Opinion

I’m a creature of habit. I suspect most of us are.

One can of Diet Coke on the drive to my office. Turn on the WiFi and air conditioning. Fire up the computer and unload my briefcase. Then do online refills, check the Astronomy Picture of the Day, look over the day’s schedule, turn on the Keurig, and make one cup of coffee. And so on.

I’m sure most of us have similar routines. Our brains are probably wired that way for survival, though the reasons aren’t the same anymore. Once it was get up, look outside the cave for predators, make sure the tribe is all accounted for, go to the stream for water, look for berries.

The fact is that automatic habits are critical for everything we do. Driving a car is really a series of repetitive tasks. Being able to put most of the ride on our brain’s autopilot allows us to move our attention to scanning the surroundings for changes, and to think about other items such as wonder what to do for dinner and if I remembered to turn off theWiFi and Keurig.

The practice of medicine is similar. Some things are internalized. Watching patients walk back to my office, looking at their hands as they fill out forms, hearing them introduce themselves, and other things that we subconsciously process as part of the exam before we’ve even officially begun the appointment. I quietly file such things away to be used later in the visit.

It certainly wasn’t always that way. In training we learn to filter out signal from noise, because the information available is huge. We all read tests of some sort. When I began reading EEGs, the images and lines were overwhelming, but with time and experience I became skilled at whittling down the mass of information into the things that really needed to be noted so I could turn pages faster (yes, youngsters, EEGs used to be on paper). Now, scanning the screen becomes a background habit, with the brain focusing more on things that stand out (or going back to thinking about what to do for dinner).

Over the millennia we’ve changed daily routines from something critical for survival to what we need for individual success in a chosen field. The brain in this way is the ultimate Swiss Army Knife – many tools available, but how we adapt and use them for our individual needs is variable.

Which is pretty impressive, actually. In the era of AI and computers, we each come with a (roughly) 2.5-petabyte hard drive that’s not only capable of storing all that information, but figuring out how to use it when we need to. The process is so smooth that we’re rarely aware of it. But what a marvel it is.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m a creature of habit. I suspect most of us are.

One can of Diet Coke on the drive to my office. Turn on the WiFi and air conditioning. Fire up the computer and unload my briefcase. Then do online refills, check the Astronomy Picture of the Day, look over the day’s schedule, turn on the Keurig, and make one cup of coffee. And so on.

I’m sure most of us have similar routines. Our brains are probably wired that way for survival, though the reasons aren’t the same anymore. Once it was get up, look outside the cave for predators, make sure the tribe is all accounted for, go to the stream for water, look for berries.

The fact is that automatic habits are critical for everything we do. Driving a car is really a series of repetitive tasks. Being able to put most of the ride on our brain’s autopilot allows us to move our attention to scanning the surroundings for changes, and to think about other items such as wonder what to do for dinner and if I remembered to turn off theWiFi and Keurig.

The practice of medicine is similar. Some things are internalized. Watching patients walk back to my office, looking at their hands as they fill out forms, hearing them introduce themselves, and other things that we subconsciously process as part of the exam before we’ve even officially begun the appointment. I quietly file such things away to be used later in the visit.

It certainly wasn’t always that way. In training we learn to filter out signal from noise, because the information available is huge. We all read tests of some sort. When I began reading EEGs, the images and lines were overwhelming, but with time and experience I became skilled at whittling down the mass of information into the things that really needed to be noted so I could turn pages faster (yes, youngsters, EEGs used to be on paper). Now, scanning the screen becomes a background habit, with the brain focusing more on things that stand out (or going back to thinking about what to do for dinner).

Over the millennia we’ve changed daily routines from something critical for survival to what we need for individual success in a chosen field. The brain in this way is the ultimate Swiss Army Knife – many tools available, but how we adapt and use them for our individual needs is variable.

Which is pretty impressive, actually. In the era of AI and computers, we each come with a (roughly) 2.5-petabyte hard drive that’s not only capable of storing all that information, but figuring out how to use it when we need to. The process is so smooth that we’re rarely aware of it. But what a marvel it is.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m a creature of habit. I suspect most of us are.

One can of Diet Coke on the drive to my office. Turn on the WiFi and air conditioning. Fire up the computer and unload my briefcase. Then do online refills, check the Astronomy Picture of the Day, look over the day’s schedule, turn on the Keurig, and make one cup of coffee. And so on.

I’m sure most of us have similar routines. Our brains are probably wired that way for survival, though the reasons aren’t the same anymore. Once it was get up, look outside the cave for predators, make sure the tribe is all accounted for, go to the stream for water, look for berries.

The fact is that automatic habits are critical for everything we do. Driving a car is really a series of repetitive tasks. Being able to put most of the ride on our brain’s autopilot allows us to move our attention to scanning the surroundings for changes, and to think about other items such as wonder what to do for dinner and if I remembered to turn off theWiFi and Keurig.

The practice of medicine is similar. Some things are internalized. Watching patients walk back to my office, looking at their hands as they fill out forms, hearing them introduce themselves, and other things that we subconsciously process as part of the exam before we’ve even officially begun the appointment. I quietly file such things away to be used later in the visit.

It certainly wasn’t always that way. In training we learn to filter out signal from noise, because the information available is huge. We all read tests of some sort. When I began reading EEGs, the images and lines were overwhelming, but with time and experience I became skilled at whittling down the mass of information into the things that really needed to be noted so I could turn pages faster (yes, youngsters, EEGs used to be on paper). Now, scanning the screen becomes a background habit, with the brain focusing more on things that stand out (or going back to thinking about what to do for dinner).

Over the millennia we’ve changed daily routines from something critical for survival to what we need for individual success in a chosen field. The brain in this way is the ultimate Swiss Army Knife – many tools available, but how we adapt and use them for our individual needs is variable.

Which is pretty impressive, actually. In the era of AI and computers, we each come with a (roughly) 2.5-petabyte hard drive that’s not only capable of storing all that information, but figuring out how to use it when we need to. The process is so smooth that we’re rarely aware of it. But what a marvel it is.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A recent study found a significant association between lower sexual frequency and greater all-cause mortality in young and middle-aged people with hypertension. Should primary care physicians be offering a pleasure prescription to the 6 in 10 Americans living with chronic illness? How can we help these patients access their capacity for sexual pleasure, a critical and life-affirming component of the human experience?

Ask, don’t tell

First, we need to ask routinely about sexual well-being and pleasure. Without asking patients their views, we do not know the relevance of sex for their quality of life. Unless we ask, we do not know what specific kinds of sexual play are important for a person’s pleasure, nor can we assume how they prioritize their sexual functioning in the context of their medical care. When I began asking my primary care patients about sexual well-being, many more than I expected were quietly holding on to distressing issues. Now, as a sexual medicine specialist, in each sexual function evaluation, I ask three key questions: What are your goals? What does sex mean to you? What kinds of sexual play are important for your (and your partner’s) pleasure?

Chronic disease – with physical symptoms as well as psychological, relational, and cultural components – affects both general and genital physiology. Any disease process that alters vascular, neuroendocrine, or musculoskeletal function is likely to influence sexual function, either directly through the disease process or indirectly through complications or the effect on identity and well-being. In addition, a host of iatrogenic changes to sexual function may accompany effects of treatments.

Managing the effects of chronic illness on sexuality requires resilience and flexibility. A serious injury may require a massive adjustment to sexuality, but progressive disease may require continuous accommodations to sexual changes. The life stage at which the disease occurs also matters. People facing disease early in life encounter challenges (finding willing sexual partners and limited medical guidance regarding their sexual functioning) as well as benefits (they may integrate their disease as part of their sexual life). Those who experience sexual changes related to their illness later in life may face a loss of “normal” sexual function and well-being.

Meanwhile, the partner who is not ill may have their own sexual needs, fears, and worries. Both patients and partners may experience disenfranchised grief – a sense of loss about something one is not culturally permitted to mourn (“I/my partner is alive in the face of this terrible illness; who am I to worry about our/my sexual pleasure?”).

Positive marital relationships influence health through improved survival, improved medical adherence, better quality of life for the patient, and improved life satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is an important factor in relational satisfaction. Helping our patients with these changes therefore may improve not only sexual health but overall health.

How, then, should we address sexual pleasure in chronic illness care? Here are a few tips:

Focus on pleasure. “Performance” is foul language when it comes to sex. Full attention to sensation and enjoyment, the only sexual “skill” anyone needs, is impossible while trying to perform.

Encourage flexibility and recognize that sex encompasses a wide and varied menu of experiences that change over a lifetime. Sex is everything from kissing and cuddling to the wildest things a mind can imagine. We can help both patients and partners think about the wide variety of ways to meet sexual needs. Balancing acceptance of sexual changes with motivation for improvement also is part of our role.

Address the effects of illness on the patient’s relationship with their body. Illness may alter not only bodily function but also self-esteem and body image. A reorganization of self-concept may occur (“I am no longer a sexual person; I’m a sexually dysfunctional asthmatic/diabetic/etc. and should avoid sexual intimacy”). Examining these self-constructs allows shifts in thoughts and behaviors, leading to improved psychological and sexual well-being. Encourage patients to explore what feels good in this body now. When possible, we can help with referral for corrective surgeries or direction to resources like stoma covers, wigs, scarves, and tattoos.

We offer suggestions for “sleep hygiene”; how about pleasure hygiene?

• Encourage open communication with partner(s) and offer resources to develop communication skills.
• Consider needs for physical and emotional preparation for sexual play: adequate rest, preparing the environment for body fluids, pillows for comfort or aides for positioning, and plenty of lubricant at hand.
• Allow adequate time for sexual play and encourage the ability to adjust or stop and start over – with humor and self-compassion.
• Use sexual aides to enhance pleasure.
• Seek out sexual medicine and sex therapy colleagues when things become tricky.

All bodies, no matter their health or illness state, are capable of pleasure. Hey, pleasure might even save lives!

Dr. Kranz is an clinical assistant professor of obstetrics/gynecology and family medicine, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

In June 2023, a multisociety group agreed to change the name of the disease formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

In the week leading up to this, Intercept Pharmaceuticals announced that their program to develop obeticholic acid (OCA) as a first-to-market, long-awaited potential drug therapy for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), the more pathogenic form of this disease, was being abandoned after the Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee voted against accelerated approval of the drug. This decision was made in large part owing to data showing modest efficacy coupled with multiple drug-related side effects, including worsening metabolic dysfunction.

The juxtaposition of these two events highlights what could be a fundamental change in perspective when it comes to the management of patients with MASLD and the development of therapies for this disease.
 

A more precise nomenclature for a broad-spectrum disease

The updating of the NAFLD nomenclature to MASLD represents an important change in the way that the medical community is being asked to view and approach the disease of “fatty liver.”

The previous nomenclature clarified that pathogenic liver steatosis can exist in the absence of alcohol. However, it failed to define the primary drivers of the most common form of NAFLD: that is, metabolic syndrome diseases. The new nomenclature not only better defines the broad spectrum of steatotic liver diseases (alcohol, metabolic, drug/genetic, cryptogenic) but also refocuses the attention of providers on the fundamental basis of MASLD as a critical member of the metabolic syndrome spectrum of diseases.

This is in line with the recently updated American Association for the Study of Liver Disease Practice Guidelines for NAFLD (now MASLD), which focus on active screening to identify patients at risk for advanced MASLD, in particular those with medically complicated obesity or high-risk metabolic characteristics such as diabetes. This is a change from previous versions of the guidelines that were cautious to recommend broad screening guidelines in part owing to the lack of “available therapies.”

The increasing clinical burden of MASH has led to the recognition that patients do not have the luxury of waiting for “anticipated therapies” that have frequently shown only marginal or insignificant efficacy. As a result, some providers have refocused their efforts on the development of care pathways that can efficiently provide comprehensive lifestyle interventions to treat MASH and related metabolic comorbidities within hepatology or other subspecialty clinics.
 

Learning from OCA’s limitations

The approach to drug development for MASH seems to be shifting in a similar, metabolic syndrome–focused way.

The risk-benefit analysis from the FDA advisory committee evaluating OCA noted that the drug provided only modest (albeit statistically significant) benefits over placebo in achieving one of two primary clinical endpoints (improvement in fibrosis by one stage without worsening of NASH), but was associated with toxicity as well as significant drug-related side effects, including new or worsening dyslipidemia, accelerated progression to prediabetes or diabetes, and worsening glycemic control in patients with diabetes.

Worsening clinical markers of metabolic health were an important factor in the advisory committee’s decision to not provide accelerated approval of OCA. This informs the criteria upon which future MASH therapies will be evaluated for approval: that an ideal agent for MASH not only will have a significant impact on MASH pathophysiology but will also provide benefit for (or at least not worsen) the metabolic comorbidities associated with MASH.
 

New treatments on the horizon

Fortunately, several new MASH therapeutics in development seem to have promising metabolic profiles.

In the phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH biopsy trial, treatment with resmetirom, a thyroid hormone receptor–beta selective agonist versus placebo resulted in a clinically significant improvement in liver fibrosis by one stage or more (26% vs. 14%) and NASH resolution (30% vs. 10%). Unlike OCA, resmetirom was associated with a clinically significant reduction in LDL cholesterol (–16% compared with placebo).

Resmetirom has received a breakthrough therapy designation, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals recently completed submission of a new drug application for accelerated approval of this agent to the FDA.

Semaglutide is a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist that is already FDA approved for treatment of diabetes and obesity and is being studied in a phase 3 analysis for NASH.

In a phase 2 trial, daily dosing of semaglutide vs placebo led to clinically significant improvement in NASH resolution (59% vs. 17%) but not significant improvement in fibrosis (43% vs 33%). Although it is impossible to make a meaningful comparison in outcomes between clinical trials, it should be noted that the absolute rate of response in this trial was higher than is routinely seen in other NASH trials and that the placebo rate for improvement in fibrosis was higher than expected, a common problem with NASH trials.

As expected, treatment with semaglutide was associated with dose-dependent reduction in body weight and hemoglobin A1c, highlighting the global metabolic benefit of this agent.

Another major class of agents being studied for NASH treatment are the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 21 analogs.

In the recently published phase 2b ENLIVEN trial, treatment with the FGF21 analog pegozafermin versus placebo led to a statistically significant improvement in liver fibrosis by one stage (27% vs. 7%) and a numerical improvement in NASH resolution (26% vs. 2%).

In addition to its effects directly in the liver, FGF21 has been associated with promoting positive global metabolic effects, including improved peripheral insulin sensitivity and amelioration of dyslipidemia. Consistent with this, treatment with pegozafermin resulted in a decrease in serum triglycerides and an increase in serum HDL cholesterol and adiponectin levels.

Ultimately, the best therapeutic strategy for MASH may be one that uses combination therapy to maximize liver-directed effects and also ameliorate concomitant or contributing metabolic dysfunction. This approach is already being investigated. What seems clear, however, is that MASH therapy without concurrent treatment of metabolic comorbidities is probably destined to be ineffective, if not counterproductive.

So, what’s in a name? When it comes to MASLD, it seems quite a bit.
 

Dr. Janardhan is an assistant professor, department of internal medicine, at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago. Dr. Reau is a professor, department of internal medicine, Rush University. Dr. Janardhan reported conflicts of interest with Target RWE, Novo Nordisk, Intercept, and Enanta. Dr. Reau reported conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Gilead, and AASLD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In June 2023, a multisociety group agreed to change the name of the disease formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

In the week leading up to this, Intercept Pharmaceuticals announced that their program to develop obeticholic acid (OCA) as a first-to-market, long-awaited potential drug therapy for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), the more pathogenic form of this disease, was being abandoned after the Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee voted against accelerated approval of the drug. This decision was made in large part owing to data showing modest efficacy coupled with multiple drug-related side effects, including worsening metabolic dysfunction.

The juxtaposition of these two events highlights what could be a fundamental change in perspective when it comes to the management of patients with MASLD and the development of therapies for this disease.
 

A more precise nomenclature for a broad-spectrum disease

The updating of the NAFLD nomenclature to MASLD represents an important change in the way that the medical community is being asked to view and approach the disease of “fatty liver.”

The previous nomenclature clarified that pathogenic liver steatosis can exist in the absence of alcohol. However, it failed to define the primary drivers of the most common form of NAFLD: that is, metabolic syndrome diseases. The new nomenclature not only better defines the broad spectrum of steatotic liver diseases (alcohol, metabolic, drug/genetic, cryptogenic) but also refocuses the attention of providers on the fundamental basis of MASLD as a critical member of the metabolic syndrome spectrum of diseases.

This is in line with the recently updated American Association for the Study of Liver Disease Practice Guidelines for NAFLD (now MASLD), which focus on active screening to identify patients at risk for advanced MASLD, in particular those with medically complicated obesity or high-risk metabolic characteristics such as diabetes. This is a change from previous versions of the guidelines that were cautious to recommend broad screening guidelines in part owing to the lack of “available therapies.”

The increasing clinical burden of MASH has led to the recognition that patients do not have the luxury of waiting for “anticipated therapies” that have frequently shown only marginal or insignificant efficacy. As a result, some providers have refocused their efforts on the development of care pathways that can efficiently provide comprehensive lifestyle interventions to treat MASH and related metabolic comorbidities within hepatology or other subspecialty clinics.
 

Learning from OCA’s limitations

The approach to drug development for MASH seems to be shifting in a similar, metabolic syndrome–focused way.

The risk-benefit analysis from the FDA advisory committee evaluating OCA noted that the drug provided only modest (albeit statistically significant) benefits over placebo in achieving one of two primary clinical endpoints (improvement in fibrosis by one stage without worsening of NASH), but was associated with toxicity as well as significant drug-related side effects, including new or worsening dyslipidemia, accelerated progression to prediabetes or diabetes, and worsening glycemic control in patients with diabetes.

Worsening clinical markers of metabolic health were an important factor in the advisory committee’s decision to not provide accelerated approval of OCA. This informs the criteria upon which future MASH therapies will be evaluated for approval: that an ideal agent for MASH not only will have a significant impact on MASH pathophysiology but will also provide benefit for (or at least not worsen) the metabolic comorbidities associated with MASH.
 

New treatments on the horizon

Fortunately, several new MASH therapeutics in development seem to have promising metabolic profiles.

In the phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH biopsy trial, treatment with resmetirom, a thyroid hormone receptor–beta selective agonist versus placebo resulted in a clinically significant improvement in liver fibrosis by one stage or more (26% vs. 14%) and NASH resolution (30% vs. 10%). Unlike OCA, resmetirom was associated with a clinically significant reduction in LDL cholesterol (–16% compared with placebo).

Resmetirom has received a breakthrough therapy designation, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals recently completed submission of a new drug application for accelerated approval of this agent to the FDA.

Semaglutide is a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist that is already FDA approved for treatment of diabetes and obesity and is being studied in a phase 3 analysis for NASH.

In a phase 2 trial, daily dosing of semaglutide vs placebo led to clinically significant improvement in NASH resolution (59% vs. 17%) but not significant improvement in fibrosis (43% vs 33%). Although it is impossible to make a meaningful comparison in outcomes between clinical trials, it should be noted that the absolute rate of response in this trial was higher than is routinely seen in other NASH trials and that the placebo rate for improvement in fibrosis was higher than expected, a common problem with NASH trials.

As expected, treatment with semaglutide was associated with dose-dependent reduction in body weight and hemoglobin A1c, highlighting the global metabolic benefit of this agent.

Another major class of agents being studied for NASH treatment are the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 21 analogs.

In the recently published phase 2b ENLIVEN trial, treatment with the FGF21 analog pegozafermin versus placebo led to a statistically significant improvement in liver fibrosis by one stage (27% vs. 7%) and a numerical improvement in NASH resolution (26% vs. 2%).

In addition to its effects directly in the liver, FGF21 has been associated with promoting positive global metabolic effects, including improved peripheral insulin sensitivity and amelioration of dyslipidemia. Consistent with this, treatment with pegozafermin resulted in a decrease in serum triglycerides and an increase in serum HDL cholesterol and adiponectin levels.

Ultimately, the best therapeutic strategy for MASH may be one that uses combination therapy to maximize liver-directed effects and also ameliorate concomitant or contributing metabolic dysfunction. This approach is already being investigated. What seems clear, however, is that MASH therapy without concurrent treatment of metabolic comorbidities is probably destined to be ineffective, if not counterproductive.

So, what’s in a name? When it comes to MASLD, it seems quite a bit.
 

Dr. Janardhan is an assistant professor, department of internal medicine, at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago. Dr. Reau is a professor, department of internal medicine, Rush University. Dr. Janardhan reported conflicts of interest with Target RWE, Novo Nordisk, Intercept, and Enanta. Dr. Reau reported conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Gilead, and AASLD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In June 2023, a multisociety group agreed to change the name of the disease formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

In the week leading up to this, Intercept Pharmaceuticals announced that their program to develop obeticholic acid (OCA) as a first-to-market, long-awaited potential drug therapy for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), the more pathogenic form of this disease, was being abandoned after the Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee voted against accelerated approval of the drug. This decision was made in large part owing to data showing modest efficacy coupled with multiple drug-related side effects, including worsening metabolic dysfunction.

The juxtaposition of these two events highlights what could be a fundamental change in perspective when it comes to the management of patients with MASLD and the development of therapies for this disease.
 

A more precise nomenclature for a broad-spectrum disease

The updating of the NAFLD nomenclature to MASLD represents an important change in the way that the medical community is being asked to view and approach the disease of “fatty liver.”

The previous nomenclature clarified that pathogenic liver steatosis can exist in the absence of alcohol. However, it failed to define the primary drivers of the most common form of NAFLD: that is, metabolic syndrome diseases. The new nomenclature not only better defines the broad spectrum of steatotic liver diseases (alcohol, metabolic, drug/genetic, cryptogenic) but also refocuses the attention of providers on the fundamental basis of MASLD as a critical member of the metabolic syndrome spectrum of diseases.

This is in line with the recently updated American Association for the Study of Liver Disease Practice Guidelines for NAFLD (now MASLD), which focus on active screening to identify patients at risk for advanced MASLD, in particular those with medically complicated obesity or high-risk metabolic characteristics such as diabetes. This is a change from previous versions of the guidelines that were cautious to recommend broad screening guidelines in part owing to the lack of “available therapies.”

The increasing clinical burden of MASH has led to the recognition that patients do not have the luxury of waiting for “anticipated therapies” that have frequently shown only marginal or insignificant efficacy. As a result, some providers have refocused their efforts on the development of care pathways that can efficiently provide comprehensive lifestyle interventions to treat MASH and related metabolic comorbidities within hepatology or other subspecialty clinics.
 

Learning from OCA’s limitations

The approach to drug development for MASH seems to be shifting in a similar, metabolic syndrome–focused way.

The risk-benefit analysis from the FDA advisory committee evaluating OCA noted that the drug provided only modest (albeit statistically significant) benefits over placebo in achieving one of two primary clinical endpoints (improvement in fibrosis by one stage without worsening of NASH), but was associated with toxicity as well as significant drug-related side effects, including new or worsening dyslipidemia, accelerated progression to prediabetes or diabetes, and worsening glycemic control in patients with diabetes.

Worsening clinical markers of metabolic health were an important factor in the advisory committee’s decision to not provide accelerated approval of OCA. This informs the criteria upon which future MASH therapies will be evaluated for approval: that an ideal agent for MASH not only will have a significant impact on MASH pathophysiology but will also provide benefit for (or at least not worsen) the metabolic comorbidities associated with MASH.
 

New treatments on the horizon

Fortunately, several new MASH therapeutics in development seem to have promising metabolic profiles.

In the phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH biopsy trial, treatment with resmetirom, a thyroid hormone receptor–beta selective agonist versus placebo resulted in a clinically significant improvement in liver fibrosis by one stage or more (26% vs. 14%) and NASH resolution (30% vs. 10%). Unlike OCA, resmetirom was associated with a clinically significant reduction in LDL cholesterol (–16% compared with placebo).

Resmetirom has received a breakthrough therapy designation, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals recently completed submission of a new drug application for accelerated approval of this agent to the FDA.

Semaglutide is a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist that is already FDA approved for treatment of diabetes and obesity and is being studied in a phase 3 analysis for NASH.

In a phase 2 trial, daily dosing of semaglutide vs placebo led to clinically significant improvement in NASH resolution (59% vs. 17%) but not significant improvement in fibrosis (43% vs 33%). Although it is impossible to make a meaningful comparison in outcomes between clinical trials, it should be noted that the absolute rate of response in this trial was higher than is routinely seen in other NASH trials and that the placebo rate for improvement in fibrosis was higher than expected, a common problem with NASH trials.

As expected, treatment with semaglutide was associated with dose-dependent reduction in body weight and hemoglobin A1c, highlighting the global metabolic benefit of this agent.

Another major class of agents being studied for NASH treatment are the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 21 analogs.

In the recently published phase 2b ENLIVEN trial, treatment with the FGF21 analog pegozafermin versus placebo led to a statistically significant improvement in liver fibrosis by one stage (27% vs. 7%) and a numerical improvement in NASH resolution (26% vs. 2%).

In addition to its effects directly in the liver, FGF21 has been associated with promoting positive global metabolic effects, including improved peripheral insulin sensitivity and amelioration of dyslipidemia. Consistent with this, treatment with pegozafermin resulted in a decrease in serum triglycerides and an increase in serum HDL cholesterol and adiponectin levels.

Ultimately, the best therapeutic strategy for MASH may be one that uses combination therapy to maximize liver-directed effects and also ameliorate concomitant or contributing metabolic dysfunction. This approach is already being investigated. What seems clear, however, is that MASH therapy without concurrent treatment of metabolic comorbidities is probably destined to be ineffective, if not counterproductive.

So, what’s in a name? When it comes to MASLD, it seems quite a bit.
 

Dr. Janardhan is an assistant professor, department of internal medicine, at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago. Dr. Reau is a professor, department of internal medicine, Rush University. Dr. Janardhan reported conflicts of interest with Target RWE, Novo Nordisk, Intercept, and Enanta. Dr. Reau reported conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Gilead, and AASLD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

It is difficult to go through any publication or website these days without finding an article about artificial intelligence (AI). Many discuss its current status, while others speculate on potential future applications. Often, AI is described as an “existential threat to human health” by commentators who aren’t even aware of the definition of that term as Kierkegaard conceived it, the role of the individual to breathe meaning into life. Others characterize such cataclysmic predictions as “overblown and misdirected”.

The long-term potential for abuse of AI requires discussion, and should be addressed by policy makers, but that is beyond the scope of this column.

Meanwhile, there are many near-term opportunities for AI to improve health care and reduce tedious and time consuming tasks. Specifically, some AI-based tools are available to use in your office right now, with no “existential” threat to anybody.

The most popular current AI-based medical applications are automated scribes. They transcribe live consultations between physician and patient automatically and create a searchable report, plus notes for charts and billing.

I’ve written about AI scribes before, but the quality and user-friendliness of these products have improved dramatically in recent years. Language processing capabilities now permit you to speak naturally, without having to memorize specific commands. Some scribes can mimic your writing style based on sample notes that you enter into the system. Others allow you to integrate your own knowledge base, or a bibliography of research studies. With some systems, you can dictate notes directly into most EHR software, ask questions regarding medication dosages, or access a patient’s medical history from hospitals or other offices.

Current popular medical scribe products include DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, and ScribeLink. Amazon Web Services recently launched its own product, HealthScribe, as well. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

AI scribes aren’t entirely autonomous, of course; you need to read the output and check for potential inaccuracies. Still, users claim that they substantially reduce documentation and charting time, permitting more patient visits and less after-hours work.

AI can also be used to provide useful content for your patients. If you are not particularly good at writing, or don’t have the time for it, generative algorithms like the much-vaunted ChatGPT can generate posts, FAQs, and other informational content for your website, blog, or social media pages. You can ask for ideas about timely health topics and write general information articles, or create content specific to your location or specialty. You can use it to write emails informing your patients about upcoming office events or educate them on a range of topics, from getting their annual flu shots to scheduling regular screening skin exams.

With some of the same techniques and additional software, you can create entire videos for your website at a fraction of the cost of hiring a video production team. After using ChatGPT to write the content – for example, a 5-minute script on the importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer – you can employ a text-to-speech algorithm such as Revoicer to transform the script into audio content, and then a preproduction algorithm like Yepic or Synthesia to generate a video with a synthetic human. 

If you are unhappy with your current online presence, you can use AI to create an entire website. Through a series of questions, AI website builders such as Wix ADI, Jimdo, Hostinger, and 10Web gather all the information needed to set up a website draft that is already personalized with medical-specific content. Most offer the option to connect to Instagram, Facebook, Google My Business, and similar sites, to which they can import your office’s logo, images, and descriptive texts.

Some of them are capable of pulling up responsive site pages that automatically adjust to the device – mobile or computer – that the visitor is using. This is important, as I’ve written before, because more than half of all searches for doctors are now made on smartphones, so the more “mobile friendly” your site is, the higher it will be ranked. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test.

If you give talks at medical meetings, you know how cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to create Powerpoint presentations. Once again, AI can save you time and trouble. Presentation designers such as Presentations.AI, Deck Robot, iA Presenter, and Beautiful.AI can assemble very acceptable presentations from your primary inputs. You typically choose a template, input your basic data, and AI will format the slides and offer you visuals, animations, voice-overs, and other fancy features. You will also have flexibility in changing segments or images or sizes you don’t like.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

It is difficult to go through any publication or website these days without finding an article about artificial intelligence (AI). Many discuss its current status, while others speculate on potential future applications. Often, AI is described as an “existential threat to human health” by commentators who aren’t even aware of the definition of that term as Kierkegaard conceived it, the role of the individual to breathe meaning into life. Others characterize such cataclysmic predictions as “overblown and misdirected”.

The long-term potential for abuse of AI requires discussion, and should be addressed by policy makers, but that is beyond the scope of this column.

Meanwhile, there are many near-term opportunities for AI to improve health care and reduce tedious and time consuming tasks. Specifically, some AI-based tools are available to use in your office right now, with no “existential” threat to anybody.

The most popular current AI-based medical applications are automated scribes. They transcribe live consultations between physician and patient automatically and create a searchable report, plus notes for charts and billing.

I’ve written about AI scribes before, but the quality and user-friendliness of these products have improved dramatically in recent years. Language processing capabilities now permit you to speak naturally, without having to memorize specific commands. Some scribes can mimic your writing style based on sample notes that you enter into the system. Others allow you to integrate your own knowledge base, or a bibliography of research studies. With some systems, you can dictate notes directly into most EHR software, ask questions regarding medication dosages, or access a patient’s medical history from hospitals or other offices.

Current popular medical scribe products include DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, and ScribeLink. Amazon Web Services recently launched its own product, HealthScribe, as well. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

AI scribes aren’t entirely autonomous, of course; you need to read the output and check for potential inaccuracies. Still, users claim that they substantially reduce documentation and charting time, permitting more patient visits and less after-hours work.

AI can also be used to provide useful content for your patients. If you are not particularly good at writing, or don’t have the time for it, generative algorithms like the much-vaunted ChatGPT can generate posts, FAQs, and other informational content for your website, blog, or social media pages. You can ask for ideas about timely health topics and write general information articles, or create content specific to your location or specialty. You can use it to write emails informing your patients about upcoming office events or educate them on a range of topics, from getting their annual flu shots to scheduling regular screening skin exams.

With some of the same techniques and additional software, you can create entire videos for your website at a fraction of the cost of hiring a video production team. After using ChatGPT to write the content – for example, a 5-minute script on the importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer – you can employ a text-to-speech algorithm such as Revoicer to transform the script into audio content, and then a preproduction algorithm like Yepic or Synthesia to generate a video with a synthetic human. 

If you are unhappy with your current online presence, you can use AI to create an entire website. Through a series of questions, AI website builders such as Wix ADI, Jimdo, Hostinger, and 10Web gather all the information needed to set up a website draft that is already personalized with medical-specific content. Most offer the option to connect to Instagram, Facebook, Google My Business, and similar sites, to which they can import your office’s logo, images, and descriptive texts.

Some of them are capable of pulling up responsive site pages that automatically adjust to the device – mobile or computer – that the visitor is using. This is important, as I’ve written before, because more than half of all searches for doctors are now made on smartphones, so the more “mobile friendly” your site is, the higher it will be ranked. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test.

If you give talks at medical meetings, you know how cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to create Powerpoint presentations. Once again, AI can save you time and trouble. Presentation designers such as Presentations.AI, Deck Robot, iA Presenter, and Beautiful.AI can assemble very acceptable presentations from your primary inputs. You typically choose a template, input your basic data, and AI will format the slides and offer you visuals, animations, voice-overs, and other fancy features. You will also have flexibility in changing segments or images or sizes you don’t like.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

It is difficult to go through any publication or website these days without finding an article about artificial intelligence (AI). Many discuss its current status, while others speculate on potential future applications. Often, AI is described as an “existential threat to human health” by commentators who aren’t even aware of the definition of that term as Kierkegaard conceived it, the role of the individual to breathe meaning into life. Others characterize such cataclysmic predictions as “overblown and misdirected”.

The long-term potential for abuse of AI requires discussion, and should be addressed by policy makers, but that is beyond the scope of this column.

Meanwhile, there are many near-term opportunities for AI to improve health care and reduce tedious and time consuming tasks. Specifically, some AI-based tools are available to use in your office right now, with no “existential” threat to anybody.

The most popular current AI-based medical applications are automated scribes. They transcribe live consultations between physician and patient automatically and create a searchable report, plus notes for charts and billing.

I’ve written about AI scribes before, but the quality and user-friendliness of these products have improved dramatically in recent years. Language processing capabilities now permit you to speak naturally, without having to memorize specific commands. Some scribes can mimic your writing style based on sample notes that you enter into the system. Others allow you to integrate your own knowledge base, or a bibliography of research studies. With some systems, you can dictate notes directly into most EHR software, ask questions regarding medication dosages, or access a patient’s medical history from hospitals or other offices.

Current popular medical scribe products include DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, and ScribeLink. Amazon Web Services recently launched its own product, HealthScribe, as well. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

AI scribes aren’t entirely autonomous, of course; you need to read the output and check for potential inaccuracies. Still, users claim that they substantially reduce documentation and charting time, permitting more patient visits and less after-hours work.

AI can also be used to provide useful content for your patients. If you are not particularly good at writing, or don’t have the time for it, generative algorithms like the much-vaunted ChatGPT can generate posts, FAQs, and other informational content for your website, blog, or social media pages. You can ask for ideas about timely health topics and write general information articles, or create content specific to your location or specialty. You can use it to write emails informing your patients about upcoming office events or educate them on a range of topics, from getting their annual flu shots to scheduling regular screening skin exams.

With some of the same techniques and additional software, you can create entire videos for your website at a fraction of the cost of hiring a video production team. After using ChatGPT to write the content – for example, a 5-minute script on the importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer – you can employ a text-to-speech algorithm such as Revoicer to transform the script into audio content, and then a preproduction algorithm like Yepic or Synthesia to generate a video with a synthetic human. 

If you are unhappy with your current online presence, you can use AI to create an entire website. Through a series of questions, AI website builders such as Wix ADI, Jimdo, Hostinger, and 10Web gather all the information needed to set up a website draft that is already personalized with medical-specific content. Most offer the option to connect to Instagram, Facebook, Google My Business, and similar sites, to which they can import your office’s logo, images, and descriptive texts.

Some of them are capable of pulling up responsive site pages that automatically adjust to the device – mobile or computer – that the visitor is using. This is important, as I’ve written before, because more than half of all searches for doctors are now made on smartphones, so the more “mobile friendly” your site is, the higher it will be ranked. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test.

If you give talks at medical meetings, you know how cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to create Powerpoint presentations. Once again, AI can save you time and trouble. Presentation designers such as Presentations.AI, Deck Robot, iA Presenter, and Beautiful.AI can assemble very acceptable presentations from your primary inputs. You typically choose a template, input your basic data, and AI will format the slides and offer you visuals, animations, voice-overs, and other fancy features. You will also have flexibility in changing segments or images or sizes you don’t like.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’d like to talk about private parts. You know: the genitals, down there.

I hate all of that. I really wish that we can get to a place where we can talk about genitals and sexual health the same way we do about high blood pressure and diabetes. In fact, when a new patient comes in and they get a new diagnosis of diabetes, you spend time explaining to them how their pancreas works. I don’t remember all the details because I’m a urologist. But you explain the details of diabetes, how it works, why therapy is important, and how it’s very important for quality of life.

I would like us to take that same understanding of anatomy and physiology and use it to explain to patients how their sexual health works because when they understand it, they then have the tools to make it better. I say to patients, “You have to know what parts you have in order to figure out how they drive, right?” We want them to drive better.

Let me give you an example. Many men come to see me with complaints of erectile dysfunction. They refuse to take sildenafil and tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis), saying, “Oh my gosh, those are magic pills. I won’t be a man if take them.” We all know that doesn’t make any sense. I explain to them how their penis works: “Your penis is a muscle. The muscle does two things. It contracts and it relaxes, just like your bicep. It’s just that your penis muscle is smooth muscle, which means it responds to fight or flight. It’s on the autonomic nervous system.”

I explain that if the muscle of the penis is relaxed, it fills with blood and expands. It gets big and hard, and it traps the blood. But when the muscles of the penis are contracted, when they are tight, it squeezes out all the blood, like squeezing out a sponge. So the important thing to do if you want to have good erections is to get the muscles to relax. Relaxed muscle increases erections. I get them to understand that sildenafil and tadalafil are phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: smooth-muscle relaxants. Instead of saying, “I need to take Viagra or Cialis because I’m broken,” it’s, “Oh hey honey, I need to take my muscle relaxants because my muscles aren’t working the way that they used to.”

In the future, I’ll go into what happens in erectile dysfunction. We’ll go into what can happen with erectile dysfunction and the many reasons why it happens. It’s getting them to understand that if we get the muscles to relax, you will have better erections. This is how the penis works. It’s why the medicine works. The patients will actually try the therapy and they’ll feel so much better about it. They’ll say, “Oh my gosh, this makes so much sense.” They work on their mental muscles to get the muscles of the penis to relax. Understanding anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatments, which leads to better outcomes.

How about the female side? If a woman comes to see me reporting that she can’t have an orgasm, part of it is education and understanding the anatomy and physiology. The clitoris and the penis are exactly the same thing. The head of the clitoris and the head of the penis are the same. The clitoris has legs that go all the way down to the butt bone. So everyone is sitting on their genitals right now. The butt bones connect to the bottom of the clitoris or the bottom of the penis. They each have legs called crura. When you get patients to understand where their anatomy is and how it functions, they will then understand how to maximize their quality of life.

The clitoris has smooth muscle just like the penis. When that smooth muscle relaxes, it gorges with blood. When you stimulate it, it can lead to orgasm for most people. But, wait a minute. The clitoris is not inside the vagina. It’s outside. It’s behind the labia majora. If you follow the labia minora up, you get to the head of the clitoris. If patients understand that, they then will understand that penetration is not the way the majority of people orgasm.

I love pictures. I show everyone pictures in my office. They help patients to understand why vibration or outside stimulation on the vulva will allow orgasm to happen. And so instead of patients coming in saying, “I’m broken, I can’t orgasm from penetration,” or, “Dr. Rubin, I’m broken because I can’t get erections,” getting them to understand the anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatment.

As we go forward, I’ll talk more about anatomy and physiology and how to increase the sexual health of our patients. For now though, please stop calling them private parts. Please use your understanding of anatomy and physiology to educate your patients to have better sexual health and higher quality of life. You may be the only clinician to ever do so, and it will make their life so much better.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’d like to talk about private parts. You know: the genitals, down there.

I hate all of that. I really wish that we can get to a place where we can talk about genitals and sexual health the same way we do about high blood pressure and diabetes. In fact, when a new patient comes in and they get a new diagnosis of diabetes, you spend time explaining to them how their pancreas works. I don’t remember all the details because I’m a urologist. But you explain the details of diabetes, how it works, why therapy is important, and how it’s very important for quality of life.

I would like us to take that same understanding of anatomy and physiology and use it to explain to patients how their sexual health works because when they understand it, they then have the tools to make it better. I say to patients, “You have to know what parts you have in order to figure out how they drive, right?” We want them to drive better.

Let me give you an example. Many men come to see me with complaints of erectile dysfunction. They refuse to take sildenafil and tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis), saying, “Oh my gosh, those are magic pills. I won’t be a man if take them.” We all know that doesn’t make any sense. I explain to them how their penis works: “Your penis is a muscle. The muscle does two things. It contracts and it relaxes, just like your bicep. It’s just that your penis muscle is smooth muscle, which means it responds to fight or flight. It’s on the autonomic nervous system.”

I explain that if the muscle of the penis is relaxed, it fills with blood and expands. It gets big and hard, and it traps the blood. But when the muscles of the penis are contracted, when they are tight, it squeezes out all the blood, like squeezing out a sponge. So the important thing to do if you want to have good erections is to get the muscles to relax. Relaxed muscle increases erections. I get them to understand that sildenafil and tadalafil are phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: smooth-muscle relaxants. Instead of saying, “I need to take Viagra or Cialis because I’m broken,” it’s, “Oh hey honey, I need to take my muscle relaxants because my muscles aren’t working the way that they used to.”

In the future, I’ll go into what happens in erectile dysfunction. We’ll go into what can happen with erectile dysfunction and the many reasons why it happens. It’s getting them to understand that if we get the muscles to relax, you will have better erections. This is how the penis works. It’s why the medicine works. The patients will actually try the therapy and they’ll feel so much better about it. They’ll say, “Oh my gosh, this makes so much sense.” They work on their mental muscles to get the muscles of the penis to relax. Understanding anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatments, which leads to better outcomes.

How about the female side? If a woman comes to see me reporting that she can’t have an orgasm, part of it is education and understanding the anatomy and physiology. The clitoris and the penis are exactly the same thing. The head of the clitoris and the head of the penis are the same. The clitoris has legs that go all the way down to the butt bone. So everyone is sitting on their genitals right now. The butt bones connect to the bottom of the clitoris or the bottom of the penis. They each have legs called crura. When you get patients to understand where their anatomy is and how it functions, they will then understand how to maximize their quality of life.

The clitoris has smooth muscle just like the penis. When that smooth muscle relaxes, it gorges with blood. When you stimulate it, it can lead to orgasm for most people. But, wait a minute. The clitoris is not inside the vagina. It’s outside. It’s behind the labia majora. If you follow the labia minora up, you get to the head of the clitoris. If patients understand that, they then will understand that penetration is not the way the majority of people orgasm.

I love pictures. I show everyone pictures in my office. They help patients to understand why vibration or outside stimulation on the vulva will allow orgasm to happen. And so instead of patients coming in saying, “I’m broken, I can’t orgasm from penetration,” or, “Dr. Rubin, I’m broken because I can’t get erections,” getting them to understand the anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatment.

As we go forward, I’ll talk more about anatomy and physiology and how to increase the sexual health of our patients. For now though, please stop calling them private parts. Please use your understanding of anatomy and physiology to educate your patients to have better sexual health and higher quality of life. You may be the only clinician to ever do so, and it will make their life so much better.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’d like to talk about private parts. You know: the genitals, down there.

I hate all of that. I really wish that we can get to a place where we can talk about genitals and sexual health the same way we do about high blood pressure and diabetes. In fact, when a new patient comes in and they get a new diagnosis of diabetes, you spend time explaining to them how their pancreas works. I don’t remember all the details because I’m a urologist. But you explain the details of diabetes, how it works, why therapy is important, and how it’s very important for quality of life.

I would like us to take that same understanding of anatomy and physiology and use it to explain to patients how their sexual health works because when they understand it, they then have the tools to make it better. I say to patients, “You have to know what parts you have in order to figure out how they drive, right?” We want them to drive better.

Let me give you an example. Many men come to see me with complaints of erectile dysfunction. They refuse to take sildenafil and tadalafil (Viagra and Cialis), saying, “Oh my gosh, those are magic pills. I won’t be a man if take them.” We all know that doesn’t make any sense. I explain to them how their penis works: “Your penis is a muscle. The muscle does two things. It contracts and it relaxes, just like your bicep. It’s just that your penis muscle is smooth muscle, which means it responds to fight or flight. It’s on the autonomic nervous system.”

I explain that if the muscle of the penis is relaxed, it fills with blood and expands. It gets big and hard, and it traps the blood. But when the muscles of the penis are contracted, when they are tight, it squeezes out all the blood, like squeezing out a sponge. So the important thing to do if you want to have good erections is to get the muscles to relax. Relaxed muscle increases erections. I get them to understand that sildenafil and tadalafil are phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: smooth-muscle relaxants. Instead of saying, “I need to take Viagra or Cialis because I’m broken,” it’s, “Oh hey honey, I need to take my muscle relaxants because my muscles aren’t working the way that they used to.”

In the future, I’ll go into what happens in erectile dysfunction. We’ll go into what can happen with erectile dysfunction and the many reasons why it happens. It’s getting them to understand that if we get the muscles to relax, you will have better erections. This is how the penis works. It’s why the medicine works. The patients will actually try the therapy and they’ll feel so much better about it. They’ll say, “Oh my gosh, this makes so much sense.” They work on their mental muscles to get the muscles of the penis to relax. Understanding anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatments, which leads to better outcomes.

How about the female side? If a woman comes to see me reporting that she can’t have an orgasm, part of it is education and understanding the anatomy and physiology. The clitoris and the penis are exactly the same thing. The head of the clitoris and the head of the penis are the same. The clitoris has legs that go all the way down to the butt bone. So everyone is sitting on their genitals right now. The butt bones connect to the bottom of the clitoris or the bottom of the penis. They each have legs called crura. When you get patients to understand where their anatomy is and how it functions, they will then understand how to maximize their quality of life.

The clitoris has smooth muscle just like the penis. When that smooth muscle relaxes, it gorges with blood. When you stimulate it, it can lead to orgasm for most people. But, wait a minute. The clitoris is not inside the vagina. It’s outside. It’s behind the labia majora. If you follow the labia minora up, you get to the head of the clitoris. If patients understand that, they then will understand that penetration is not the way the majority of people orgasm.

I love pictures. I show everyone pictures in my office. They help patients to understand why vibration or outside stimulation on the vulva will allow orgasm to happen. And so instead of patients coming in saying, “I’m broken, I can’t orgasm from penetration,” or, “Dr. Rubin, I’m broken because I can’t get erections,” getting them to understand the anatomy and physiology helps them understand the treatment.

As we go forward, I’ll talk more about anatomy and physiology and how to increase the sexual health of our patients. For now though, please stop calling them private parts. Please use your understanding of anatomy and physiology to educate your patients to have better sexual health and higher quality of life. You may be the only clinician to ever do so, and it will make their life so much better.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

David Nichols, PhD, a leading expert in the field of psychedelic research and the founding president of the Heffter Research Institute, often answers the question, “What is a psychedelic?” by saying, “The scientific definition I always use is that they are substances that produce changes in thought, mood, and affect, which only occur during dreaming or religious exaltation.”^1,2 However, this definition does not account for the experiences of naturally occurring psychoses, such as those seen in schizophrenia.

Lasha Khetsuriani

The phenomenology of psychotic experiences between drug-induced and naturally occurring psychoses differs, and the use of psychedelics does not necessarily replicate or simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia. For example, drug induced hallucinations are often described as more intense and vivid, while those associated with schizophrenia are described as more persistent and distressing.³

An altered state of consciousness is a hallmark of a psychedelic trip, but not a characteristic of schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia who have used psychedelics typically report that their experiences under the influence of these drugs are distinct from their usual experiences with the condition. Additionally, according to many experts, the underlying neurobiological mechanisms are different, with psychedelics affecting serotonin receptors and schizophrenia thought to be linked more to dopamine dysregulation, among other factors.

However, there are some instances of naturally occurring psychoses that are difficult to distinguish from the experiences reported by those who take psychedelics. This article explores the similarities between psychedelic experiences induced by serotonergic psychedelics, 5-HT2A agonists, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, and a rare psychiatric disorder known as the “oneiroid state.”
 

Origins and definitions

The term “oneiroia” is derived from the Greek words for “sleep” and “similar,” referring to the dreamlike character of the condition. It is widely acknowledged that psychedelics can temporarily induce dreamlike states,⁴ but this article focuses specifically on the naturally occurring, endogenous dreamlike state.

Oneiroid state was first described by German psychiatrist Wilhelm Mayer-Gross in the early 20th century and was once well-known among European psychiatrists. Some classified it as a part of schizophrenia, others saw it as an unusual manifestation of affective disorder, and still others considered it an atypical psychosis. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has received limited attention in American psychiatric journals.

The key characteristic of this condition is a distinctive state of consciousness marked by vivid and florid hallucinations, and a succession of constantly shifting dreamlike or surrealistic visuals and imagery often similar to mystical or cosmic experiences. Self-awareness and orientation in time and place are often disturbed, and delusions are experienced within this altered state.⁵

To gain a better understanding of the oneiroid state, it may be helpful to turn to European or other schools of psychiatry with a history of studying this phenomenon, as American psychiatry has limited knowledge in this area.

As described in the “Handbook of Psychiatry” by Russian psychiatrist A.V. Snezhnevsky, published in 1983, oneiroid state, also known as oneiroid syndrome, is a dreamlike and imaginative state characterized by a bizarre combination of reality and vivid phantasmagoric imaginations.⁶ In this state, individuals are completely detached from their surroundings and experience a change in self-awareness, often displaying either a lack of movement or senseless excitement.

Patients often experience the oneiroid state as active participants, as if they are in a movie theater, not only watching the story, but also being part of it, reacting to it with either “external immobility” or senseless excitement, completely detached from their surroundings. This is similar to the portrayal of the emotions of the characters in Steven Spielberg’s film “Ready Player One.”

The entry in Dr. Snezhnevsky’s “Handbook” states: “Some patients in Oneiroid State experience travels to other worlds, such as interacting with inhabitants on Mars, collecting gems on the moon, exploring invisible cities, participating in conspiracies and insurrections, fighting with pirates, chasing The Flying Dutchman, wandering through ancient Rome, and even visiting heaven or hell. At times, the patient’s imagination reaches a state of mystical contemplation.”⁶

In contrast to delirium, which never impairs self-awareness, oneiroid state is marked by drastic changes in the sense of self. The memory of the subjective experience during the oneiroia is much more vivid and consistent than in delirium. Patients who have experienced the oneiroid state often have complete recall of their experience, as if they have just woken up from a dream.

It was commonly thought that oneiroid state was part of the group of functional psychoses, rather than organic psychoses, and was not considered to be a result of mind-altering psychedelics. It was not considered a manifestation of epilepsy either. Oneiroid state could last for weeks or even months, making it unlikely to be related to an epileptic seizure. Furthermore, EEG results did not show any seizurelike activity during the state.

An excellent case study on oneiroid state was published in Israel in 2000. The authors described two patients who experienced the oneiroid state for several days or even weeks.⁷ One of the patients reported that during the illness, he experienced himself aboard a spaceship as a cosmonaut, heading for a different universe. On another occasion, the patient perceived himself as a person living 2,000 years ago and being guilty of Christ’s death.

The second patient reported that everything around her appeared “like in the movies,” and she saw others as characters from comic strips. Both patients alternated between catatonic excitement and sluggishness and would sometimes come back to reality for a few minutes to respond to questions. Physical exams, laboratory tests, neurological tests, and a brain scan were all normal in both cases.
 

Conclusions

As mentioned earlier, oneiroid state is not widely discussed in American psychiatric journals and is now considered a rare condition globally, despite being a common occurrence in the past century. A diagnosis similar to oneiroid state, known as bouffée délirante, is still in use in some French-speaking countries, with a noticeable decline in frequency.^2,8 The widespread acceptance of international classification systems such as the ICD-10, which does not recognize the diagnosis, is likely one of the reasons for this decline.

However, the decrease in the prevalence of the oneiroid state is not unique, as other forms of mental illness, such as the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia, are also becoming less prevalent. The cause of this decline is uncertain. Could changes in the way mental disorders affect 5HT2A receptors be a contributing factor?

In conclusion, as the field of psychedelic research experiences a resurgence, this little-known manifestation of mental illness, oneiroid state, may be worth reexamining.

With the expected approval and regulation of psilocybin and MDMA by the FDA, and classical psychedelics widely regarded as nonaddictive and safer than other recreational drugs, the phenomenological similarity between the naturally occurring impaired consciousness of the oneiroid state and the altered states of consciousness brought about by entheogenic substances should be seen as a possibility for enhanced understanding, rather than as a cause for concern.

Dr. Khetsuriani is a supervising psychiatrist at the Bronx Psychiatric Center in Bronx, N.Y., and has a private psychiatric practice located in Manhattan, N.Y.

References

1. Nichols DE. Keynote address, 39th Telluride Mushroom Festival, Aug. 15-18, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlDCM5JQzRk.

2. Nichols DE. Psychedelics. Pharmacol Rev. 2016 Apr;68(2):264-355. doi: 10.1124/pr.115.011478.

3. Leptourgos P et al. Hallucinations Under Psychedelics and in the Schizophrenia Spectrum: An Interdisciplinary and Multiscale Comparison. Schizophr Bull. 2020 Dec 1;46(6):1396-1408. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa117.

4. Kraehenmann R. Dreams and Psychedelics: Neurophenomenological Comparison and Therapeutic Implications. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017;15(7):1032-42. doi: 10.2174/1573413713666170619092629.

5. Henri EY et al. “Acute Delusional Psychosis” in Hirsch SR and Shepherd M, eds. Themes and variations in European psychiatry: An anthology. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974.

6. Snezhnevsky A, ed. Handbook of Psychiatry. Moscow: Meditsina, 1983.

7. Kaptsan A et al. Oneiroid syndrome: A concept of use for Western psychiatry. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2000;37(4):278-85.

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouff%C3%A9e_d%C3%A9lirante.

David Nichols, PhD, a leading expert in the field of psychedelic research and the founding president of the Heffter Research Institute, often answers the question, “What is a psychedelic?” by saying, “The scientific definition I always use is that they are substances that produce changes in thought, mood, and affect, which only occur during dreaming or religious exaltation.”^1,2 However, this definition does not account for the experiences of naturally occurring psychoses, such as those seen in schizophrenia.

Lasha Khetsuriani

The phenomenology of psychotic experiences between drug-induced and naturally occurring psychoses differs, and the use of psychedelics does not necessarily replicate or simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia. For example, drug induced hallucinations are often described as more intense and vivid, while those associated with schizophrenia are described as more persistent and distressing.³

An altered state of consciousness is a hallmark of a psychedelic trip, but not a characteristic of schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia who have used psychedelics typically report that their experiences under the influence of these drugs are distinct from their usual experiences with the condition. Additionally, according to many experts, the underlying neurobiological mechanisms are different, with psychedelics affecting serotonin receptors and schizophrenia thought to be linked more to dopamine dysregulation, among other factors.

However, there are some instances of naturally occurring psychoses that are difficult to distinguish from the experiences reported by those who take psychedelics. This article explores the similarities between psychedelic experiences induced by serotonergic psychedelics, 5-HT2A agonists, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, and a rare psychiatric disorder known as the “oneiroid state.”
 

Origins and definitions

The term “oneiroia” is derived from the Greek words for “sleep” and “similar,” referring to the dreamlike character of the condition. It is widely acknowledged that psychedelics can temporarily induce dreamlike states,⁴ but this article focuses specifically on the naturally occurring, endogenous dreamlike state.

Oneiroid state was first described by German psychiatrist Wilhelm Mayer-Gross in the early 20th century and was once well-known among European psychiatrists. Some classified it as a part of schizophrenia, others saw it as an unusual manifestation of affective disorder, and still others considered it an atypical psychosis. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has received limited attention in American psychiatric journals.

The key characteristic of this condition is a distinctive state of consciousness marked by vivid and florid hallucinations, and a succession of constantly shifting dreamlike or surrealistic visuals and imagery often similar to mystical or cosmic experiences. Self-awareness and orientation in time and place are often disturbed, and delusions are experienced within this altered state.⁵

To gain a better understanding of the oneiroid state, it may be helpful to turn to European or other schools of psychiatry with a history of studying this phenomenon, as American psychiatry has limited knowledge in this area.

As described in the “Handbook of Psychiatry” by Russian psychiatrist A.V. Snezhnevsky, published in 1983, oneiroid state, also known as oneiroid syndrome, is a dreamlike and imaginative state characterized by a bizarre combination of reality and vivid phantasmagoric imaginations.⁶ In this state, individuals are completely detached from their surroundings and experience a change in self-awareness, often displaying either a lack of movement or senseless excitement.

Patients often experience the oneiroid state as active participants, as if they are in a movie theater, not only watching the story, but also being part of it, reacting to it with either “external immobility” or senseless excitement, completely detached from their surroundings. This is similar to the portrayal of the emotions of the characters in Steven Spielberg’s film “Ready Player One.”

The entry in Dr. Snezhnevsky’s “Handbook” states: “Some patients in Oneiroid State experience travels to other worlds, such as interacting with inhabitants on Mars, collecting gems on the moon, exploring invisible cities, participating in conspiracies and insurrections, fighting with pirates, chasing The Flying Dutchman, wandering through ancient Rome, and even visiting heaven or hell. At times, the patient’s imagination reaches a state of mystical contemplation.”⁶

In contrast to delirium, which never impairs self-awareness, oneiroid state is marked by drastic changes in the sense of self. The memory of the subjective experience during the oneiroia is much more vivid and consistent than in delirium. Patients who have experienced the oneiroid state often have complete recall of their experience, as if they have just woken up from a dream.

It was commonly thought that oneiroid state was part of the group of functional psychoses, rather than organic psychoses, and was not considered to be a result of mind-altering psychedelics. It was not considered a manifestation of epilepsy either. Oneiroid state could last for weeks or even months, making it unlikely to be related to an epileptic seizure. Furthermore, EEG results did not show any seizurelike activity during the state.

An excellent case study on oneiroid state was published in Israel in 2000. The authors described two patients who experienced the oneiroid state for several days or even weeks.⁷ One of the patients reported that during the illness, he experienced himself aboard a spaceship as a cosmonaut, heading for a different universe. On another occasion, the patient perceived himself as a person living 2,000 years ago and being guilty of Christ’s death.

The second patient reported that everything around her appeared “like in the movies,” and she saw others as characters from comic strips. Both patients alternated between catatonic excitement and sluggishness and would sometimes come back to reality for a few minutes to respond to questions. Physical exams, laboratory tests, neurological tests, and a brain scan were all normal in both cases.
 

Conclusions

As mentioned earlier, oneiroid state is not widely discussed in American psychiatric journals and is now considered a rare condition globally, despite being a common occurrence in the past century. A diagnosis similar to oneiroid state, known as bouffée délirante, is still in use in some French-speaking countries, with a noticeable decline in frequency.^2,8 The widespread acceptance of international classification systems such as the ICD-10, which does not recognize the diagnosis, is likely one of the reasons for this decline.

However, the decrease in the prevalence of the oneiroid state is not unique, as other forms of mental illness, such as the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia, are also becoming less prevalent. The cause of this decline is uncertain. Could changes in the way mental disorders affect 5HT2A receptors be a contributing factor?

In conclusion, as the field of psychedelic research experiences a resurgence, this little-known manifestation of mental illness, oneiroid state, may be worth reexamining.

With the expected approval and regulation of psilocybin and MDMA by the FDA, and classical psychedelics widely regarded as nonaddictive and safer than other recreational drugs, the phenomenological similarity between the naturally occurring impaired consciousness of the oneiroid state and the altered states of consciousness brought about by entheogenic substances should be seen as a possibility for enhanced understanding, rather than as a cause for concern.

Dr. Khetsuriani is a supervising psychiatrist at the Bronx Psychiatric Center in Bronx, N.Y., and has a private psychiatric practice located in Manhattan, N.Y.

References

1. Nichols DE. Keynote address, 39th Telluride Mushroom Festival, Aug. 15-18, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlDCM5JQzRk.

2. Nichols DE. Psychedelics. Pharmacol Rev. 2016 Apr;68(2):264-355. doi: 10.1124/pr.115.011478.

3. Leptourgos P et al. Hallucinations Under Psychedelics and in the Schizophrenia Spectrum: An Interdisciplinary and Multiscale Comparison. Schizophr Bull. 2020 Dec 1;46(6):1396-1408. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa117.

4. Kraehenmann R. Dreams and Psychedelics: Neurophenomenological Comparison and Therapeutic Implications. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017;15(7):1032-42. doi: 10.2174/1573413713666170619092629.

5. Henri EY et al. “Acute Delusional Psychosis” in Hirsch SR and Shepherd M, eds. Themes and variations in European psychiatry: An anthology. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974.

6. Snezhnevsky A, ed. Handbook of Psychiatry. Moscow: Meditsina, 1983.

7. Kaptsan A et al. Oneiroid syndrome: A concept of use for Western psychiatry. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2000;37(4):278-85.

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouff%C3%A9e_d%C3%A9lirante.

David Nichols, PhD, a leading expert in the field of psychedelic research and the founding president of the Heffter Research Institute, often answers the question, “What is a psychedelic?” by saying, “The scientific definition I always use is that they are substances that produce changes in thought, mood, and affect, which only occur during dreaming or religious exaltation.”^1,2 However, this definition does not account for the experiences of naturally occurring psychoses, such as those seen in schizophrenia.

Lasha Khetsuriani

The phenomenology of psychotic experiences between drug-induced and naturally occurring psychoses differs, and the use of psychedelics does not necessarily replicate or simulate the symptoms of schizophrenia. For example, drug induced hallucinations are often described as more intense and vivid, while those associated with schizophrenia are described as more persistent and distressing.³

An altered state of consciousness is a hallmark of a psychedelic trip, but not a characteristic of schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia who have used psychedelics typically report that their experiences under the influence of these drugs are distinct from their usual experiences with the condition. Additionally, according to many experts, the underlying neurobiological mechanisms are different, with psychedelics affecting serotonin receptors and schizophrenia thought to be linked more to dopamine dysregulation, among other factors.

However, there are some instances of naturally occurring psychoses that are difficult to distinguish from the experiences reported by those who take psychedelics. This article explores the similarities between psychedelic experiences induced by serotonergic psychedelics, 5-HT2A agonists, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, and a rare psychiatric disorder known as the “oneiroid state.”
 

Origins and definitions

The term “oneiroia” is derived from the Greek words for “sleep” and “similar,” referring to the dreamlike character of the condition. It is widely acknowledged that psychedelics can temporarily induce dreamlike states,⁴ but this article focuses specifically on the naturally occurring, endogenous dreamlike state.

Oneiroid state was first described by German psychiatrist Wilhelm Mayer-Gross in the early 20th century and was once well-known among European psychiatrists. Some classified it as a part of schizophrenia, others saw it as an unusual manifestation of affective disorder, and still others considered it an atypical psychosis. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has received limited attention in American psychiatric journals.

The key characteristic of this condition is a distinctive state of consciousness marked by vivid and florid hallucinations, and a succession of constantly shifting dreamlike or surrealistic visuals and imagery often similar to mystical or cosmic experiences. Self-awareness and orientation in time and place are often disturbed, and delusions are experienced within this altered state.⁵

To gain a better understanding of the oneiroid state, it may be helpful to turn to European or other schools of psychiatry with a history of studying this phenomenon, as American psychiatry has limited knowledge in this area.

As described in the “Handbook of Psychiatry” by Russian psychiatrist A.V. Snezhnevsky, published in 1983, oneiroid state, also known as oneiroid syndrome, is a dreamlike and imaginative state characterized by a bizarre combination of reality and vivid phantasmagoric imaginations.⁶ In this state, individuals are completely detached from their surroundings and experience a change in self-awareness, often displaying either a lack of movement or senseless excitement.

Patients often experience the oneiroid state as active participants, as if they are in a movie theater, not only watching the story, but also being part of it, reacting to it with either “external immobility” or senseless excitement, completely detached from their surroundings. This is similar to the portrayal of the emotions of the characters in Steven Spielberg’s film “Ready Player One.”

The entry in Dr. Snezhnevsky’s “Handbook” states: “Some patients in Oneiroid State experience travels to other worlds, such as interacting with inhabitants on Mars, collecting gems on the moon, exploring invisible cities, participating in conspiracies and insurrections, fighting with pirates, chasing The Flying Dutchman, wandering through ancient Rome, and even visiting heaven or hell. At times, the patient’s imagination reaches a state of mystical contemplation.”⁶

In contrast to delirium, which never impairs self-awareness, oneiroid state is marked by drastic changes in the sense of self. The memory of the subjective experience during the oneiroia is much more vivid and consistent than in delirium. Patients who have experienced the oneiroid state often have complete recall of their experience, as if they have just woken up from a dream.

It was commonly thought that oneiroid state was part of the group of functional psychoses, rather than organic psychoses, and was not considered to be a result of mind-altering psychedelics. It was not considered a manifestation of epilepsy either. Oneiroid state could last for weeks or even months, making it unlikely to be related to an epileptic seizure. Furthermore, EEG results did not show any seizurelike activity during the state.

An excellent case study on oneiroid state was published in Israel in 2000. The authors described two patients who experienced the oneiroid state for several days or even weeks.⁷ One of the patients reported that during the illness, he experienced himself aboard a spaceship as a cosmonaut, heading for a different universe. On another occasion, the patient perceived himself as a person living 2,000 years ago and being guilty of Christ’s death.

The second patient reported that everything around her appeared “like in the movies,” and she saw others as characters from comic strips. Both patients alternated between catatonic excitement and sluggishness and would sometimes come back to reality for a few minutes to respond to questions. Physical exams, laboratory tests, neurological tests, and a brain scan were all normal in both cases.
 

Conclusions

As mentioned earlier, oneiroid state is not widely discussed in American psychiatric journals and is now considered a rare condition globally, despite being a common occurrence in the past century. A diagnosis similar to oneiroid state, known as bouffée délirante, is still in use in some French-speaking countries, with a noticeable decline in frequency.^2,8 The widespread acceptance of international classification systems such as the ICD-10, which does not recognize the diagnosis, is likely one of the reasons for this decline.

However, the decrease in the prevalence of the oneiroid state is not unique, as other forms of mental illness, such as the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia, are also becoming less prevalent. The cause of this decline is uncertain. Could changes in the way mental disorders affect 5HT2A receptors be a contributing factor?

In conclusion, as the field of psychedelic research experiences a resurgence, this little-known manifestation of mental illness, oneiroid state, may be worth reexamining.

With the expected approval and regulation of psilocybin and MDMA by the FDA, and classical psychedelics widely regarded as nonaddictive and safer than other recreational drugs, the phenomenological similarity between the naturally occurring impaired consciousness of the oneiroid state and the altered states of consciousness brought about by entheogenic substances should be seen as a possibility for enhanced understanding, rather than as a cause for concern.

Dr. Khetsuriani is a supervising psychiatrist at the Bronx Psychiatric Center in Bronx, N.Y., and has a private psychiatric practice located in Manhattan, N.Y.

References

1. Nichols DE. Keynote address, 39th Telluride Mushroom Festival, Aug. 15-18, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlDCM5JQzRk.

2. Nichols DE. Psychedelics. Pharmacol Rev. 2016 Apr;68(2):264-355. doi: 10.1124/pr.115.011478.

3. Leptourgos P et al. Hallucinations Under Psychedelics and in the Schizophrenia Spectrum: An Interdisciplinary and Multiscale Comparison. Schizophr Bull. 2020 Dec 1;46(6):1396-1408. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa117.

4. Kraehenmann R. Dreams and Psychedelics: Neurophenomenological Comparison and Therapeutic Implications. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017;15(7):1032-42. doi: 10.2174/1573413713666170619092629.

5. Henri EY et al. “Acute Delusional Psychosis” in Hirsch SR and Shepherd M, eds. Themes and variations in European psychiatry: An anthology. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974.

6. Snezhnevsky A, ed. Handbook of Psychiatry. Moscow: Meditsina, 1983.

7. Kaptsan A et al. Oneiroid syndrome: A concept of use for Western psychiatry. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2000;37(4):278-85.

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouff%C3%A9e_d%C3%A9lirante.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.