished?

Dr. Jones: In 10 years, I hope that my efforts will have revolutionized our approach to delivering care to vulnerable populations. Much of the work that has been done thus far in the field of disparities and liver disease has focused on describing the inequities. However, I have just started working in health equity. This will require partnering with patients and caregivers to get a better understanding of their needs and collaborating with legislators to increase funding directed towards building the infrastructure necessary to deliver health care to those who have been forgotten.

Lightning round questions

Favorite movie, show, or book
Forrest Gump, Blackish, anything by Toni Morrison

Favorite music genre
Hip Hop

Favorite food
Seafood

Favorite travel destination
Tanzania

Your ideal type of pet
Dog

Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist!

Dr. Jones is on Twitter @DrLiverPatty.

A new hereditary test can determine whether a cancer-disposing gene was inherited from a patient’s father or mother without the need for parental DNA, potentially improving disease screening and management.

“The presence of parental imprints in regions of the genome has been known for a long time,” study author Peter Lansdorp, MD, PhD, of the BC Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, said in an interview. In addition, the ability of a specific sequencing technology (Strand-seq) to generate a set of DNA variants that tend to be inherited together from a single parent has been documented in several studies.

“That these two pieces can be put together to assign alleles in a patient to one of the parents without studying the DNA of the parents is a major advance,” said Dr. Lansdorp.

Principal author Steven J.M. Jones, PhD, associate director of bioinformatics at BC Cancer Research Centre, explained, “for directing cascade genetic testing, the test could be used almost immediately, even as a research test. It just guides which side of the family to focus familial genetic testing efforts on and is internally validated by the patient’s variant and later confirmed by clinical testing in the family.”

Directing cascade genetic testing to one side of the family over the other could speed time to diagnosis of more carriers and allow for more efficient use of genetic counseling resources, Dr. Jones added, especially when parents are deceased or unavailable.

The study was published online in Cell Genomics.
 

Low error rate

Determining a parent of origin for hereditary variants “is essential to evaluate disease risk when a pathogenic variant has PofO effects, that is, when a patient’s risk of disease depends on from which parent it is inherited,” the authors wrote. An example is hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome as a result of pathogenic variants in SDHD or SDHAF2 genes. Individuals with the variants are at high risk of developing certain cancers, but only if a defective gene is inherited from their father. If inherited from their mother, there is no increased risk.

The new method relies on a technique called “phased DNA methylation” at maternally and paternally imprinted gene loci, as well as chromosome length phasing of DNA sequences.

The team used five human genome “trios” – two parents and the proband (the first person in a family to receive genetic testing or counseling for a suspected hereditary risk) – to pilot the approach. They showed that the method can correctly identify the PofO with an average mismatch error rate of 0.31% for single nucleotide variants and 1.89% for insertions or deletions (indels).

“We will need to validate this technology for different genes in real-world samples from individuals of diverse backgrounds,” said Dr. Jones. The first step is to validate the technology in scenarios with immediate clinical utility, like with SDHD, where lifelong medical management is affected by knowledge of whether the variant was inherited from the mother or father.

“We would also like to quickly validate this for common hereditary cancer genes, like BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome–associated genes, where prediction of PofO may improve low rates of genetic testing in family members by providing more accurate estimates of their risk to carry the familial variant.”

Challenges to moving the test to the clinic, Dr. Jones said, include scaling up the technology, demonstrating clinical and economic utility, compared with existing testing approaches, “and familiarizing clinicians with a new type of test that will routinely give this added dimension of information.”
 

‘Tremendously promising technology’

Pathologist Stephen Yip, MD, PhD, of the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, who was not involved in the study but disclosed that he collaborates with the authors on other grant-funded projects, said in a comment that “this is a tremendously promising technology that has immediate practical implications in the investigation of PofO of a pathogenic locus, particularly when genetic material is available only from the proband.”

However, “rigorous validation against the current gold standard of short-reading, next-generation sequencing of trios is needed prior to clinical deployment,” he said. “This will take time and effort. However, the promise of this technology is worth the effort.

“Also, there is the possibility of uncovering novel genetics during testing, which could present an ethical dilemma,” he noted. “A robust consenting and ethical framework and early involvement of an ethicist would be helpful.”

Research in Dr. Lansdorp’s laboratory is funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the government of British Columbia. Dr. Lansdorp, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Yip reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new hereditary test can determine whether a cancer-disposing gene was inherited from a patient’s father or mother without the need for parental DNA, potentially improving disease screening and management.

“The presence of parental imprints in regions of the genome has been known for a long time,” study author Peter Lansdorp, MD, PhD, of the BC Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, said in an interview. In addition, the ability of a specific sequencing technology (Strand-seq) to generate a set of DNA variants that tend to be inherited together from a single parent has been documented in several studies.

“That these two pieces can be put together to assign alleles in a patient to one of the parents without studying the DNA of the parents is a major advance,” said Dr. Lansdorp.

Principal author Steven J.M. Jones, PhD, associate director of bioinformatics at BC Cancer Research Centre, explained, “for directing cascade genetic testing, the test could be used almost immediately, even as a research test. It just guides which side of the family to focus familial genetic testing efforts on and is internally validated by the patient’s variant and later confirmed by clinical testing in the family.”

Directing cascade genetic testing to one side of the family over the other could speed time to diagnosis of more carriers and allow for more efficient use of genetic counseling resources, Dr. Jones added, especially when parents are deceased or unavailable.

The study was published online in Cell Genomics.
 

Low error rate

Determining a parent of origin for hereditary variants “is essential to evaluate disease risk when a pathogenic variant has PofO effects, that is, when a patient’s risk of disease depends on from which parent it is inherited,” the authors wrote. An example is hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome as a result of pathogenic variants in SDHD or SDHAF2 genes. Individuals with the variants are at high risk of developing certain cancers, but only if a defective gene is inherited from their father. If inherited from their mother, there is no increased risk.

The new method relies on a technique called “phased DNA methylation” at maternally and paternally imprinted gene loci, as well as chromosome length phasing of DNA sequences.

The team used five human genome “trios” – two parents and the proband (the first person in a family to receive genetic testing or counseling for a suspected hereditary risk) – to pilot the approach. They showed that the method can correctly identify the PofO with an average mismatch error rate of 0.31% for single nucleotide variants and 1.89% for insertions or deletions (indels).

“We will need to validate this technology for different genes in real-world samples from individuals of diverse backgrounds,” said Dr. Jones. The first step is to validate the technology in scenarios with immediate clinical utility, like with SDHD, where lifelong medical management is affected by knowledge of whether the variant was inherited from the mother or father.

“We would also like to quickly validate this for common hereditary cancer genes, like BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome–associated genes, where prediction of PofO may improve low rates of genetic testing in family members by providing more accurate estimates of their risk to carry the familial variant.”

Challenges to moving the test to the clinic, Dr. Jones said, include scaling up the technology, demonstrating clinical and economic utility, compared with existing testing approaches, “and familiarizing clinicians with a new type of test that will routinely give this added dimension of information.”
 

‘Tremendously promising technology’

Pathologist Stephen Yip, MD, PhD, of the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, who was not involved in the study but disclosed that he collaborates with the authors on other grant-funded projects, said in a comment that “this is a tremendously promising technology that has immediate practical implications in the investigation of PofO of a pathogenic locus, particularly when genetic material is available only from the proband.”

However, “rigorous validation against the current gold standard of short-reading, next-generation sequencing of trios is needed prior to clinical deployment,” he said. “This will take time and effort. However, the promise of this technology is worth the effort.

“Also, there is the possibility of uncovering novel genetics during testing, which could present an ethical dilemma,” he noted. “A robust consenting and ethical framework and early involvement of an ethicist would be helpful.”

Research in Dr. Lansdorp’s laboratory is funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the government of British Columbia. Dr. Lansdorp, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Yip reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new hereditary test can determine whether a cancer-disposing gene was inherited from a patient’s father or mother without the need for parental DNA, potentially improving disease screening and management.

“The presence of parental imprints in regions of the genome has been known for a long time,” study author Peter Lansdorp, MD, PhD, of the BC Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, said in an interview. In addition, the ability of a specific sequencing technology (Strand-seq) to generate a set of DNA variants that tend to be inherited together from a single parent has been documented in several studies.

“That these two pieces can be put together to assign alleles in a patient to one of the parents without studying the DNA of the parents is a major advance,” said Dr. Lansdorp.

Principal author Steven J.M. Jones, PhD, associate director of bioinformatics at BC Cancer Research Centre, explained, “for directing cascade genetic testing, the test could be used almost immediately, even as a research test. It just guides which side of the family to focus familial genetic testing efforts on and is internally validated by the patient’s variant and later confirmed by clinical testing in the family.”

Directing cascade genetic testing to one side of the family over the other could speed time to diagnosis of more carriers and allow for more efficient use of genetic counseling resources, Dr. Jones added, especially when parents are deceased or unavailable.

The study was published online in Cell Genomics.
 

Low error rate

Determining a parent of origin for hereditary variants “is essential to evaluate disease risk when a pathogenic variant has PofO effects, that is, when a patient’s risk of disease depends on from which parent it is inherited,” the authors wrote. An example is hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome as a result of pathogenic variants in SDHD or SDHAF2 genes. Individuals with the variants are at high risk of developing certain cancers, but only if a defective gene is inherited from their father. If inherited from their mother, there is no increased risk.

The new method relies on a technique called “phased DNA methylation” at maternally and paternally imprinted gene loci, as well as chromosome length phasing of DNA sequences.

The team used five human genome “trios” – two parents and the proband (the first person in a family to receive genetic testing or counseling for a suspected hereditary risk) – to pilot the approach. They showed that the method can correctly identify the PofO with an average mismatch error rate of 0.31% for single nucleotide variants and 1.89% for insertions or deletions (indels).

“We will need to validate this technology for different genes in real-world samples from individuals of diverse backgrounds,” said Dr. Jones. The first step is to validate the technology in scenarios with immediate clinical utility, like with SDHD, where lifelong medical management is affected by knowledge of whether the variant was inherited from the mother or father.

“We would also like to quickly validate this for common hereditary cancer genes, like BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome–associated genes, where prediction of PofO may improve low rates of genetic testing in family members by providing more accurate estimates of their risk to carry the familial variant.”

Challenges to moving the test to the clinic, Dr. Jones said, include scaling up the technology, demonstrating clinical and economic utility, compared with existing testing approaches, “and familiarizing clinicians with a new type of test that will routinely give this added dimension of information.”
 

‘Tremendously promising technology’

Pathologist Stephen Yip, MD, PhD, of the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, who was not involved in the study but disclosed that he collaborates with the authors on other grant-funded projects, said in a comment that “this is a tremendously promising technology that has immediate practical implications in the investigation of PofO of a pathogenic locus, particularly when genetic material is available only from the proband.”

However, “rigorous validation against the current gold standard of short-reading, next-generation sequencing of trios is needed prior to clinical deployment,” he said. “This will take time and effort. However, the promise of this technology is worth the effort.

“Also, there is the possibility of uncovering novel genetics during testing, which could present an ethical dilemma,” he noted. “A robust consenting and ethical framework and early involvement of an ethicist would be helpful.”

Research in Dr. Lansdorp’s laboratory is funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the government of British Columbia. Dr. Lansdorp, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Yip reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It was 2 p.m. on a sunny and humid day, 1 hour before my 8-hour shift was over in the emergency department at the community hospital that I was rotating through. It was part of my fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. Not that I would have noticed the weather, save for the few seconds the sliding door to the ED would open periodically, as if on its own cadence, with the sounds of stomping boots and a rolling gurney making its way through.

We were busy. At this particular hospital, I was told, EM volume is already up 35% this year compared with the previous year, and bed holds had been hitting new highs each week.

One more hour until my shift is over and a poor soul will take over my computer, seat, and the chaos.

I took a glance at the electronic health record again, seeing whether there was anything I could do to discharge any of the patients to relieve some of the strain. Knee pain, toe pain, headache/migraine, shoulder pain, elevated blood pressure. Although it’s true that any of these listed complaints could have emergent etiologies, the truth was that all of these patients were here owing to exacerbations of chronic issues. And yet most, if not all, of these patients had been here for nearly 8 hours, some even longer, waiting for treatment and exacerbating an already busy ED.

“I don’t understand. Couldn’t these patients have sought care outpatient with their PCP [primary care physician]? It would have been a lot cheaper and faster.” I asked. A seasoned ED physician, bald, graying, and whom I had just met today and hadn’t spoken to much until this very moment, turned to me and said: “We have become the dumping ground for primary care complaints.”

‘Go to the ED’

“PCPs are already too busy,” the physician continued. “It’s just easier to say: ‘Go to the ED. They’ll take care of it.’ ”

He continued: “In my 30 years of practicing, emergency medicine has changed so much. When I first started in the 1980s, I was only seeing emergencies, and it was fun. Now, 80% of my patients are primary care complaints. These days, I am more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician.”

Hmmm, I thought. Was this physician burned out and jaded? Quite possibly. Was this change the physician experienced throughout his career more likely attributed to a capitalist-run, profit-driven health care system and its cohort of underinsured and noninsured citizens? Certainly. I’m only a fourth-year medical student, so my view of the situation is no doubt limited.

But something he said definitely rang my bell: I’m more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician. That is an argument I can consider. Whether it is caused by poorly designed reimbursement schedules or the state of America’s profit-driven health care system, there is no doubt that these days, emergency physicians are in fact seeing a lot of primary care complaints, which effectively makes these physicians double as PCPs on a daily basis.

I let this thought ruminate on my drive home, along with how there’s a such a huge demand for PCPs, resulting in it taking up to 3 months to get an appointment with one. That’s crazy, and I understand the need to come to the ED where you’ll (hopefully) be seen the same day.

I also ruminated on how emergency physicians have the highest rate of burnout among all the specialties, with no career recourse afterward. Either you’re part of the hospital machine complex, or you’re out. Practicing EM for nearly 30 years is apparently a rarity these days. Most emergency physicians last 5 years, 10 years tops, and then are so burned out that they retire to pursue a life outside of medicine (real estate seems to be popular). But this is a shame.

Emergency docs exiting medicine

Emergency physicians have seen a ton of wildly different pathologies and have treated a variety of different conditions, including conditions usually reserved for primary care. To let knowledgeable, experienced emergency physicians just exit medicine, with no recourse to further contribute to this country’s health system outside of the hospital machine, is a travesty in its own right.

I ruminated further on the 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians 2021 report on the EM physician workforce, which stated that there is projected to be an oversupply of emergency physicians by 2030, leaving thousands of them out of work. No doubt that report has left an impact on the volume of residency applications into EM in 2021. No one wants to go through residency and be unemployed at the end of it.

And finally, I ruminated on the sheer volume of patients visiting EDs across the country. Patient volumes are up, wait times in general are up, wait times in the ED are up, and bed holds to get admitted are hitting highs across the country each week. The deluge of patients visiting the ED is not getting better, and it’s only likely to get worse as the population ages.

It’s time to offer emergency physicians a path to outpatient primary care.

Now before I get hung for this suggestion (“I went into EM precisely not to do outpatient care!”), hear me out: Such a path should be offered via a 1-year accelerated fellowship and will allow emergency physicians to practice outpatient primary care medicine independently. And although working in urgent care centers is already an option, the opportunity to own and operate their own primary care practice should also exist.

In my humble opinion, by offering such a path, the following objectives could be accomplished:

Alleviate the pressure on primary care medicine in the United States. It’s no secret that the United States needs more primary care physicians. Allowing emergency physicians who got burnt out by hospital life an alternative way to serve their community and country via outpatient primary care would greatly alleviate the pressure on the need for PCPs today.

Provide an alternative career path for emergency physicians. We would be doing a disservice if we don’t offer emergency physicians a way to revive their burnout and utilize their skill set in a post-ED life. Outpatient primary care is the perfect way to do this, and it’s a win-win-win on several fronts: We need more outpatient physicians, they need an opportunity to flex their knowledge in an alternative setting.

Solve the “ACEP” problem. The ACEP report scared medical students away from applying to residency in EM. Who wants to go through 3 years of residency only to be unemployed at the end of it? By offering a path to outpatient primary care, we can offer an important and viable path for those emergency physicians who would be unemployed to continue to practice medicine and serve the community, thereby alleviating concern about an oversupply.

For better or for worse, because of the state of health care today, ED physicians have been exposed to a myriad of primary care concerns, all of which have prepared them for a career as an outpatient PCP. By offering such a path, we can provide more flexibility for an emergency physician’s career, help alleviate the primary care shortage affecting the United States, and serve our community and country in new and helpful ways.

Dr. Gogna is a fourth-year medical student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Georgia, Suwanee. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

It was 2 p.m. on a sunny and humid day, 1 hour before my 8-hour shift was over in the emergency department at the community hospital that I was rotating through. It was part of my fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. Not that I would have noticed the weather, save for the few seconds the sliding door to the ED would open periodically, as if on its own cadence, with the sounds of stomping boots and a rolling gurney making its way through.

We were busy. At this particular hospital, I was told, EM volume is already up 35% this year compared with the previous year, and bed holds had been hitting new highs each week.

One more hour until my shift is over and a poor soul will take over my computer, seat, and the chaos.

I took a glance at the electronic health record again, seeing whether there was anything I could do to discharge any of the patients to relieve some of the strain. Knee pain, toe pain, headache/migraine, shoulder pain, elevated blood pressure. Although it’s true that any of these listed complaints could have emergent etiologies, the truth was that all of these patients were here owing to exacerbations of chronic issues. And yet most, if not all, of these patients had been here for nearly 8 hours, some even longer, waiting for treatment and exacerbating an already busy ED.

“I don’t understand. Couldn’t these patients have sought care outpatient with their PCP [primary care physician]? It would have been a lot cheaper and faster.” I asked. A seasoned ED physician, bald, graying, and whom I had just met today and hadn’t spoken to much until this very moment, turned to me and said: “We have become the dumping ground for primary care complaints.”

‘Go to the ED’

“PCPs are already too busy,” the physician continued. “It’s just easier to say: ‘Go to the ED. They’ll take care of it.’ ”

He continued: “In my 30 years of practicing, emergency medicine has changed so much. When I first started in the 1980s, I was only seeing emergencies, and it was fun. Now, 80% of my patients are primary care complaints. These days, I am more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician.”

Hmmm, I thought. Was this physician burned out and jaded? Quite possibly. Was this change the physician experienced throughout his career more likely attributed to a capitalist-run, profit-driven health care system and its cohort of underinsured and noninsured citizens? Certainly. I’m only a fourth-year medical student, so my view of the situation is no doubt limited.

But something he said definitely rang my bell: I’m more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician. That is an argument I can consider. Whether it is caused by poorly designed reimbursement schedules or the state of America’s profit-driven health care system, there is no doubt that these days, emergency physicians are in fact seeing a lot of primary care complaints, which effectively makes these physicians double as PCPs on a daily basis.

I let this thought ruminate on my drive home, along with how there’s a such a huge demand for PCPs, resulting in it taking up to 3 months to get an appointment with one. That’s crazy, and I understand the need to come to the ED where you’ll (hopefully) be seen the same day.

I also ruminated on how emergency physicians have the highest rate of burnout among all the specialties, with no career recourse afterward. Either you’re part of the hospital machine complex, or you’re out. Practicing EM for nearly 30 years is apparently a rarity these days. Most emergency physicians last 5 years, 10 years tops, and then are so burned out that they retire to pursue a life outside of medicine (real estate seems to be popular). But this is a shame.

Emergency docs exiting medicine

Emergency physicians have seen a ton of wildly different pathologies and have treated a variety of different conditions, including conditions usually reserved for primary care. To let knowledgeable, experienced emergency physicians just exit medicine, with no recourse to further contribute to this country’s health system outside of the hospital machine, is a travesty in its own right.

I ruminated further on the 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians 2021 report on the EM physician workforce, which stated that there is projected to be an oversupply of emergency physicians by 2030, leaving thousands of them out of work. No doubt that report has left an impact on the volume of residency applications into EM in 2021. No one wants to go through residency and be unemployed at the end of it.

And finally, I ruminated on the sheer volume of patients visiting EDs across the country. Patient volumes are up, wait times in general are up, wait times in the ED are up, and bed holds to get admitted are hitting highs across the country each week. The deluge of patients visiting the ED is not getting better, and it’s only likely to get worse as the population ages.

It’s time to offer emergency physicians a path to outpatient primary care.

Now before I get hung for this suggestion (“I went into EM precisely not to do outpatient care!”), hear me out: Such a path should be offered via a 1-year accelerated fellowship and will allow emergency physicians to practice outpatient primary care medicine independently. And although working in urgent care centers is already an option, the opportunity to own and operate their own primary care practice should also exist.

In my humble opinion, by offering such a path, the following objectives could be accomplished:

Alleviate the pressure on primary care medicine in the United States. It’s no secret that the United States needs more primary care physicians. Allowing emergency physicians who got burnt out by hospital life an alternative way to serve their community and country via outpatient primary care would greatly alleviate the pressure on the need for PCPs today.

Provide an alternative career path for emergency physicians. We would be doing a disservice if we don’t offer emergency physicians a way to revive their burnout and utilize their skill set in a post-ED life. Outpatient primary care is the perfect way to do this, and it’s a win-win-win on several fronts: We need more outpatient physicians, they need an opportunity to flex their knowledge in an alternative setting.

Solve the “ACEP” problem. The ACEP report scared medical students away from applying to residency in EM. Who wants to go through 3 years of residency only to be unemployed at the end of it? By offering a path to outpatient primary care, we can offer an important and viable path for those emergency physicians who would be unemployed to continue to practice medicine and serve the community, thereby alleviating concern about an oversupply.

For better or for worse, because of the state of health care today, ED physicians have been exposed to a myriad of primary care concerns, all of which have prepared them for a career as an outpatient PCP. By offering such a path, we can provide more flexibility for an emergency physician’s career, help alleviate the primary care shortage affecting the United States, and serve our community and country in new and helpful ways.

Dr. Gogna is a fourth-year medical student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Georgia, Suwanee. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

It was 2 p.m. on a sunny and humid day, 1 hour before my 8-hour shift was over in the emergency department at the community hospital that I was rotating through. It was part of my fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) clerkship. Not that I would have noticed the weather, save for the few seconds the sliding door to the ED would open periodically, as if on its own cadence, with the sounds of stomping boots and a rolling gurney making its way through.

We were busy. At this particular hospital, I was told, EM volume is already up 35% this year compared with the previous year, and bed holds had been hitting new highs each week.

One more hour until my shift is over and a poor soul will take over my computer, seat, and the chaos.

I took a glance at the electronic health record again, seeing whether there was anything I could do to discharge any of the patients to relieve some of the strain. Knee pain, toe pain, headache/migraine, shoulder pain, elevated blood pressure. Although it’s true that any of these listed complaints could have emergent etiologies, the truth was that all of these patients were here owing to exacerbations of chronic issues. And yet most, if not all, of these patients had been here for nearly 8 hours, some even longer, waiting for treatment and exacerbating an already busy ED.

“I don’t understand. Couldn’t these patients have sought care outpatient with their PCP [primary care physician]? It would have been a lot cheaper and faster.” I asked. A seasoned ED physician, bald, graying, and whom I had just met today and hadn’t spoken to much until this very moment, turned to me and said: “We have become the dumping ground for primary care complaints.”

‘Go to the ED’

“PCPs are already too busy,” the physician continued. “It’s just easier to say: ‘Go to the ED. They’ll take care of it.’ ”

He continued: “In my 30 years of practicing, emergency medicine has changed so much. When I first started in the 1980s, I was only seeing emergencies, and it was fun. Now, 80% of my patients are primary care complaints. These days, I am more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician.”

Hmmm, I thought. Was this physician burned out and jaded? Quite possibly. Was this change the physician experienced throughout his career more likely attributed to a capitalist-run, profit-driven health care system and its cohort of underinsured and noninsured citizens? Certainly. I’m only a fourth-year medical student, so my view of the situation is no doubt limited.

But something he said definitely rang my bell: I’m more of a primary care physician than an emergency physician. That is an argument I can consider. Whether it is caused by poorly designed reimbursement schedules or the state of America’s profit-driven health care system, there is no doubt that these days, emergency physicians are in fact seeing a lot of primary care complaints, which effectively makes these physicians double as PCPs on a daily basis.

I let this thought ruminate on my drive home, along with how there’s a such a huge demand for PCPs, resulting in it taking up to 3 months to get an appointment with one. That’s crazy, and I understand the need to come to the ED where you’ll (hopefully) be seen the same day.

I also ruminated on how emergency physicians have the highest rate of burnout among all the specialties, with no career recourse afterward. Either you’re part of the hospital machine complex, or you’re out. Practicing EM for nearly 30 years is apparently a rarity these days. Most emergency physicians last 5 years, 10 years tops, and then are so burned out that they retire to pursue a life outside of medicine (real estate seems to be popular). But this is a shame.

Emergency docs exiting medicine

Emergency physicians have seen a ton of wildly different pathologies and have treated a variety of different conditions, including conditions usually reserved for primary care. To let knowledgeable, experienced emergency physicians just exit medicine, with no recourse to further contribute to this country’s health system outside of the hospital machine, is a travesty in its own right.

I ruminated further on the 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians 2021 report on the EM physician workforce, which stated that there is projected to be an oversupply of emergency physicians by 2030, leaving thousands of them out of work. No doubt that report has left an impact on the volume of residency applications into EM in 2021. No one wants to go through residency and be unemployed at the end of it.

And finally, I ruminated on the sheer volume of patients visiting EDs across the country. Patient volumes are up, wait times in general are up, wait times in the ED are up, and bed holds to get admitted are hitting highs across the country each week. The deluge of patients visiting the ED is not getting better, and it’s only likely to get worse as the population ages.

It’s time to offer emergency physicians a path to outpatient primary care.

Now before I get hung for this suggestion (“I went into EM precisely not to do outpatient care!”), hear me out: Such a path should be offered via a 1-year accelerated fellowship and will allow emergency physicians to practice outpatient primary care medicine independently. And although working in urgent care centers is already an option, the opportunity to own and operate their own primary care practice should also exist.

In my humble opinion, by offering such a path, the following objectives could be accomplished:

Alleviate the pressure on primary care medicine in the United States. It’s no secret that the United States needs more primary care physicians. Allowing emergency physicians who got burnt out by hospital life an alternative way to serve their community and country via outpatient primary care would greatly alleviate the pressure on the need for PCPs today.

Provide an alternative career path for emergency physicians. We would be doing a disservice if we don’t offer emergency physicians a way to revive their burnout and utilize their skill set in a post-ED life. Outpatient primary care is the perfect way to do this, and it’s a win-win-win on several fronts: We need more outpatient physicians, they need an opportunity to flex their knowledge in an alternative setting.

Solve the “ACEP” problem. The ACEP report scared medical students away from applying to residency in EM. Who wants to go through 3 years of residency only to be unemployed at the end of it? By offering a path to outpatient primary care, we can offer an important and viable path for those emergency physicians who would be unemployed to continue to practice medicine and serve the community, thereby alleviating concern about an oversupply.

For better or for worse, because of the state of health care today, ED physicians have been exposed to a myriad of primary care concerns, all of which have prepared them for a career as an outpatient PCP. By offering such a path, we can provide more flexibility for an emergency physician’s career, help alleviate the primary care shortage affecting the United States, and serve our community and country in new and helpful ways.

Dr. Gogna is a fourth-year medical student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Georgia, Suwanee. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A new analysis finds that vonoprazan triple therapy (Voquezna) is the most cost-effective first-line regimen to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States.

Rifabutin triple therapy (Talicia) is the second most cost-effective strategy for H. pylori eradication, followed in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness by vonoprazan dual therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and clarithromycin triple therapy.

The analysis is believed to be the first to report on the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan- and rifabutin-based regimens as first-line treatments for H. pylori infection from the perspective of U.S. health care payers.

The findings “strongly” suggest that vonoprazan triple therapy would provide the greatest net health benefit and monetary benefit for U.S. payers, reported Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD, of the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy in Columbia, and colleagues.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

It’s estimated that more than 114 million people in the United States have H. pylori infection. Clinical practice guidelines recommend H. pylori eradication in all patients with a positive test of active infection.

Using a Markov model, Dr. Yunusa and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of five prepackaged or co-formulated H. pylori eradication regimens: clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, vonoprazan dual therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy, and rifabutin triple therapy.

The model estimated the expected costs in 2022 U.S. dollars, expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), and expected net monetary benefit over 20 years.

Among their key findings and conclusions:

• Bismuth quadruple therapy had the highest expected cost ($1,439) and rifabutin triple regimen had the lowest expected cost ($1,048).
• Because rifabutin triple therapy was predicted to cost less and was more effective than clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and vonoprazan dual therapy, it dominated all treatment strategies – except for vonoprazan triple therapy.
• Compared with rifabutin triple therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy had a higher expected cost ($1,172 vs. $1,048) and expected QALY (14.262 vs. 14.256), yielding an ICER of $22,573 per QALY. 
• Vonoprazan triple therapy had the highest expected net monetary benefit and was the most cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds between $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, followed by rifabutin triple therapy.
• Vonoprazan triple therapy would result on average in an incremental net benefit of $1,655 per patient than clarithromycin triple therapy.
• Because the rifabutin-based regimen was more cost-effective than all but vonoprazan triple therapy, it has a potential role as an alternative first-line treatment.
• Rifabutin triple therapy and vonoprazan dual therapy would need to be considerably discounted (by 15%-43% and by 44%-85%, respectively), to be cost-effective at commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.
• Vonoprazan dual therapy demonstrated limited value relative to other available options; thus, its widespread adoption as a first-line strategy seems unlikely.
• Based on the results, it would be hard to justify the use of bismuth quadruple therapy or clarithromycin triple therapy since they provide the lowest net monetary benefit and have lower eradication rates.

The investigators noted that their analysis considered only direct costs of therapy, not other costs such as appointments, travel, and time away from work.

They also assumed medical costs, including endoscopy and H. pylori testing, would not change regardless of treatment regimen. Therefore, total health care costs may be underestimated.

The study did not receive any funding. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis finds that vonoprazan triple therapy (Voquezna) is the most cost-effective first-line regimen to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States.

Rifabutin triple therapy (Talicia) is the second most cost-effective strategy for H. pylori eradication, followed in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness by vonoprazan dual therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and clarithromycin triple therapy.

The analysis is believed to be the first to report on the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan- and rifabutin-based regimens as first-line treatments for H. pylori infection from the perspective of U.S. health care payers.

The findings “strongly” suggest that vonoprazan triple therapy would provide the greatest net health benefit and monetary benefit for U.S. payers, reported Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD, of the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy in Columbia, and colleagues.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

It’s estimated that more than 114 million people in the United States have H. pylori infection. Clinical practice guidelines recommend H. pylori eradication in all patients with a positive test of active infection.

Using a Markov model, Dr. Yunusa and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of five prepackaged or co-formulated H. pylori eradication regimens: clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, vonoprazan dual therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy, and rifabutin triple therapy.

The model estimated the expected costs in 2022 U.S. dollars, expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), and expected net monetary benefit over 20 years.

Among their key findings and conclusions:

• Bismuth quadruple therapy had the highest expected cost ($1,439) and rifabutin triple regimen had the lowest expected cost ($1,048).
• Because rifabutin triple therapy was predicted to cost less and was more effective than clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and vonoprazan dual therapy, it dominated all treatment strategies – except for vonoprazan triple therapy.
• Compared with rifabutin triple therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy had a higher expected cost ($1,172 vs. $1,048) and expected QALY (14.262 vs. 14.256), yielding an ICER of $22,573 per QALY. 
• Vonoprazan triple therapy had the highest expected net monetary benefit and was the most cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds between $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, followed by rifabutin triple therapy.
• Vonoprazan triple therapy would result on average in an incremental net benefit of $1,655 per patient than clarithromycin triple therapy.
• Because the rifabutin-based regimen was more cost-effective than all but vonoprazan triple therapy, it has a potential role as an alternative first-line treatment.
• Rifabutin triple therapy and vonoprazan dual therapy would need to be considerably discounted (by 15%-43% and by 44%-85%, respectively), to be cost-effective at commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.
• Vonoprazan dual therapy demonstrated limited value relative to other available options; thus, its widespread adoption as a first-line strategy seems unlikely.
• Based on the results, it would be hard to justify the use of bismuth quadruple therapy or clarithromycin triple therapy since they provide the lowest net monetary benefit and have lower eradication rates.

The investigators noted that their analysis considered only direct costs of therapy, not other costs such as appointments, travel, and time away from work.

They also assumed medical costs, including endoscopy and H. pylori testing, would not change regardless of treatment regimen. Therefore, total health care costs may be underestimated.

The study did not receive any funding. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis finds that vonoprazan triple therapy (Voquezna) is the most cost-effective first-line regimen to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States.

Rifabutin triple therapy (Talicia) is the second most cost-effective strategy for H. pylori eradication, followed in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness by vonoprazan dual therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and clarithromycin triple therapy.

The analysis is believed to be the first to report on the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan- and rifabutin-based regimens as first-line treatments for H. pylori infection from the perspective of U.S. health care payers.

The findings “strongly” suggest that vonoprazan triple therapy would provide the greatest net health benefit and monetary benefit for U.S. payers, reported Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD, of the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy in Columbia, and colleagues.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

It’s estimated that more than 114 million people in the United States have H. pylori infection. Clinical practice guidelines recommend H. pylori eradication in all patients with a positive test of active infection.

Using a Markov model, Dr. Yunusa and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of five prepackaged or co-formulated H. pylori eradication regimens: clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, vonoprazan dual therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy, and rifabutin triple therapy.

The model estimated the expected costs in 2022 U.S. dollars, expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), and expected net monetary benefit over 20 years.

Among their key findings and conclusions:

• Bismuth quadruple therapy had the highest expected cost ($1,439) and rifabutin triple regimen had the lowest expected cost ($1,048).
• Because rifabutin triple therapy was predicted to cost less and was more effective than clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and vonoprazan dual therapy, it dominated all treatment strategies – except for vonoprazan triple therapy.
• Compared with rifabutin triple therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy had a higher expected cost ($1,172 vs. $1,048) and expected QALY (14.262 vs. 14.256), yielding an ICER of $22,573 per QALY. 
• Vonoprazan triple therapy had the highest expected net monetary benefit and was the most cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds between $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, followed by rifabutin triple therapy.
• Vonoprazan triple therapy would result on average in an incremental net benefit of $1,655 per patient than clarithromycin triple therapy.
• Because the rifabutin-based regimen was more cost-effective than all but vonoprazan triple therapy, it has a potential role as an alternative first-line treatment.
• Rifabutin triple therapy and vonoprazan dual therapy would need to be considerably discounted (by 15%-43% and by 44%-85%, respectively), to be cost-effective at commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.
• Vonoprazan dual therapy demonstrated limited value relative to other available options; thus, its widespread adoption as a first-line strategy seems unlikely.
• Based on the results, it would be hard to justify the use of bismuth quadruple therapy or clarithromycin triple therapy since they provide the lowest net monetary benefit and have lower eradication rates.

The investigators noted that their analysis considered only direct costs of therapy, not other costs such as appointments, travel, and time away from work.

They also assumed medical costs, including endoscopy and H. pylori testing, would not change regardless of treatment regimen. Therefore, total health care costs may be underestimated.

The study did not receive any funding. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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