Opinion

On July 19, what was supposed to be a harmless software upgrade brought down a huge chunk of the health care, banking, flight, and travel systems.

While my dinky little practice wasn’t affected, several of my patients were in other ways. Tests that had to be rescheduled, flights canceled ... inconveniences, but not life altering.

Things are allegedly fixed (at least until next time) but there may be fallout down the road. People who had delayed medical procedures could have a different prognosis depending on what the results showed when they were done. Hopefully this won’t happen.

But it’s a reminder of how vulnerable our whole world is to disruption of the internet, not to mention the power grid and software systems. Paper is time consuming, and takes up a lot of space, but as long as you have a decent pen and enough light to read it you’re fine.

I’m not saying we should go back to paper. It’s more expensive in the long run, takes up shelf and closet space, kills trees, has to be shredded after a time, and turns yellow around the edges. It also makes it a pain to copy and transfer records. With paper I wouldn’t be able to take all my charts with me to refer to when I leave town on a busman’s holiday. The benefits of digital far outstrip paper or we wouldn’t have switched in the first place.

But it’s still kind of scary to realize how much we depend on software to keep things running smoothly. The events of July 19 were unintentional. Someone looking to cause real trouble could do worse — and there are plenty out there who would love to — and we’re putting our faith in companies like CrowdStrike to protect us from them.

But, on the flip side, we’re asking others to do the same. We often use the phrase “trust me, I’m a doctor,” in jest, but the point is there. People come to us because we have knowledge and training they don’t, and they’re hoping we can help them. We spent a lot of time getting to the point where we can hang up a sign that says so. And we, like everyone else, are not infallible.

We’re individuals, not machines. Both are fallible, though in different ways. In CrowdStrike’s case the machines didn’t fail, they just did what the humans told them to do. Which didn’t work.

The bottom line is that even the most well-meaning will make mistakes.

But it’s still pretty scary because, even unintentionally, there will be a next time. And between now and then our world will become even more dependent on these systems. None of us want to go back to the preconnected era, it’s too much a part of our daily lives.

Like the long list of potential side effects on any drug we prescribe, it’s a trade-off that we’ve accepted. And at this point we aren’t going back.

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

On July 19, what was supposed to be a harmless software upgrade brought down a huge chunk of the health care, banking, flight, and travel systems.

While my dinky little practice wasn’t affected, several of my patients were in other ways. Tests that had to be rescheduled, flights canceled ... inconveniences, but not life altering.

Things are allegedly fixed (at least until next time) but there may be fallout down the road. People who had delayed medical procedures could have a different prognosis depending on what the results showed when they were done. Hopefully this won’t happen.

But it’s a reminder of how vulnerable our whole world is to disruption of the internet, not to mention the power grid and software systems. Paper is time consuming, and takes up a lot of space, but as long as you have a decent pen and enough light to read it you’re fine.

I’m not saying we should go back to paper. It’s more expensive in the long run, takes up shelf and closet space, kills trees, has to be shredded after a time, and turns yellow around the edges. It also makes it a pain to copy and transfer records. With paper I wouldn’t be able to take all my charts with me to refer to when I leave town on a busman’s holiday. The benefits of digital far outstrip paper or we wouldn’t have switched in the first place.

But it’s still kind of scary to realize how much we depend on software to keep things running smoothly. The events of July 19 were unintentional. Someone looking to cause real trouble could do worse — and there are plenty out there who would love to — and we’re putting our faith in companies like CrowdStrike to protect us from them.

But, on the flip side, we’re asking others to do the same. We often use the phrase “trust me, I’m a doctor,” in jest, but the point is there. People come to us because we have knowledge and training they don’t, and they’re hoping we can help them. We spent a lot of time getting to the point where we can hang up a sign that says so. And we, like everyone else, are not infallible.

We’re individuals, not machines. Both are fallible, though in different ways. In CrowdStrike’s case the machines didn’t fail, they just did what the humans told them to do. Which didn’t work.

The bottom line is that even the most well-meaning will make mistakes.

But it’s still pretty scary because, even unintentionally, there will be a next time. And between now and then our world will become even more dependent on these systems. None of us want to go back to the preconnected era, it’s too much a part of our daily lives.

Like the long list of potential side effects on any drug we prescribe, it’s a trade-off that we’ve accepted. And at this point we aren’t going back.

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

On July 19, what was supposed to be a harmless software upgrade brought down a huge chunk of the health care, banking, flight, and travel systems.

While my dinky little practice wasn’t affected, several of my patients were in other ways. Tests that had to be rescheduled, flights canceled ... inconveniences, but not life altering.

Things are allegedly fixed (at least until next time) but there may be fallout down the road. People who had delayed medical procedures could have a different prognosis depending on what the results showed when they were done. Hopefully this won’t happen.

But it’s a reminder of how vulnerable our whole world is to disruption of the internet, not to mention the power grid and software systems. Paper is time consuming, and takes up a lot of space, but as long as you have a decent pen and enough light to read it you’re fine.

I’m not saying we should go back to paper. It’s more expensive in the long run, takes up shelf and closet space, kills trees, has to be shredded after a time, and turns yellow around the edges. It also makes it a pain to copy and transfer records. With paper I wouldn’t be able to take all my charts with me to refer to when I leave town on a busman’s holiday. The benefits of digital far outstrip paper or we wouldn’t have switched in the first place.

But it’s still kind of scary to realize how much we depend on software to keep things running smoothly. The events of July 19 were unintentional. Someone looking to cause real trouble could do worse — and there are plenty out there who would love to — and we’re putting our faith in companies like CrowdStrike to protect us from them.

But, on the flip side, we’re asking others to do the same. We often use the phrase “trust me, I’m a doctor,” in jest, but the point is there. People come to us because we have knowledge and training they don’t, and they’re hoping we can help them. We spent a lot of time getting to the point where we can hang up a sign that says so. And we, like everyone else, are not infallible.

We’re individuals, not machines. Both are fallible, though in different ways. In CrowdStrike’s case the machines didn’t fail, they just did what the humans told them to do. Which didn’t work.

The bottom line is that even the most well-meaning will make mistakes.

But it’s still pretty scary because, even unintentionally, there will be a next time. And between now and then our world will become even more dependent on these systems. None of us want to go back to the preconnected era, it’s too much a part of our daily lives.

Like the long list of potential side effects on any drug we prescribe, it’s a trade-off that we’ve accepted. And at this point we aren’t going back.

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

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need more diverse students — more students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds in medical school. That is not a controversial take. That’s not even a new thought.

What is a hot take, however, is that free medical school alone is not going to accomplish this goal. In fact, based on data and what people think and are saying, that’s just reality.

I recently chatted about whether or not free medical school would motivate more students to pursue primary care. That was New York University’s (NYU’s) goal. If you haven’t seen that video, check it out. Now I want to explore whether free medical school would actually create a more diverse medical student body.

This topic is especially important now because, in 2023, the Supreme Court ended affirmative action for college admissions, and this naturally has a downstream effect when it comes to getting into medical school. Right now, about 6% of US physicians are Black or Hispanic/Latina, and around 0.1%-0.3% identify as Indigenous Americans, Native Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders.

Is free medical school the answer? Well, that’s based on a huge assumption that the cost of medical school — incoming debt — is the single greatest barrier for students from diverse backgrounds, as if every single student from every background had the same level of resources in the same opportunity and were all equally competitive prior to applying, and just the prospect of debt is what caused the disparity. I don’t know if that’s reality. Let’s take a look at NYU.

After the free tuition announcement, total applications to the medical school went up nearly 50%. And from underrepresented groups, it was 100%. In 2019, the associate dean for admissions said, “A key driver was to remove a financial disincentive that dissuades people from pursuing a path in medicine.” But the acceptance rate stayed under 3%, and the average Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and grade point average (GPA) to get in went up. Basically, the school just became more competitive.

I will always commend anyone, anywhere, who is making medical school more affordable and more accessible. With NYU, it seems a tuition gift just made it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to actually get in. I mean, congratulations, you got more applications. This probably helped in ratings, and you got mentioned in news headlines, but are you actually achieving your mission?

At NYU, over the last few years, Black students made up about 11% of the medical school class, which is actually down from 2017 before the tuition gift. Students from low-income backgrounds, whom this would really benefit, used to make up around 12% of the class prior to the free tuition announcement, and now it’s around 3%-7%.

According to students from underrepresented backgrounds, the outreach and the equal opportunity need to start way earlier. The K-12 process needs to be addressed, as do mentorship opportunities and guidance throughout college, MCAT prep, resources for interviews, research opportunities, and so much more.

The following quote is from an interview with an interventional cardiology fellow who came here as a refugee: “For me, growing up, basic necessities like a quiet study space, high-speed internet, healthy meals and proper sleep were luxuries of which I could only dream. After resettling in the US as a political refugee, I lived in circumstances where such comforts were out of reach, and my path to medical school seemed insurmountable.” 

I also spoke to a friend in pediatric cancer, Michael Galvez, MD, who was outspoken about the need to improve representation in medicine, about what he thought would actually work to diversify medical schools. He mentioned adversity scores or looking at the distance traveled for applicants, as well as efforts to recruit from local, state, and community colleges, which often reflect local underserved populations. 

Dr. Galvez also agreed that although such metrics as GPA and MCAT are important, medical schools should also consider the impact applicants may have had for local, underserved communities and life experiences that may represent significant potential contributions applicants can make for public health.

The effort needs to start early. If we take a look at one of the most diverse medical schools in the country, UC Davis, we can see how this makes a difference. At UC Davis, in the class of 2026, about half of the 133 students come from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine. I’m taking a look at their website from the Office of Student and Resident Diversity, and it lists:

• K-12 outreach programs
• Undergraduate and community college programs
• Specific plans for postbaccalaureate students
• Support systems
• Resources for students that extend far beyond just premedical students

My home institution, Stanford School of Medicine, has similar programs as well, with similar ways for students from underrepresented backgrounds to find support and mentorship. This all makes a huge difference.

Regarding the actual admissions process for medical school, I’ll highlight the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the adaptions they’ve made to create a more fair and holistic process. It includes:

• A clear mission statement about diversity enhancement
• Anonymous voting
• A larger group to avoid bias
• Not showing academic metrics to interviewers
• Implicit association tests and trainings
• Removing photos from applications
• Appointing women, minorities, and young people with less implicit bias to the committees

Does this seem like a lot? It is, because a comprehensive approach is what it takes to build a more diverse US physician workforce, which will provide more culturally competent care, empower future generations, break down barriers and disparities in health care, and ultimately improve public health. Free tuition is awesome. I’m jealous. But on its own to solve these problems? This all feels like a misguided attempt.
 

Dr. Patel is clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and pediatric hospitalist at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need more diverse students — more students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds in medical school. That is not a controversial take. That’s not even a new thought.

What is a hot take, however, is that free medical school alone is not going to accomplish this goal. In fact, based on data and what people think and are saying, that’s just reality.

I recently chatted about whether or not free medical school would motivate more students to pursue primary care. That was New York University’s (NYU’s) goal. If you haven’t seen that video, check it out. Now I want to explore whether free medical school would actually create a more diverse medical student body.

This topic is especially important now because, in 2023, the Supreme Court ended affirmative action for college admissions, and this naturally has a downstream effect when it comes to getting into medical school. Right now, about 6% of US physicians are Black or Hispanic/Latina, and around 0.1%-0.3% identify as Indigenous Americans, Native Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders.

Is free medical school the answer? Well, that’s based on a huge assumption that the cost of medical school — incoming debt — is the single greatest barrier for students from diverse backgrounds, as if every single student from every background had the same level of resources in the same opportunity and were all equally competitive prior to applying, and just the prospect of debt is what caused the disparity. I don’t know if that’s reality. Let’s take a look at NYU.

After the free tuition announcement, total applications to the medical school went up nearly 50%. And from underrepresented groups, it was 100%. In 2019, the associate dean for admissions said, “A key driver was to remove a financial disincentive that dissuades people from pursuing a path in medicine.” But the acceptance rate stayed under 3%, and the average Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and grade point average (GPA) to get in went up. Basically, the school just became more competitive.

I will always commend anyone, anywhere, who is making medical school more affordable and more accessible. With NYU, it seems a tuition gift just made it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to actually get in. I mean, congratulations, you got more applications. This probably helped in ratings, and you got mentioned in news headlines, but are you actually achieving your mission?

At NYU, over the last few years, Black students made up about 11% of the medical school class, which is actually down from 2017 before the tuition gift. Students from low-income backgrounds, whom this would really benefit, used to make up around 12% of the class prior to the free tuition announcement, and now it’s around 3%-7%.

According to students from underrepresented backgrounds, the outreach and the equal opportunity need to start way earlier. The K-12 process needs to be addressed, as do mentorship opportunities and guidance throughout college, MCAT prep, resources for interviews, research opportunities, and so much more.

The following quote is from an interview with an interventional cardiology fellow who came here as a refugee: “For me, growing up, basic necessities like a quiet study space, high-speed internet, healthy meals and proper sleep were luxuries of which I could only dream. After resettling in the US as a political refugee, I lived in circumstances where such comforts were out of reach, and my path to medical school seemed insurmountable.” 

I also spoke to a friend in pediatric cancer, Michael Galvez, MD, who was outspoken about the need to improve representation in medicine, about what he thought would actually work to diversify medical schools. He mentioned adversity scores or looking at the distance traveled for applicants, as well as efforts to recruit from local, state, and community colleges, which often reflect local underserved populations. 

Dr. Galvez also agreed that although such metrics as GPA and MCAT are important, medical schools should also consider the impact applicants may have had for local, underserved communities and life experiences that may represent significant potential contributions applicants can make for public health.

The effort needs to start early. If we take a look at one of the most diverse medical schools in the country, UC Davis, we can see how this makes a difference. At UC Davis, in the class of 2026, about half of the 133 students come from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine. I’m taking a look at their website from the Office of Student and Resident Diversity, and it lists:

• K-12 outreach programs
• Undergraduate and community college programs
• Specific plans for postbaccalaureate students
• Support systems
• Resources for students that extend far beyond just premedical students

My home institution, Stanford School of Medicine, has similar programs as well, with similar ways for students from underrepresented backgrounds to find support and mentorship. This all makes a huge difference.

Regarding the actual admissions process for medical school, I’ll highlight the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the adaptions they’ve made to create a more fair and holistic process. It includes:

• A clear mission statement about diversity enhancement
• Anonymous voting
• A larger group to avoid bias
• Not showing academic metrics to interviewers
• Implicit association tests and trainings
• Removing photos from applications
• Appointing women, minorities, and young people with less implicit bias to the committees

Does this seem like a lot? It is, because a comprehensive approach is what it takes to build a more diverse US physician workforce, which will provide more culturally competent care, empower future generations, break down barriers and disparities in health care, and ultimately improve public health. Free tuition is awesome. I’m jealous. But on its own to solve these problems? This all feels like a misguided attempt.
 

Dr. Patel is clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and pediatric hospitalist at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need more diverse students — more students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds in medical school. That is not a controversial take. That’s not even a new thought.

What is a hot take, however, is that free medical school alone is not going to accomplish this goal. In fact, based on data and what people think and are saying, that’s just reality.

I recently chatted about whether or not free medical school would motivate more students to pursue primary care. That was New York University’s (NYU’s) goal. If you haven’t seen that video, check it out. Now I want to explore whether free medical school would actually create a more diverse medical student body.

This topic is especially important now because, in 2023, the Supreme Court ended affirmative action for college admissions, and this naturally has a downstream effect when it comes to getting into medical school. Right now, about 6% of US physicians are Black or Hispanic/Latina, and around 0.1%-0.3% identify as Indigenous Americans, Native Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders.

Is free medical school the answer? Well, that’s based on a huge assumption that the cost of medical school — incoming debt — is the single greatest barrier for students from diverse backgrounds, as if every single student from every background had the same level of resources in the same opportunity and were all equally competitive prior to applying, and just the prospect of debt is what caused the disparity. I don’t know if that’s reality. Let’s take a look at NYU.

After the free tuition announcement, total applications to the medical school went up nearly 50%. And from underrepresented groups, it was 100%. In 2019, the associate dean for admissions said, “A key driver was to remove a financial disincentive that dissuades people from pursuing a path in medicine.” But the acceptance rate stayed under 3%, and the average Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and grade point average (GPA) to get in went up. Basically, the school just became more competitive.

I will always commend anyone, anywhere, who is making medical school more affordable and more accessible. With NYU, it seems a tuition gift just made it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to actually get in. I mean, congratulations, you got more applications. This probably helped in ratings, and you got mentioned in news headlines, but are you actually achieving your mission?

At NYU, over the last few years, Black students made up about 11% of the medical school class, which is actually down from 2017 before the tuition gift. Students from low-income backgrounds, whom this would really benefit, used to make up around 12% of the class prior to the free tuition announcement, and now it’s around 3%-7%.

According to students from underrepresented backgrounds, the outreach and the equal opportunity need to start way earlier. The K-12 process needs to be addressed, as do mentorship opportunities and guidance throughout college, MCAT prep, resources for interviews, research opportunities, and so much more.

The following quote is from an interview with an interventional cardiology fellow who came here as a refugee: “For me, growing up, basic necessities like a quiet study space, high-speed internet, healthy meals and proper sleep were luxuries of which I could only dream. After resettling in the US as a political refugee, I lived in circumstances where such comforts were out of reach, and my path to medical school seemed insurmountable.” 

I also spoke to a friend in pediatric cancer, Michael Galvez, MD, who was outspoken about the need to improve representation in medicine, about what he thought would actually work to diversify medical schools. He mentioned adversity scores or looking at the distance traveled for applicants, as well as efforts to recruit from local, state, and community colleges, which often reflect local underserved populations. 

Dr. Galvez also agreed that although such metrics as GPA and MCAT are important, medical schools should also consider the impact applicants may have had for local, underserved communities and life experiences that may represent significant potential contributions applicants can make for public health.

The effort needs to start early. If we take a look at one of the most diverse medical schools in the country, UC Davis, we can see how this makes a difference. At UC Davis, in the class of 2026, about half of the 133 students come from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine. I’m taking a look at their website from the Office of Student and Resident Diversity, and it lists:

• K-12 outreach programs
• Undergraduate and community college programs
• Specific plans for postbaccalaureate students
• Support systems
• Resources for students that extend far beyond just premedical students

My home institution, Stanford School of Medicine, has similar programs as well, with similar ways for students from underrepresented backgrounds to find support and mentorship. This all makes a huge difference.

Regarding the actual admissions process for medical school, I’ll highlight the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the adaptions they’ve made to create a more fair and holistic process. It includes:

• A clear mission statement about diversity enhancement
• Anonymous voting
• A larger group to avoid bias
• Not showing academic metrics to interviewers
• Implicit association tests and trainings
• Removing photos from applications
• Appointing women, minorities, and young people with less implicit bias to the committees

Does this seem like a lot? It is, because a comprehensive approach is what it takes to build a more diverse US physician workforce, which will provide more culturally competent care, empower future generations, break down barriers and disparities in health care, and ultimately improve public health. Free tuition is awesome. I’m jealous. But on its own to solve these problems? This all feels like a misguided attempt.
 

Dr. Patel is clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and pediatric hospitalist at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

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

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

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

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

While there may be some lactation consultants who disagree, in my experience counseling women attempting to breastfeed is more art than science. Well before the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began to offer mini courses on breastfeeding for practitioners I was left to help new mothers based on watching my wife nurse our three children and what scraps of common sense I could sweep up off the floor.

Using my own benchmarks of success I would say I did a decent job with dyads who sought my help. I began by accepting that even under optimal conditions, not every woman and/or child can successfully breastfeed. None of the infants died or was hospitalized with dehydration. A few may have required some additional phototherapy, but they all completed infancy in good shape. On the maternal side I am sure there were a few mothers who had lingering feelings of inadequacy because they had “failed” at breastfeeding. But, for the most part, I think I succeeded in helping new mothers remain as mentally healthy as they could be given the rigors of motherhood. At least I gave it my best shot.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

While there may be some lactation consultants who disagree, in my experience counseling women attempting to breastfeed is more art than science. Well before the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began to offer mini courses on breastfeeding for practitioners I was left to help new mothers based on watching my wife nurse our three children and what scraps of common sense I could sweep up off the floor.

Using my own benchmarks of success I would say I did a decent job with dyads who sought my help. I began by accepting that even under optimal conditions, not every woman and/or child can successfully breastfeed. None of the infants died or was hospitalized with dehydration. A few may have required some additional phototherapy, but they all completed infancy in good shape. On the maternal side I am sure there were a few mothers who had lingering feelings of inadequacy because they had “failed” at breastfeeding. But, for the most part, I think I succeeded in helping new mothers remain as mentally healthy as they could be given the rigors of motherhood. At least I gave it my best shot.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

While there may be some lactation consultants who disagree, in my experience counseling women attempting to breastfeed is more art than science. Well before the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began to offer mini courses on breastfeeding for practitioners I was left to help new mothers based on watching my wife nurse our three children and what scraps of common sense I could sweep up off the floor.

Using my own benchmarks of success I would say I did a decent job with dyads who sought my help. I began by accepting that even under optimal conditions, not every woman and/or child can successfully breastfeed. None of the infants died or was hospitalized with dehydration. A few may have required some additional phototherapy, but they all completed infancy in good shape. On the maternal side I am sure there were a few mothers who had lingering feelings of inadequacy because they had “failed” at breastfeeding. But, for the most part, I think I succeeded in helping new mothers remain as mentally healthy as they could be given the rigors of motherhood. At least I gave it my best shot.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A 25-year-old man comes in with a pulled muscle. You ask if he has anything else to discuss. Sheepishly, he says he is concerned about his use of pornography. 

A 45-year-old woman struggling with depression finds herself persistently seeking sex outside the bounds of her long-term relationship. Her partner is threatening to leave. She is devastated and tells you she doesn’t understand her own behavior. 

Do these patients have some form of sex addiction? How should a primary care clinician intervene? Is a referral to a 12-step program for sex addiction the right choice? What other options exist? Is a diagnosis — let alone treatment — possible or appropriate? 
 

‘Who Are You Calling “Abnormal” ’?

Normal is not a meaningful concept in human sexual behavior. To quote the sex therapist Marty Klein, PhD: “Normal is just a setting on the dryer.” 

The same goes among partners: What is “normal” for one person in a sexual relationship may discomfit another. In partnerships, we have differences around all sorts of issues, from finances to parenting to how to load the dishwasher. Why should sex, sexual desire, and sexual frequency be different? 

Remember: Shame, fear, and secrecy often play a role in perpetuating behaviors that cause distress. Helping our patients accept and embrace their whole selves can provide important healing, relief from anxiety, and may even help them regulate their actions. Feeling less shame, fear, and secrecy may facilitate safer choices about sex, as well as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The International Classification of Diseases-11 includes compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD)as an attempt to create consensus around a complicated, and hotly debated, problem to facilitate diagnosis and research. Syndromes similar to CSBD have had many names: “hypersexual disorder,” “sexual addiction,” “sexual compulsivity,” and “out-of-control sexual behavior.” A sizable cohort of the sexuality research community casts doubt on whether CSBD is even a discrete diagnosis. 

According to the ICD-11, CSBD is characterized by “intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges that are experienced as irresistible or uncontrollable” and result in significant distress or functional impairment.

This diagnosis has several important rule-outs. First, paraphilias, defined as a set of nonconsensual sexual behaviors and interests, are excluded. Another is that distress exclusively related to moral judgment or social disapproval is not sufficient for a diagnosis of CSBD. Finally, the diagnosis hinges on distress and does not rely on frequency of any type of sexual behavior. Some people experience significant distress over behaviors in which they engage infrequently, whereas others may have no distress from activities in which they engage quite frequently. 

In one study from Germany, 5% of men and 3% of women met criteria for CSBD. A small US study found the number to be 10% and 7%, respectively. The diagnosis is not simple. Compulsive sexual behavior can be secondary to other mental health or medical conditions. Behaviors sometimes confused with CSBD can result from neurologic diseases, such as frontal brain lesions or frontotemporal dementia, as well as the use of substances and medications that enhance dopaminergic activity. 

Impaired control over sexual impulses occurs in manic and hypomanic episodes. Compulsive sexual behavior frequently co-occurs with mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and substance use disorders. Those meeting criteria for CSBD may engage in sexual behaviors as a way of coping with depression, anxiety, boredom, loneliness, or other negative affective states.  

The diagnosis of CSBD may be useful for clinicians. However, many, perhaps most, patients who present with concerns about their sexual behavior will fail to meet most criteria for CSBD. Their problem is of shorter duration, related to morality, external disapproval, lack of sexual health information, and anxiety about diverse erotic interests. It may be helpful for them to understand that they are not in the grip of a lifelong disorder but are experiencing common life challenges. 

Societal concerns about sexually explicit media, often called pornography, are complex, conflicting, and catastrophizing. Some studies indicate that sexually explicit media are positive for both individual and relational sexual satisfaction; other studies have found negative effects on sexual function. Concerns about pornography often are conflated with taboos about solo sexual activity. Ironically, use of pornography is associated with fear of addiction to pornography, creating a spiral of negative self-perception. 

Consequences of sexual behavior may induce distress, even if a person doesn’t meet criteria for CSBD, such as potential dissolution of a marriage, loss of a job, excessive spending, sexually transmitted infections, other health concerns, and even legal problems. Sexual behavior might not be the central issue but rather an offshoot of relational distress, a mental health disorder, or a dysfunctional coping style. 

Guilt and shame can act as potent contributors to maintaining the behaviors as well as promoting secrecy around them. Sexual medicine experts recommend avoiding interventions that increase the experience of discrimination and stigma and avoiding the pathologization of the behaviors of sexually diverse individuals. As in so many aspects of medical care, we must walk in our patients’ shoes and avoid imposing on them our own moral or religious values. 
 

What Can a Primary Care Provider Do?  

When a patient is concerned about sexual behavior that feels out of control, primary care providers have an important role in evaluating for neurologic disease or side effects related to the use of medication or other substances, and facilitating psychiatric assessment to evaluate for mental health comorbidities, past trauma, and associated attachment disorders. 

Our patients need resources to tease out the individual and relational problems that may arise. Seek out well-trained sex therapy colleagues in your community. The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) is one certifying body in the United States for sex therapy. 

Because of the heterogeneity of those who present with out-of-control sexual behavior, no one treatment fits all. Twelve-step programs, especially those with a focus on sexual “abstinence,” may not be the best choice. Many psychotherapeutic modalities are effective and often focus on addressing underlying or unrecognized mental health concerns, provide training on self-regulation and urge management, and relationship skills. Most important, the therapist needs to be sexologically informed and aware of their own biases around sexuality. Medical treatments are not recommended without concurrent psychological intervention. 

Relational sex therapy can help couples create clear relational agreements that work for both parties (or, in polyamorous relationships, everyone involved). Relational distress also may be a stimulus for individual psychotherapy. 

Back to these two patients. 

The 25-year-old could be counseled that use of sexually explicit media and solo sex are not inherently bad or damaging. When used for pleasure and enjoyment, they do not lead to problems with partnered sex or cause sexual dysfunction. Counseling him to move toward social engagement and life goals, rather than away from pornography, may be all that is necessary. 

Our second patient probably will need more intensive treatment, including medication management for her mood and referral to a certified sex therapist who has expertise in working with out-of-control sexual behavior. When she returns to see you in follow-up, she ideally expresses reduced shame, more autonomy, and renewed connection to her values, and she is keeping her relational agreements without sacrificing her sexual needs. 
 

Dr. Kranz is medical director, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness; assistant professor of Clinical Family Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. Dr. Kranz has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosen is director of Behavioral Health, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness, Rochester, New York. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 25-year-old man comes in with a pulled muscle. You ask if he has anything else to discuss. Sheepishly, he says he is concerned about his use of pornography. 

A 45-year-old woman struggling with depression finds herself persistently seeking sex outside the bounds of her long-term relationship. Her partner is threatening to leave. She is devastated and tells you she doesn’t understand her own behavior. 

Do these patients have some form of sex addiction? How should a primary care clinician intervene? Is a referral to a 12-step program for sex addiction the right choice? What other options exist? Is a diagnosis — let alone treatment — possible or appropriate? 
 

‘Who Are You Calling “Abnormal” ’?

Normal is not a meaningful concept in human sexual behavior. To quote the sex therapist Marty Klein, PhD: “Normal is just a setting on the dryer.” 

The same goes among partners: What is “normal” for one person in a sexual relationship may discomfit another. In partnerships, we have differences around all sorts of issues, from finances to parenting to how to load the dishwasher. Why should sex, sexual desire, and sexual frequency be different? 

Remember: Shame, fear, and secrecy often play a role in perpetuating behaviors that cause distress. Helping our patients accept and embrace their whole selves can provide important healing, relief from anxiety, and may even help them regulate their actions. Feeling less shame, fear, and secrecy may facilitate safer choices about sex, as well as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The International Classification of Diseases-11 includes compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD)as an attempt to create consensus around a complicated, and hotly debated, problem to facilitate diagnosis and research. Syndromes similar to CSBD have had many names: “hypersexual disorder,” “sexual addiction,” “sexual compulsivity,” and “out-of-control sexual behavior.” A sizable cohort of the sexuality research community casts doubt on whether CSBD is even a discrete diagnosis. 

According to the ICD-11, CSBD is characterized by “intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges that are experienced as irresistible or uncontrollable” and result in significant distress or functional impairment.

This diagnosis has several important rule-outs. First, paraphilias, defined as a set of nonconsensual sexual behaviors and interests, are excluded. Another is that distress exclusively related to moral judgment or social disapproval is not sufficient for a diagnosis of CSBD. Finally, the diagnosis hinges on distress and does not rely on frequency of any type of sexual behavior. Some people experience significant distress over behaviors in which they engage infrequently, whereas others may have no distress from activities in which they engage quite frequently. 

In one study from Germany, 5% of men and 3% of women met criteria for CSBD. A small US study found the number to be 10% and 7%, respectively. The diagnosis is not simple. Compulsive sexual behavior can be secondary to other mental health or medical conditions. Behaviors sometimes confused with CSBD can result from neurologic diseases, such as frontal brain lesions or frontotemporal dementia, as well as the use of substances and medications that enhance dopaminergic activity. 

Impaired control over sexual impulses occurs in manic and hypomanic episodes. Compulsive sexual behavior frequently co-occurs with mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and substance use disorders. Those meeting criteria for CSBD may engage in sexual behaviors as a way of coping with depression, anxiety, boredom, loneliness, or other negative affective states.  

The diagnosis of CSBD may be useful for clinicians. However, many, perhaps most, patients who present with concerns about their sexual behavior will fail to meet most criteria for CSBD. Their problem is of shorter duration, related to morality, external disapproval, lack of sexual health information, and anxiety about diverse erotic interests. It may be helpful for them to understand that they are not in the grip of a lifelong disorder but are experiencing common life challenges. 

Societal concerns about sexually explicit media, often called pornography, are complex, conflicting, and catastrophizing. Some studies indicate that sexually explicit media are positive for both individual and relational sexual satisfaction; other studies have found negative effects on sexual function. Concerns about pornography often are conflated with taboos about solo sexual activity. Ironically, use of pornography is associated with fear of addiction to pornography, creating a spiral of negative self-perception. 

Consequences of sexual behavior may induce distress, even if a person doesn’t meet criteria for CSBD, such as potential dissolution of a marriage, loss of a job, excessive spending, sexually transmitted infections, other health concerns, and even legal problems. Sexual behavior might not be the central issue but rather an offshoot of relational distress, a mental health disorder, or a dysfunctional coping style. 

Guilt and shame can act as potent contributors to maintaining the behaviors as well as promoting secrecy around them. Sexual medicine experts recommend avoiding interventions that increase the experience of discrimination and stigma and avoiding the pathologization of the behaviors of sexually diverse individuals. As in so many aspects of medical care, we must walk in our patients’ shoes and avoid imposing on them our own moral or religious values. 
 

What Can a Primary Care Provider Do?  

When a patient is concerned about sexual behavior that feels out of control, primary care providers have an important role in evaluating for neurologic disease or side effects related to the use of medication or other substances, and facilitating psychiatric assessment to evaluate for mental health comorbidities, past trauma, and associated attachment disorders. 

Our patients need resources to tease out the individual and relational problems that may arise. Seek out well-trained sex therapy colleagues in your community. The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) is one certifying body in the United States for sex therapy. 

Because of the heterogeneity of those who present with out-of-control sexual behavior, no one treatment fits all. Twelve-step programs, especially those with a focus on sexual “abstinence,” may not be the best choice. Many psychotherapeutic modalities are effective and often focus on addressing underlying or unrecognized mental health concerns, provide training on self-regulation and urge management, and relationship skills. Most important, the therapist needs to be sexologically informed and aware of their own biases around sexuality. Medical treatments are not recommended without concurrent psychological intervention. 

Relational sex therapy can help couples create clear relational agreements that work for both parties (or, in polyamorous relationships, everyone involved). Relational distress also may be a stimulus for individual psychotherapy. 

Back to these two patients. 

The 25-year-old could be counseled that use of sexually explicit media and solo sex are not inherently bad or damaging. When used for pleasure and enjoyment, they do not lead to problems with partnered sex or cause sexual dysfunction. Counseling him to move toward social engagement and life goals, rather than away from pornography, may be all that is necessary. 

Our second patient probably will need more intensive treatment, including medication management for her mood and referral to a certified sex therapist who has expertise in working with out-of-control sexual behavior. When she returns to see you in follow-up, she ideally expresses reduced shame, more autonomy, and renewed connection to her values, and she is keeping her relational agreements without sacrificing her sexual needs. 
 

Dr. Kranz is medical director, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness; assistant professor of Clinical Family Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. Dr. Kranz has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosen is director of Behavioral Health, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness, Rochester, New York. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 25-year-old man comes in with a pulled muscle. You ask if he has anything else to discuss. Sheepishly, he says he is concerned about his use of pornography. 

A 45-year-old woman struggling with depression finds herself persistently seeking sex outside the bounds of her long-term relationship. Her partner is threatening to leave. She is devastated and tells you she doesn’t understand her own behavior. 

Do these patients have some form of sex addiction? How should a primary care clinician intervene? Is a referral to a 12-step program for sex addiction the right choice? What other options exist? Is a diagnosis — let alone treatment — possible or appropriate? 
 

‘Who Are You Calling “Abnormal” ’?

Normal is not a meaningful concept in human sexual behavior. To quote the sex therapist Marty Klein, PhD: “Normal is just a setting on the dryer.” 

The same goes among partners: What is “normal” for one person in a sexual relationship may discomfit another. In partnerships, we have differences around all sorts of issues, from finances to parenting to how to load the dishwasher. Why should sex, sexual desire, and sexual frequency be different? 

Remember: Shame, fear, and secrecy often play a role in perpetuating behaviors that cause distress. Helping our patients accept and embrace their whole selves can provide important healing, relief from anxiety, and may even help them regulate their actions. Feeling less shame, fear, and secrecy may facilitate safer choices about sex, as well as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The International Classification of Diseases-11 includes compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD)as an attempt to create consensus around a complicated, and hotly debated, problem to facilitate diagnosis and research. Syndromes similar to CSBD have had many names: “hypersexual disorder,” “sexual addiction,” “sexual compulsivity,” and “out-of-control sexual behavior.” A sizable cohort of the sexuality research community casts doubt on whether CSBD is even a discrete diagnosis. 

According to the ICD-11, CSBD is characterized by “intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges that are experienced as irresistible or uncontrollable” and result in significant distress or functional impairment.

This diagnosis has several important rule-outs. First, paraphilias, defined as a set of nonconsensual sexual behaviors and interests, are excluded. Another is that distress exclusively related to moral judgment or social disapproval is not sufficient for a diagnosis of CSBD. Finally, the diagnosis hinges on distress and does not rely on frequency of any type of sexual behavior. Some people experience significant distress over behaviors in which they engage infrequently, whereas others may have no distress from activities in which they engage quite frequently. 

In one study from Germany, 5% of men and 3% of women met criteria for CSBD. A small US study found the number to be 10% and 7%, respectively. The diagnosis is not simple. Compulsive sexual behavior can be secondary to other mental health or medical conditions. Behaviors sometimes confused with CSBD can result from neurologic diseases, such as frontal brain lesions or frontotemporal dementia, as well as the use of substances and medications that enhance dopaminergic activity. 

Impaired control over sexual impulses occurs in manic and hypomanic episodes. Compulsive sexual behavior frequently co-occurs with mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and substance use disorders. Those meeting criteria for CSBD may engage in sexual behaviors as a way of coping with depression, anxiety, boredom, loneliness, or other negative affective states.  

The diagnosis of CSBD may be useful for clinicians. However, many, perhaps most, patients who present with concerns about their sexual behavior will fail to meet most criteria for CSBD. Their problem is of shorter duration, related to morality, external disapproval, lack of sexual health information, and anxiety about diverse erotic interests. It may be helpful for them to understand that they are not in the grip of a lifelong disorder but are experiencing common life challenges. 

Societal concerns about sexually explicit media, often called pornography, are complex, conflicting, and catastrophizing. Some studies indicate that sexually explicit media are positive for both individual and relational sexual satisfaction; other studies have found negative effects on sexual function. Concerns about pornography often are conflated with taboos about solo sexual activity. Ironically, use of pornography is associated with fear of addiction to pornography, creating a spiral of negative self-perception. 

Consequences of sexual behavior may induce distress, even if a person doesn’t meet criteria for CSBD, such as potential dissolution of a marriage, loss of a job, excessive spending, sexually transmitted infections, other health concerns, and even legal problems. Sexual behavior might not be the central issue but rather an offshoot of relational distress, a mental health disorder, or a dysfunctional coping style. 

Guilt and shame can act as potent contributors to maintaining the behaviors as well as promoting secrecy around them. Sexual medicine experts recommend avoiding interventions that increase the experience of discrimination and stigma and avoiding the pathologization of the behaviors of sexually diverse individuals. As in so many aspects of medical care, we must walk in our patients’ shoes and avoid imposing on them our own moral or religious values. 
 

What Can a Primary Care Provider Do?  

When a patient is concerned about sexual behavior that feels out of control, primary care providers have an important role in evaluating for neurologic disease or side effects related to the use of medication or other substances, and facilitating psychiatric assessment to evaluate for mental health comorbidities, past trauma, and associated attachment disorders. 

Our patients need resources to tease out the individual and relational problems that may arise. Seek out well-trained sex therapy colleagues in your community. The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) is one certifying body in the United States for sex therapy. 

Because of the heterogeneity of those who present with out-of-control sexual behavior, no one treatment fits all. Twelve-step programs, especially those with a focus on sexual “abstinence,” may not be the best choice. Many psychotherapeutic modalities are effective and often focus on addressing underlying or unrecognized mental health concerns, provide training on self-regulation and urge management, and relationship skills. Most important, the therapist needs to be sexologically informed and aware of their own biases around sexuality. Medical treatments are not recommended without concurrent psychological intervention. 

Relational sex therapy can help couples create clear relational agreements that work for both parties (or, in polyamorous relationships, everyone involved). Relational distress also may be a stimulus for individual psychotherapy. 

Back to these two patients. 

The 25-year-old could be counseled that use of sexually explicit media and solo sex are not inherently bad or damaging. When used for pleasure and enjoyment, they do not lead to problems with partnered sex or cause sexual dysfunction. Counseling him to move toward social engagement and life goals, rather than away from pornography, may be all that is necessary. 

Our second patient probably will need more intensive treatment, including medication management for her mood and referral to a certified sex therapist who has expertise in working with out-of-control sexual behavior. When she returns to see you in follow-up, she ideally expresses reduced shame, more autonomy, and renewed connection to her values, and she is keeping her relational agreements without sacrificing her sexual needs. 
 

Dr. Kranz is medical director, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness; assistant professor of Clinical Family Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. Dr. Kranz has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosen is director of Behavioral Health, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness, Rochester, New York. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dear Friends,

This issue of The New Gastroenterologist marks my first year completed as faculty. It has been both the best year and the HARDEST year. I celebrated many successes, felt intellectually and emotionally drained by difficult and complicated cases, and learned that there is so much more I still do not know. But that’s the beauty of our field — we are constantly learning to be better physicians for our patients. To trainees and my fellow gastroenterologists in practice, never stop asking questions!

In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Rajan Singh and Dr. Baharak Moshiree describe a practical approach to patients with bloating by evaluating and investigating the pathophysiology and etiology of bloating, such as food intolerances, visceral hypersensitivity, pelvic floor dysfunction, abdominophrenic dyssynergia, gut dysmotility, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as well as treatment management. In the “Short Clinical Review” section, Dr. Ahmad Bazarbashi and his colleagues review when to refer complex polyps to an advanced endoscopist and the different techniques of advanced tissue resection, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and full thickness resection.

Locum practices have become more popular among gastroenterologists. Dr. Catherine Bartholomew is a retired professor of medicine who was chief of gastroenterology at an academic institution, and is now working as a GI locum after retirement. She details what a locum tenens is, the role of the company, being an independent contractor, and the benefits.

Navigating and negotiating maternity and paternity leave may be challenging in private practice. Dr. Marybeth Spanarkel gives her opinion on the nuances of maternity/paternity leave in private practices, what it may mean financially, and things to inquire of the practice if planning to have children.

As we move from joining non-traditional practices and navigating family planning with private practices, Dr. Vasu Appalaneni shares her experiences with financial planning for retirement. She describes ways to financially plan a retirement, but also to consider aspects that affect financial well-being during retirement, including healthcare coverage, lifestyle and traveling, legal and estate, professional development, and emotional and social support.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), communications/managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are not without appreciating where we were: The first colonic polypectomy using an electrosurgical snare was performed by Dr. Hiromi Shinya at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, in 1969.
 

Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

This issue of The New Gastroenterologist marks my first year completed as faculty. It has been both the best year and the HARDEST year. I celebrated many successes, felt intellectually and emotionally drained by difficult and complicated cases, and learned that there is so much more I still do not know. But that’s the beauty of our field — we are constantly learning to be better physicians for our patients. To trainees and my fellow gastroenterologists in practice, never stop asking questions!

In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Rajan Singh and Dr. Baharak Moshiree describe a practical approach to patients with bloating by evaluating and investigating the pathophysiology and etiology of bloating, such as food intolerances, visceral hypersensitivity, pelvic floor dysfunction, abdominophrenic dyssynergia, gut dysmotility, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as well as treatment management. In the “Short Clinical Review” section, Dr. Ahmad Bazarbashi and his colleagues review when to refer complex polyps to an advanced endoscopist and the different techniques of advanced tissue resection, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and full thickness resection.

Locum practices have become more popular among gastroenterologists. Dr. Catherine Bartholomew is a retired professor of medicine who was chief of gastroenterology at an academic institution, and is now working as a GI locum after retirement. She details what a locum tenens is, the role of the company, being an independent contractor, and the benefits.

Navigating and negotiating maternity and paternity leave may be challenging in private practice. Dr. Marybeth Spanarkel gives her opinion on the nuances of maternity/paternity leave in private practices, what it may mean financially, and things to inquire of the practice if planning to have children.

As we move from joining non-traditional practices and navigating family planning with private practices, Dr. Vasu Appalaneni shares her experiences with financial planning for retirement. She describes ways to financially plan a retirement, but also to consider aspects that affect financial well-being during retirement, including healthcare coverage, lifestyle and traveling, legal and estate, professional development, and emotional and social support.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), communications/managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are not without appreciating where we were: The first colonic polypectomy using an electrosurgical snare was performed by Dr. Hiromi Shinya at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, in 1969.
 

Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

This issue of The New Gastroenterologist marks my first year completed as faculty. It has been both the best year and the HARDEST year. I celebrated many successes, felt intellectually and emotionally drained by difficult and complicated cases, and learned that there is so much more I still do not know. But that’s the beauty of our field — we are constantly learning to be better physicians for our patients. To trainees and my fellow gastroenterologists in practice, never stop asking questions!

In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Rajan Singh and Dr. Baharak Moshiree describe a practical approach to patients with bloating by evaluating and investigating the pathophysiology and etiology of bloating, such as food intolerances, visceral hypersensitivity, pelvic floor dysfunction, abdominophrenic dyssynergia, gut dysmotility, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as well as treatment management. In the “Short Clinical Review” section, Dr. Ahmad Bazarbashi and his colleagues review when to refer complex polyps to an advanced endoscopist and the different techniques of advanced tissue resection, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and full thickness resection.

Locum practices have become more popular among gastroenterologists. Dr. Catherine Bartholomew is a retired professor of medicine who was chief of gastroenterology at an academic institution, and is now working as a GI locum after retirement. She details what a locum tenens is, the role of the company, being an independent contractor, and the benefits.

Navigating and negotiating maternity and paternity leave may be challenging in private practice. Dr. Marybeth Spanarkel gives her opinion on the nuances of maternity/paternity leave in private practices, what it may mean financially, and things to inquire of the practice if planning to have children.

As we move from joining non-traditional practices and navigating family planning with private practices, Dr. Vasu Appalaneni shares her experiences with financial planning for retirement. She describes ways to financially plan a retirement, but also to consider aspects that affect financial well-being during retirement, including healthcare coverage, lifestyle and traveling, legal and estate, professional development, and emotional and social support.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), communications/managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are not without appreciating where we were: The first colonic polypectomy using an electrosurgical snare was performed by Dr. Hiromi Shinya at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, in 1969.
 

Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis