User login
Yes, Russian docs should be shut out of medical associations, says ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.
Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.
We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war.
The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.
The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.
Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.
I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.
They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.
The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”
There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.
I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.
What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.
I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.
It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.
We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.
Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and 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.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.
Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.
We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war.
The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.
The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.
Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.
I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.
They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.
The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”
There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.
I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.
What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.
I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.
It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.
We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.
Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and 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.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.
Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.
We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war.
The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.
The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.
Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.
I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.
They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.
The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”
There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.
I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.
What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.
I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.
It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.
We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.
Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
First-year fellows guide to gastroenterology
After the excitement and the well-deserved celebrations of matching in a gastroenterology fellowship program, a whole new set of unanswered questions and worries can start forming in a first-year fellow’s mind. “I made it, but now what? How do I learn a whole new career skill like endoscopy? Is my GI knowledge solid and wide enough to manage patients and answer the medical team consult? How will I keep up with my reading and learning with a busy fellowship schedule? How do I balance growth in clinical knowledge, endoscopy, and research? Can I integrate ‘life’ alongside a busy fellowship?” All of these questions and more can be overwhelming to answer in the beginning. The following guide is designed to help you through this transition and navigate the various aspects of first-year fellowship.
First-year goals
It is important to keep in mind that you have 3 full years to become a well-rounded, highly skilled, and knowledgeable gastroenterologist and endoscopist. So, set realistic goals and expectations for your first year, but be mindful that this year also lays the solid foundations of who you will become as a clinician, educator, or researcher.
One of the main goals of fellowship is to learn and implement evidence-based medicine in the diagnosis and management of GI conditions, as well as to learn endoscopic skills and ethics, all while keeping the patient (as a whole person) at the center of what you do. According to a recently published article by Bollipo and colleagues,1 the overall growth as a gastroenterologist not only depends on acquisition of knowledge but also involves cultivating teamwork, communication, situational awareness, compassion, leadership, and situational awareness. Beyond your medical education, your professional growth is also dependent on intentionally working towards acquiring the following skills:
1. Manage your time efficiently and prioritize your daily tasks
2. Become a consultant: effectively communicate with others, teach, lead, and delegate as appropriate
3. Work as a team with colleagues, faculty, and endoscopy staff
4. Develop critical thinking, give and receive constructive feedback, and understand your skills, limitations, and growth potential
5. Identify mentors and potential niche area
6. Start building your professional network and your reputation
7. Get involved in national GI societies
Consults
Mindset
Shifting gear from residency to fellowship involves a shifting of your clinical mindset too, going from being part of a primary care team responsible for all aspects of a patient’s medical care, to that of a consulting team focused on a patient’s GI condition. It is important to find the right balance of refraining from micromanaging non-GI comorbidities while being fully aware of their impact on your diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the GI condition.
Let’s face it, you will not always get “exciting and interesting GI cases” consults, and on a busy day some consultations might feel unnecessary and frustrating to you. Remember that what seems obvious to you, based on your focused GI knowledge, might not be so simple to the primary team. In addition, every consult is an opportunity to improve your approach to patient care, as well as an opportunity to learn and teach others, from medical students to residents. So, always be professional and respectful when you pick up the phone, and build positive collaborative bridges between you and the medical or surgical consulting teams. Be the GI fellow others are not reluctant to call for help, and better, be the one who communicates GI pearls along the way, inspires others to join the field of gastroenterology, and positively represent the GI division.
Triage
When you answer your consult page, ask the primary team what specific question they have for you and/or what is the main GI complaint or test abnormality the patient has. This will help you assess the urgency and the complexity of the consult, and hence allow you to prioritize each consult (which one you need to see first and give the attending a heads-up), assign (or not) a rotating medical resident or student to the consult, tailor your preliminary recommendations to the primary team, and anticipate the need for a procedure. When you anticipate a procedure, assess its (semi-)urgency to get the process ready for same day or a bedside procedure by getting information on the patient’s vitals, basic labs, significant acute comorbidities, and supportive therapies in place. In other words, by judiciously obtaining key information from the primary team, you can efficiently triage the consults and keep your day organized and manageable (for the most part). Learn to divide and conquer the tasks of the day: split inpatient endoscopy and consults with your cofellows, assign appropriate consults and follow-ups to residents or students rotating on the GI service, and properly communicate with the primary team a plan of care (even a preliminary one) to avoid recurrent pages and interruptions. Some days the number or urgency of the consults and the required multitasking can be overwhelming: stop, breathe, and ask for help from your co-fellows and your attending. Remember, this is a fellowship, not a solo-ship and your program is here to support your work and growth.
Communication
Timely and efficient communication, between you and the different stakeholders, is crucial to provide optimal patient care and minimize the risk of “things falling through the cracks”. Convey to the primary team your recommendations and plan of care clearly, and use direct verbal communication (not just a note in the chart) when managing complex or urgent situations. Obtain information regarding current patient level of care (i.e., ICU), isolation precautions, and cardiac devices (i.e., left ventricular assist device). Keep the dialogue open with your attending about acutely ill patients and potentially urgent procedures. Inform the endoscopy suite early that you are adding a procedure on the same day, and communicate anticipated needs (such as intubation, fluoroscopy room, pediatric scope, stent). Using a “closed-loop” communication structure can ensure that your recommendations are received and implemented appropriately.2
Time management and structure
Having a structured routine to your day, in what seems to be a chaotic process of juggling different duties and being in different locations at once, will ensure that you efficiently complete your tasks in a timely manner. Find what works best for you, taking into account the challenges and resources available to you, such as the number of fellows and other trainees on the GI consult service, the average number of consults per day and their acuity, the availability of inpatient protocols for specific clinical situations (GI bleed, acute severe ulcerative colitis, etc.), and the time and style preferences of the rounding attending. We suggest the following schedule on a consult day: Round early in the morning and leave a note in the chart and/or communicate with the team key information, then review with the rotating trainees the patients they are following and personally reassess some patients as needed. Inform the endoscopy suite of the same day procedures and let your attending know of any issues that require immediate attention. Take your team and head to radiology and review the imaging studies on your patients. Learn and teach key points in diagnosis and therapeutic approach as you move through your day from the inpatient floors to the hallways. Divide consults during the day with your team and agree on a time to touch base. Review your patient list at the end of the day and assess which patients the GI service no longer need to follow and communicate that clearly to the primary team along with the appropriate outpatient GI care follow-up. Let the endoscopy suite know of any procedures you are adding for the next day along with their degree of urgency to allow the charge nurse to prioritize cases. When you leave the hospital, be intentional with your free time: Read about the GI conditions you have encountered, enjoy some fun relaxing time, and rest!
Call
Know your call environment and your emergency cart
Familiarize yourself with the locations where you could potentially perform an emergent case (i.e., the ICU, ED, operating room) and the relevant points of contact (such as the charge nurse, the anesthesia team, the on-call tech team) for overnight or weekend cases. Whether or not you have an endoscopy support team on call, learn to set up the emergency cart, find and check your equipment, and troubleshoot technical issues by soliciting an “in-service” from senior fellows or the endoscopy technical support staff. Before heading to an urgent case, double check that you have your “bleeder” or “food impaction” tools. For food impaction, consider obtaining rat tooth forceps, snares, Roth nets, and an overtube. For bleeding cases, obtain a therapeutic upper endoscope, hemostatic clips, clear caps, injection needles, epinephrine, HemosprayTM, banding kits, and the appropriate electrocautery/thermal set up.
What is an emergency?
Consults that require your immediate attention include food impactions, acute biliary conditions leading to septic shock, and hemodynamically unstable GI bleeds, especially variceal bleeds. Remember that patients who are hemodynamically unstable require adequate resuscitation before proceeding with any endoscopic intervention. Assess the need for intubation, the timing of the procedure, and the most optimal location to perform the procedure, depending on the time and acuity of the patients’ presentation, how they respond to resuscitation measures, and the resources and preferences of your institution.
The overnight ‘nonemergent’ call
Non-emergent consults can be addressed the next day, after reviewing the clinical information provided by the consulting team and the patient’s EMR to ensure no urgent measures are needed. Overnight call may include patient phone calls, from inquiries about colon prep (so familiarize yourself with the different prep instructions and how to troubleshoot prep difficulties) to GI symptoms that you will need to triage to either the ED or to an outpatient follow-up. Document all phone encounters in the EMR and route your note to the appropriate clinician and nurse or administrative assistant for follow-up.
The five E’s of endoscopy
Endoscopy training is a large component of a GI fellowship and can create achievement anxiety in many first-year fellows seeking the cecum! But there is more to endoscopy than technical skills: It is as important to adequately evaluate clinical situations, understand the indications and potential limitations and complications of the procedure, and assess how it will impact the management of the patient. And no, you don’t have to be a video gamer to be a good endoscopist; and yes, you will be able to regularly complete a colonoscopy before the end of your first year!
Evaluation
In order to improve your endoscopic skills, it is important to honestly assess your areas of proficiency and improvement and to welcome real-time constructive feedback from your teaching attending about your endoscopic skills range. Consider meeting regularly with your attending to discuss your short-term and long-term endoscopic goals and how to enhance your skills. This practice demonstrates responsibility, credibility, and accountability amongst your peers as well as a genuine commitment to your growth as an endoscopist.
Efficiency
In addition to focusing on the quality of your endoscopy, learn to be efficient in the pre- and postprocedure time flow. This entails any step from properly explaining the procedure to patients before they come to the endoscopy suite, making sure the needed endoscopy equipment and tools are available in your room, completing your personal setup (i.e., gowning up, setting up your bed/monitor height, testing your endoscope) even before time out, to discharging the patient and communicating key findings and plan of care to the primary team. Depending on the acuity of the procedure and patient’s comorbidities, certain procedures may need to be performed or completed by a more efficient and experienced senior fellow or attending; don’t let this situation trigger passive frustration in you, but rather use it as an active and engaging opportunity to learn.
Expectations
You (and all the other neighborhood kids) didn’t learn to ride a bike without falling, struggling, needing help, and practicing over and over again, and it goes the same when learning to scope as a first-year fellow. Keep this in mind to lessen frustration, set realistic expectations, and be patient with yourself and celebrate all the small victories. Set tangible goals with your attending prior to procedural days/rotations so they can help you hone in and perfect the desired endoscopy skills.
Ergonomics
In a recent study, endoscopy-related injury (ERI) was reported to occur in up to 75% of gastroenterologists.3 While your primary focus might be reaching the cecum, it is as crucial for you to learn how to prevent ERI to ensure your long term health and continued success in procedures.
Excellence over quantity
Your main focus as a trainee is to learn how to provide effective, efficient, and safe care to patients, including in endoscopy. The quality of the endoscopy you perform is much more important than the total number of procedures you do. Thus, it is key to take each procedure as a complete learning opportunity to perform a thorough evaluation, improve your technical skills, interpret the findings, and develop a therapeutic plan.
Work-life balance and burnout
Fellowship is a marathon and not a sprint, so you need to slow down after a busy workday and care for yourself and enjoy time with loved ones. The cognitive, physical, mental, and emotional demands for first-year fellows are arguably the highest during GI training and can lead to burnout. Signs of burnout include emotional exhaustion, loss of empathy, fatigue, depersonalization and detachment, and feelings of personal inadequacy.4 Antiburnout measures include respecting basic healthy life hygiene (eat and sleep well, regular physical activity), having a hobby, practicing meditation, avoiding taking work home, and having a healthy social network.5 Remember that your cofellows whom you share common experiences with are not only your colleagues but can also be your friends and your social support. If you are a parent juggling work and family, remember to ask for help from your peers if you need it and have an open discussion with your attending to find practical solutions to your schedule.
Professional growth in the field of gastroenterology
Becoming a successful gastroenterologist and endoscopist involves going above the “I” and into the inclusive “we.” Building collegial and professional relationships early on with different stakeholders will set you up for success during and beyond your fellowship.
Building relationships
Developing genuine collegial and collaborative relationships with cofellows and faculty will positively impact your wellness during fellowship but also build the foundation of your professional network necessary to your career growth. Be inclusive of your cofellows in your research projects and publications, and support and amplify their work as much as you amplify your own. Your cofellows or attendings are likely to be the ones to help you find the right job, invite you to speak at grand rounds, or sit on a GI committee and promote your postfellowship professional growth.
Mentorship, being an educator and role model
It is important to identify and seek out mentors, within or outside your fellowship program or institution, who can not only guide you in your career choices but also open doors for you and sponsor you to advance your career. On the other hand, you too can be a role model, mentor, and sponsor to medical residents and students interested in the field of GI. Teach others in didactic settings or on the consult service, include trainees in quality improvement projects and publications, and lead by example.
Research
Most academic GI programs have a baseline requirement of research. Choose and devise a project you can realistically complete despite your busy first-year schedule: expand on a residency research project, focus on a specific simple question triggered by a clinical situation you encountered, proceed with a retrospective chart review or quality improvement project, and include other fellows and trainees to divide tasks. Alternatively, devise a specific timeline with a research mentor to complete a larger research project during your three years of fellowship.
Involvement in GI societies/committees
Become a member of one (or all) of the national GI societies that align with your interests. Membership gives you access not only to peer-reviewed scientific articles and guidelines but also to fellow-focused programs, committees’ opportunities, early career research grants, and mentorship.6-10
Summary
The first year of a GI fellowship lays the foundation for your next 3 years: Be mindful of how you can optimize the opportunities at hand to learn, teach, build a solid reputation, and grow your professional network. But also remember you have 3 full years to accomplish all your goals, so be patient, pace yourself, and include others in your journey. Judiciously use the many resources within your program and GI societies to help you achieve your goals, reach out to others to overcome difficulties and barriers, and dedicate time to care for your personal health and growth. This is what a true comprehensive and healthy fellowship is all about!
Dr. Advani is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University Hospital. Dr. Saeed is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Charabaty is with the division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Johns Hopkins–Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. Dr. Advani and Dr. Saeed have no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Charabaty disclosed ties to AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and is founder of @MondayNightIBD, and cofounder of Scrubs & Heels.
References
1. Bollipo S. Gastroenterology. 2020 Nov;159(5):1648-52.
2. Adams MA et al. Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan 1;146(1):5-9.
3. Pawa S et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 1;116(3):530-8.
4. DeCross AJ. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 1;158(1):32-5.
5. Burke C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Oct 1;112:S593-4.
6. Fellows Resources under Fellows & Early Career. American Gastroenterological Association. https://gastro.org/fellows-and-early-career/training-resources/fellows-resources/.
7. Trainee Courses and Events. American College of Gastroenterology. https://gi.org/trainees/trainee-courses-and-events/.
8. Trainee Resources. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. https://www.aasld.org/membership/hepatology-associates/trainee-resources.
9. First Year Fellows Courses under Education. American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://www.asge.org/home/education/advanced-education-training/first-year-fellow-(fyf)-courses.
10. Annual GI Fellow Summer Course Presentations. New York Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://www.nysge.org/annual%20gi%20fellows%20summer%20course.
After the excitement and the well-deserved celebrations of matching in a gastroenterology fellowship program, a whole new set of unanswered questions and worries can start forming in a first-year fellow’s mind. “I made it, but now what? How do I learn a whole new career skill like endoscopy? Is my GI knowledge solid and wide enough to manage patients and answer the medical team consult? How will I keep up with my reading and learning with a busy fellowship schedule? How do I balance growth in clinical knowledge, endoscopy, and research? Can I integrate ‘life’ alongside a busy fellowship?” All of these questions and more can be overwhelming to answer in the beginning. The following guide is designed to help you through this transition and navigate the various aspects of first-year fellowship.
First-year goals
It is important to keep in mind that you have 3 full years to become a well-rounded, highly skilled, and knowledgeable gastroenterologist and endoscopist. So, set realistic goals and expectations for your first year, but be mindful that this year also lays the solid foundations of who you will become as a clinician, educator, or researcher.
One of the main goals of fellowship is to learn and implement evidence-based medicine in the diagnosis and management of GI conditions, as well as to learn endoscopic skills and ethics, all while keeping the patient (as a whole person) at the center of what you do. According to a recently published article by Bollipo and colleagues,1 the overall growth as a gastroenterologist not only depends on acquisition of knowledge but also involves cultivating teamwork, communication, situational awareness, compassion, leadership, and situational awareness. Beyond your medical education, your professional growth is also dependent on intentionally working towards acquiring the following skills:
1. Manage your time efficiently and prioritize your daily tasks
2. Become a consultant: effectively communicate with others, teach, lead, and delegate as appropriate
3. Work as a team with colleagues, faculty, and endoscopy staff
4. Develop critical thinking, give and receive constructive feedback, and understand your skills, limitations, and growth potential
5. Identify mentors and potential niche area
6. Start building your professional network and your reputation
7. Get involved in national GI societies
Consults
Mindset
Shifting gear from residency to fellowship involves a shifting of your clinical mindset too, going from being part of a primary care team responsible for all aspects of a patient’s medical care, to that of a consulting team focused on a patient’s GI condition. It is important to find the right balance of refraining from micromanaging non-GI comorbidities while being fully aware of their impact on your diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the GI condition.
Let’s face it, you will not always get “exciting and interesting GI cases” consults, and on a busy day some consultations might feel unnecessary and frustrating to you. Remember that what seems obvious to you, based on your focused GI knowledge, might not be so simple to the primary team. In addition, every consult is an opportunity to improve your approach to patient care, as well as an opportunity to learn and teach others, from medical students to residents. So, always be professional and respectful when you pick up the phone, and build positive collaborative bridges between you and the medical or surgical consulting teams. Be the GI fellow others are not reluctant to call for help, and better, be the one who communicates GI pearls along the way, inspires others to join the field of gastroenterology, and positively represent the GI division.
Triage
When you answer your consult page, ask the primary team what specific question they have for you and/or what is the main GI complaint or test abnormality the patient has. This will help you assess the urgency and the complexity of the consult, and hence allow you to prioritize each consult (which one you need to see first and give the attending a heads-up), assign (or not) a rotating medical resident or student to the consult, tailor your preliminary recommendations to the primary team, and anticipate the need for a procedure. When you anticipate a procedure, assess its (semi-)urgency to get the process ready for same day or a bedside procedure by getting information on the patient’s vitals, basic labs, significant acute comorbidities, and supportive therapies in place. In other words, by judiciously obtaining key information from the primary team, you can efficiently triage the consults and keep your day organized and manageable (for the most part). Learn to divide and conquer the tasks of the day: split inpatient endoscopy and consults with your cofellows, assign appropriate consults and follow-ups to residents or students rotating on the GI service, and properly communicate with the primary team a plan of care (even a preliminary one) to avoid recurrent pages and interruptions. Some days the number or urgency of the consults and the required multitasking can be overwhelming: stop, breathe, and ask for help from your co-fellows and your attending. Remember, this is a fellowship, not a solo-ship and your program is here to support your work and growth.
Communication
Timely and efficient communication, between you and the different stakeholders, is crucial to provide optimal patient care and minimize the risk of “things falling through the cracks”. Convey to the primary team your recommendations and plan of care clearly, and use direct verbal communication (not just a note in the chart) when managing complex or urgent situations. Obtain information regarding current patient level of care (i.e., ICU), isolation precautions, and cardiac devices (i.e., left ventricular assist device). Keep the dialogue open with your attending about acutely ill patients and potentially urgent procedures. Inform the endoscopy suite early that you are adding a procedure on the same day, and communicate anticipated needs (such as intubation, fluoroscopy room, pediatric scope, stent). Using a “closed-loop” communication structure can ensure that your recommendations are received and implemented appropriately.2
Time management and structure
Having a structured routine to your day, in what seems to be a chaotic process of juggling different duties and being in different locations at once, will ensure that you efficiently complete your tasks in a timely manner. Find what works best for you, taking into account the challenges and resources available to you, such as the number of fellows and other trainees on the GI consult service, the average number of consults per day and their acuity, the availability of inpatient protocols for specific clinical situations (GI bleed, acute severe ulcerative colitis, etc.), and the time and style preferences of the rounding attending. We suggest the following schedule on a consult day: Round early in the morning and leave a note in the chart and/or communicate with the team key information, then review with the rotating trainees the patients they are following and personally reassess some patients as needed. Inform the endoscopy suite of the same day procedures and let your attending know of any issues that require immediate attention. Take your team and head to radiology and review the imaging studies on your patients. Learn and teach key points in diagnosis and therapeutic approach as you move through your day from the inpatient floors to the hallways. Divide consults during the day with your team and agree on a time to touch base. Review your patient list at the end of the day and assess which patients the GI service no longer need to follow and communicate that clearly to the primary team along with the appropriate outpatient GI care follow-up. Let the endoscopy suite know of any procedures you are adding for the next day along with their degree of urgency to allow the charge nurse to prioritize cases. When you leave the hospital, be intentional with your free time: Read about the GI conditions you have encountered, enjoy some fun relaxing time, and rest!
Call
Know your call environment and your emergency cart
Familiarize yourself with the locations where you could potentially perform an emergent case (i.e., the ICU, ED, operating room) and the relevant points of contact (such as the charge nurse, the anesthesia team, the on-call tech team) for overnight or weekend cases. Whether or not you have an endoscopy support team on call, learn to set up the emergency cart, find and check your equipment, and troubleshoot technical issues by soliciting an “in-service” from senior fellows or the endoscopy technical support staff. Before heading to an urgent case, double check that you have your “bleeder” or “food impaction” tools. For food impaction, consider obtaining rat tooth forceps, snares, Roth nets, and an overtube. For bleeding cases, obtain a therapeutic upper endoscope, hemostatic clips, clear caps, injection needles, epinephrine, HemosprayTM, banding kits, and the appropriate electrocautery/thermal set up.
What is an emergency?
Consults that require your immediate attention include food impactions, acute biliary conditions leading to septic shock, and hemodynamically unstable GI bleeds, especially variceal bleeds. Remember that patients who are hemodynamically unstable require adequate resuscitation before proceeding with any endoscopic intervention. Assess the need for intubation, the timing of the procedure, and the most optimal location to perform the procedure, depending on the time and acuity of the patients’ presentation, how they respond to resuscitation measures, and the resources and preferences of your institution.
The overnight ‘nonemergent’ call
Non-emergent consults can be addressed the next day, after reviewing the clinical information provided by the consulting team and the patient’s EMR to ensure no urgent measures are needed. Overnight call may include patient phone calls, from inquiries about colon prep (so familiarize yourself with the different prep instructions and how to troubleshoot prep difficulties) to GI symptoms that you will need to triage to either the ED or to an outpatient follow-up. Document all phone encounters in the EMR and route your note to the appropriate clinician and nurse or administrative assistant for follow-up.
The five E’s of endoscopy
Endoscopy training is a large component of a GI fellowship and can create achievement anxiety in many first-year fellows seeking the cecum! But there is more to endoscopy than technical skills: It is as important to adequately evaluate clinical situations, understand the indications and potential limitations and complications of the procedure, and assess how it will impact the management of the patient. And no, you don’t have to be a video gamer to be a good endoscopist; and yes, you will be able to regularly complete a colonoscopy before the end of your first year!
Evaluation
In order to improve your endoscopic skills, it is important to honestly assess your areas of proficiency and improvement and to welcome real-time constructive feedback from your teaching attending about your endoscopic skills range. Consider meeting regularly with your attending to discuss your short-term and long-term endoscopic goals and how to enhance your skills. This practice demonstrates responsibility, credibility, and accountability amongst your peers as well as a genuine commitment to your growth as an endoscopist.
Efficiency
In addition to focusing on the quality of your endoscopy, learn to be efficient in the pre- and postprocedure time flow. This entails any step from properly explaining the procedure to patients before they come to the endoscopy suite, making sure the needed endoscopy equipment and tools are available in your room, completing your personal setup (i.e., gowning up, setting up your bed/monitor height, testing your endoscope) even before time out, to discharging the patient and communicating key findings and plan of care to the primary team. Depending on the acuity of the procedure and patient’s comorbidities, certain procedures may need to be performed or completed by a more efficient and experienced senior fellow or attending; don’t let this situation trigger passive frustration in you, but rather use it as an active and engaging opportunity to learn.
Expectations
You (and all the other neighborhood kids) didn’t learn to ride a bike without falling, struggling, needing help, and practicing over and over again, and it goes the same when learning to scope as a first-year fellow. Keep this in mind to lessen frustration, set realistic expectations, and be patient with yourself and celebrate all the small victories. Set tangible goals with your attending prior to procedural days/rotations so they can help you hone in and perfect the desired endoscopy skills.
Ergonomics
In a recent study, endoscopy-related injury (ERI) was reported to occur in up to 75% of gastroenterologists.3 While your primary focus might be reaching the cecum, it is as crucial for you to learn how to prevent ERI to ensure your long term health and continued success in procedures.
Excellence over quantity
Your main focus as a trainee is to learn how to provide effective, efficient, and safe care to patients, including in endoscopy. The quality of the endoscopy you perform is much more important than the total number of procedures you do. Thus, it is key to take each procedure as a complete learning opportunity to perform a thorough evaluation, improve your technical skills, interpret the findings, and develop a therapeutic plan.
Work-life balance and burnout
Fellowship is a marathon and not a sprint, so you need to slow down after a busy workday and care for yourself and enjoy time with loved ones. The cognitive, physical, mental, and emotional demands for first-year fellows are arguably the highest during GI training and can lead to burnout. Signs of burnout include emotional exhaustion, loss of empathy, fatigue, depersonalization and detachment, and feelings of personal inadequacy.4 Antiburnout measures include respecting basic healthy life hygiene (eat and sleep well, regular physical activity), having a hobby, practicing meditation, avoiding taking work home, and having a healthy social network.5 Remember that your cofellows whom you share common experiences with are not only your colleagues but can also be your friends and your social support. If you are a parent juggling work and family, remember to ask for help from your peers if you need it and have an open discussion with your attending to find practical solutions to your schedule.
Professional growth in the field of gastroenterology
Becoming a successful gastroenterologist and endoscopist involves going above the “I” and into the inclusive “we.” Building collegial and professional relationships early on with different stakeholders will set you up for success during and beyond your fellowship.
Building relationships
Developing genuine collegial and collaborative relationships with cofellows and faculty will positively impact your wellness during fellowship but also build the foundation of your professional network necessary to your career growth. Be inclusive of your cofellows in your research projects and publications, and support and amplify their work as much as you amplify your own. Your cofellows or attendings are likely to be the ones to help you find the right job, invite you to speak at grand rounds, or sit on a GI committee and promote your postfellowship professional growth.
Mentorship, being an educator and role model
It is important to identify and seek out mentors, within or outside your fellowship program or institution, who can not only guide you in your career choices but also open doors for you and sponsor you to advance your career. On the other hand, you too can be a role model, mentor, and sponsor to medical residents and students interested in the field of GI. Teach others in didactic settings or on the consult service, include trainees in quality improvement projects and publications, and lead by example.
Research
Most academic GI programs have a baseline requirement of research. Choose and devise a project you can realistically complete despite your busy first-year schedule: expand on a residency research project, focus on a specific simple question triggered by a clinical situation you encountered, proceed with a retrospective chart review or quality improvement project, and include other fellows and trainees to divide tasks. Alternatively, devise a specific timeline with a research mentor to complete a larger research project during your three years of fellowship.
Involvement in GI societies/committees
Become a member of one (or all) of the national GI societies that align with your interests. Membership gives you access not only to peer-reviewed scientific articles and guidelines but also to fellow-focused programs, committees’ opportunities, early career research grants, and mentorship.6-10
Summary
The first year of a GI fellowship lays the foundation for your next 3 years: Be mindful of how you can optimize the opportunities at hand to learn, teach, build a solid reputation, and grow your professional network. But also remember you have 3 full years to accomplish all your goals, so be patient, pace yourself, and include others in your journey. Judiciously use the many resources within your program and GI societies to help you achieve your goals, reach out to others to overcome difficulties and barriers, and dedicate time to care for your personal health and growth. This is what a true comprehensive and healthy fellowship is all about!
Dr. Advani is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University Hospital. Dr. Saeed is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Charabaty is with the division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Johns Hopkins–Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. Dr. Advani and Dr. Saeed have no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Charabaty disclosed ties to AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and is founder of @MondayNightIBD, and cofounder of Scrubs & Heels.
References
1. Bollipo S. Gastroenterology. 2020 Nov;159(5):1648-52.
2. Adams MA et al. Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan 1;146(1):5-9.
3. Pawa S et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 1;116(3):530-8.
4. DeCross AJ. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 1;158(1):32-5.
5. Burke C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Oct 1;112:S593-4.
6. Fellows Resources under Fellows & Early Career. American Gastroenterological Association. https://gastro.org/fellows-and-early-career/training-resources/fellows-resources/.
7. Trainee Courses and Events. American College of Gastroenterology. https://gi.org/trainees/trainee-courses-and-events/.
8. Trainee Resources. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. https://www.aasld.org/membership/hepatology-associates/trainee-resources.
9. First Year Fellows Courses under Education. American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://www.asge.org/home/education/advanced-education-training/first-year-fellow-(fyf)-courses.
10. Annual GI Fellow Summer Course Presentations. New York Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://www.nysge.org/annual%20gi%20fellows%20summer%20course.
After the excitement and the well-deserved celebrations of matching in a gastroenterology fellowship program, a whole new set of unanswered questions and worries can start forming in a first-year fellow’s mind. “I made it, but now what? How do I learn a whole new career skill like endoscopy? Is my GI knowledge solid and wide enough to manage patients and answer the medical team consult? How will I keep up with my reading and learning with a busy fellowship schedule? How do I balance growth in clinical knowledge, endoscopy, and research? Can I integrate ‘life’ alongside a busy fellowship?” All of these questions and more can be overwhelming to answer in the beginning. The following guide is designed to help you through this transition and navigate the various aspects of first-year fellowship.
First-year goals
It is important to keep in mind that you have 3 full years to become a well-rounded, highly skilled, and knowledgeable gastroenterologist and endoscopist. So, set realistic goals and expectations for your first year, but be mindful that this year also lays the solid foundations of who you will become as a clinician, educator, or researcher.
One of the main goals of fellowship is to learn and implement evidence-based medicine in the diagnosis and management of GI conditions, as well as to learn endoscopic skills and ethics, all while keeping the patient (as a whole person) at the center of what you do. According to a recently published article by Bollipo and colleagues,1 the overall growth as a gastroenterologist not only depends on acquisition of knowledge but also involves cultivating teamwork, communication, situational awareness, compassion, leadership, and situational awareness. Beyond your medical education, your professional growth is also dependent on intentionally working towards acquiring the following skills:
1. Manage your time efficiently and prioritize your daily tasks
2. Become a consultant: effectively communicate with others, teach, lead, and delegate as appropriate
3. Work as a team with colleagues, faculty, and endoscopy staff
4. Develop critical thinking, give and receive constructive feedback, and understand your skills, limitations, and growth potential
5. Identify mentors and potential niche area
6. Start building your professional network and your reputation
7. Get involved in national GI societies
Consults
Mindset
Shifting gear from residency to fellowship involves a shifting of your clinical mindset too, going from being part of a primary care team responsible for all aspects of a patient’s medical care, to that of a consulting team focused on a patient’s GI condition. It is important to find the right balance of refraining from micromanaging non-GI comorbidities while being fully aware of their impact on your diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the GI condition.
Let’s face it, you will not always get “exciting and interesting GI cases” consults, and on a busy day some consultations might feel unnecessary and frustrating to you. Remember that what seems obvious to you, based on your focused GI knowledge, might not be so simple to the primary team. In addition, every consult is an opportunity to improve your approach to patient care, as well as an opportunity to learn and teach others, from medical students to residents. So, always be professional and respectful when you pick up the phone, and build positive collaborative bridges between you and the medical or surgical consulting teams. Be the GI fellow others are not reluctant to call for help, and better, be the one who communicates GI pearls along the way, inspires others to join the field of gastroenterology, and positively represent the GI division.
Triage
When you answer your consult page, ask the primary team what specific question they have for you and/or what is the main GI complaint or test abnormality the patient has. This will help you assess the urgency and the complexity of the consult, and hence allow you to prioritize each consult (which one you need to see first and give the attending a heads-up), assign (or not) a rotating medical resident or student to the consult, tailor your preliminary recommendations to the primary team, and anticipate the need for a procedure. When you anticipate a procedure, assess its (semi-)urgency to get the process ready for same day or a bedside procedure by getting information on the patient’s vitals, basic labs, significant acute comorbidities, and supportive therapies in place. In other words, by judiciously obtaining key information from the primary team, you can efficiently triage the consults and keep your day organized and manageable (for the most part). Learn to divide and conquer the tasks of the day: split inpatient endoscopy and consults with your cofellows, assign appropriate consults and follow-ups to residents or students rotating on the GI service, and properly communicate with the primary team a plan of care (even a preliminary one) to avoid recurrent pages and interruptions. Some days the number or urgency of the consults and the required multitasking can be overwhelming: stop, breathe, and ask for help from your co-fellows and your attending. Remember, this is a fellowship, not a solo-ship and your program is here to support your work and growth.
Communication
Timely and efficient communication, between you and the different stakeholders, is crucial to provide optimal patient care and minimize the risk of “things falling through the cracks”. Convey to the primary team your recommendations and plan of care clearly, and use direct verbal communication (not just a note in the chart) when managing complex or urgent situations. Obtain information regarding current patient level of care (i.e., ICU), isolation precautions, and cardiac devices (i.e., left ventricular assist device). Keep the dialogue open with your attending about acutely ill patients and potentially urgent procedures. Inform the endoscopy suite early that you are adding a procedure on the same day, and communicate anticipated needs (such as intubation, fluoroscopy room, pediatric scope, stent). Using a “closed-loop” communication structure can ensure that your recommendations are received and implemented appropriately.2
Time management and structure
Having a structured routine to your day, in what seems to be a chaotic process of juggling different duties and being in different locations at once, will ensure that you efficiently complete your tasks in a timely manner. Find what works best for you, taking into account the challenges and resources available to you, such as the number of fellows and other trainees on the GI consult service, the average number of consults per day and their acuity, the availability of inpatient protocols for specific clinical situations (GI bleed, acute severe ulcerative colitis, etc.), and the time and style preferences of the rounding attending. We suggest the following schedule on a consult day: Round early in the morning and leave a note in the chart and/or communicate with the team key information, then review with the rotating trainees the patients they are following and personally reassess some patients as needed. Inform the endoscopy suite of the same day procedures and let your attending know of any issues that require immediate attention. Take your team and head to radiology and review the imaging studies on your patients. Learn and teach key points in diagnosis and therapeutic approach as you move through your day from the inpatient floors to the hallways. Divide consults during the day with your team and agree on a time to touch base. Review your patient list at the end of the day and assess which patients the GI service no longer need to follow and communicate that clearly to the primary team along with the appropriate outpatient GI care follow-up. Let the endoscopy suite know of any procedures you are adding for the next day along with their degree of urgency to allow the charge nurse to prioritize cases. When you leave the hospital, be intentional with your free time: Read about the GI conditions you have encountered, enjoy some fun relaxing time, and rest!
Call
Know your call environment and your emergency cart
Familiarize yourself with the locations where you could potentially perform an emergent case (i.e., the ICU, ED, operating room) and the relevant points of contact (such as the charge nurse, the anesthesia team, the on-call tech team) for overnight or weekend cases. Whether or not you have an endoscopy support team on call, learn to set up the emergency cart, find and check your equipment, and troubleshoot technical issues by soliciting an “in-service” from senior fellows or the endoscopy technical support staff. Before heading to an urgent case, double check that you have your “bleeder” or “food impaction” tools. For food impaction, consider obtaining rat tooth forceps, snares, Roth nets, and an overtube. For bleeding cases, obtain a therapeutic upper endoscope, hemostatic clips, clear caps, injection needles, epinephrine, HemosprayTM, banding kits, and the appropriate electrocautery/thermal set up.
What is an emergency?
Consults that require your immediate attention include food impactions, acute biliary conditions leading to septic shock, and hemodynamically unstable GI bleeds, especially variceal bleeds. Remember that patients who are hemodynamically unstable require adequate resuscitation before proceeding with any endoscopic intervention. Assess the need for intubation, the timing of the procedure, and the most optimal location to perform the procedure, depending on the time and acuity of the patients’ presentation, how they respond to resuscitation measures, and the resources and preferences of your institution.
The overnight ‘nonemergent’ call
Non-emergent consults can be addressed the next day, after reviewing the clinical information provided by the consulting team and the patient’s EMR to ensure no urgent measures are needed. Overnight call may include patient phone calls, from inquiries about colon prep (so familiarize yourself with the different prep instructions and how to troubleshoot prep difficulties) to GI symptoms that you will need to triage to either the ED or to an outpatient follow-up. Document all phone encounters in the EMR and route your note to the appropriate clinician and nurse or administrative assistant for follow-up.
The five E’s of endoscopy
Endoscopy training is a large component of a GI fellowship and can create achievement anxiety in many first-year fellows seeking the cecum! But there is more to endoscopy than technical skills: It is as important to adequately evaluate clinical situations, understand the indications and potential limitations and complications of the procedure, and assess how it will impact the management of the patient. And no, you don’t have to be a video gamer to be a good endoscopist; and yes, you will be able to regularly complete a colonoscopy before the end of your first year!
Evaluation
In order to improve your endoscopic skills, it is important to honestly assess your areas of proficiency and improvement and to welcome real-time constructive feedback from your teaching attending about your endoscopic skills range. Consider meeting regularly with your attending to discuss your short-term and long-term endoscopic goals and how to enhance your skills. This practice demonstrates responsibility, credibility, and accountability amongst your peers as well as a genuine commitment to your growth as an endoscopist.
Efficiency
In addition to focusing on the quality of your endoscopy, learn to be efficient in the pre- and postprocedure time flow. This entails any step from properly explaining the procedure to patients before they come to the endoscopy suite, making sure the needed endoscopy equipment and tools are available in your room, completing your personal setup (i.e., gowning up, setting up your bed/monitor height, testing your endoscope) even before time out, to discharging the patient and communicating key findings and plan of care to the primary team. Depending on the acuity of the procedure and patient’s comorbidities, certain procedures may need to be performed or completed by a more efficient and experienced senior fellow or attending; don’t let this situation trigger passive frustration in you, but rather use it as an active and engaging opportunity to learn.
Expectations
You (and all the other neighborhood kids) didn’t learn to ride a bike without falling, struggling, needing help, and practicing over and over again, and it goes the same when learning to scope as a first-year fellow. Keep this in mind to lessen frustration, set realistic expectations, and be patient with yourself and celebrate all the small victories. Set tangible goals with your attending prior to procedural days/rotations so they can help you hone in and perfect the desired endoscopy skills.
Ergonomics
In a recent study, endoscopy-related injury (ERI) was reported to occur in up to 75% of gastroenterologists.3 While your primary focus might be reaching the cecum, it is as crucial for you to learn how to prevent ERI to ensure your long term health and continued success in procedures.
Excellence over quantity
Your main focus as a trainee is to learn how to provide effective, efficient, and safe care to patients, including in endoscopy. The quality of the endoscopy you perform is much more important than the total number of procedures you do. Thus, it is key to take each procedure as a complete learning opportunity to perform a thorough evaluation, improve your technical skills, interpret the findings, and develop a therapeutic plan.
Work-life balance and burnout
Fellowship is a marathon and not a sprint, so you need to slow down after a busy workday and care for yourself and enjoy time with loved ones. The cognitive, physical, mental, and emotional demands for first-year fellows are arguably the highest during GI training and can lead to burnout. Signs of burnout include emotional exhaustion, loss of empathy, fatigue, depersonalization and detachment, and feelings of personal inadequacy.4 Antiburnout measures include respecting basic healthy life hygiene (eat and sleep well, regular physical activity), having a hobby, practicing meditation, avoiding taking work home, and having a healthy social network.5 Remember that your cofellows whom you share common experiences with are not only your colleagues but can also be your friends and your social support. If you are a parent juggling work and family, remember to ask for help from your peers if you need it and have an open discussion with your attending to find practical solutions to your schedule.
Professional growth in the field of gastroenterology
Becoming a successful gastroenterologist and endoscopist involves going above the “I” and into the inclusive “we.” Building collegial and professional relationships early on with different stakeholders will set you up for success during and beyond your fellowship.
Building relationships
Developing genuine collegial and collaborative relationships with cofellows and faculty will positively impact your wellness during fellowship but also build the foundation of your professional network necessary to your career growth. Be inclusive of your cofellows in your research projects and publications, and support and amplify their work as much as you amplify your own. Your cofellows or attendings are likely to be the ones to help you find the right job, invite you to speak at grand rounds, or sit on a GI committee and promote your postfellowship professional growth.
Mentorship, being an educator and role model
It is important to identify and seek out mentors, within or outside your fellowship program or institution, who can not only guide you in your career choices but also open doors for you and sponsor you to advance your career. On the other hand, you too can be a role model, mentor, and sponsor to medical residents and students interested in the field of GI. Teach others in didactic settings or on the consult service, include trainees in quality improvement projects and publications, and lead by example.
Research
Most academic GI programs have a baseline requirement of research. Choose and devise a project you can realistically complete despite your busy first-year schedule: expand on a residency research project, focus on a specific simple question triggered by a clinical situation you encountered, proceed with a retrospective chart review or quality improvement project, and include other fellows and trainees to divide tasks. Alternatively, devise a specific timeline with a research mentor to complete a larger research project during your three years of fellowship.
Involvement in GI societies/committees
Become a member of one (or all) of the national GI societies that align with your interests. Membership gives you access not only to peer-reviewed scientific articles and guidelines but also to fellow-focused programs, committees’ opportunities, early career research grants, and mentorship.6-10
Summary
The first year of a GI fellowship lays the foundation for your next 3 years: Be mindful of how you can optimize the opportunities at hand to learn, teach, build a solid reputation, and grow your professional network. But also remember you have 3 full years to accomplish all your goals, so be patient, pace yourself, and include others in your journey. Judiciously use the many resources within your program and GI societies to help you achieve your goals, reach out to others to overcome difficulties and barriers, and dedicate time to care for your personal health and growth. This is what a true comprehensive and healthy fellowship is all about!
Dr. Advani is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University Hospital. Dr. Saeed is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Charabaty is with the division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Johns Hopkins–Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. Dr. Advani and Dr. Saeed have no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Charabaty disclosed ties to AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and is founder of @MondayNightIBD, and cofounder of Scrubs & Heels.
References
1. Bollipo S. Gastroenterology. 2020 Nov;159(5):1648-52.
2. Adams MA et al. Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan 1;146(1):5-9.
3. Pawa S et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 1;116(3):530-8.
4. DeCross AJ. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 1;158(1):32-5.
5. Burke C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Oct 1;112:S593-4.
6. Fellows Resources under Fellows & Early Career. American Gastroenterological Association. https://gastro.org/fellows-and-early-career/training-resources/fellows-resources/.
7. Trainee Courses and Events. American College of Gastroenterology. https://gi.org/trainees/trainee-courses-and-events/.
8. Trainee Resources. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. https://www.aasld.org/membership/hepatology-associates/trainee-resources.
9. First Year Fellows Courses under Education. American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://www.asge.org/home/education/advanced-education-training/first-year-fellow-(fyf)-courses.
10. Annual GI Fellow Summer Course Presentations. New York Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://www.nysge.org/annual%20gi%20fellows%20summer%20course.
The central role of informed consent in novel procedures
Mrs. Jones is a 44-year-old woman who has struggled with her weight. She has a body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 and hypertension requiring daily medication. She has tried various diets over the years and has never been able to exercise consistently. She desperately wants to lose weight to improve her confidence and to avoid developing diabetes and dialysis that her parents required. She has considered weight loss surgery but is afraid after her best friend died following uterine fibroid surgery. She saw a billboard that advertised a new weight loss procedure without surgery. She looked up the procedure, found Dr. Indo on the university medical center’s website, and booked an appointment. Dr. Indo talked about performing an incisionless procedure done with an endoscope through her mouth. It would make her stomach into a tube to reduce the amount of food she could eat as well as prevent some absorption of food in her intestines. When Mrs. Jones asked how many of these the doctor had performed, Dr. Indo remarked she personally had done “several” in the past few years including training. Dr. Indo reassured Mrs. Jones that the procedure has been performed hundreds of times around the country and has been shown to be safe. Dr. Indo also explained that studies were still ongoing, including possibly at the university medical center, but that she had never personally seen any serious complications or death, and only one patient she knew of converted to a traditional bariatric surgery.
Obesity is a large international public health problem, with the World Health Organization estimating that there are 600 million obese adults worldwide.1 Bariatric surgery has been an effective way to improve complications related to obesity and quality of life. Endoscopic approaches to bariatric surgery have appeared since at least the late 1980s and, similarly to their traditional surgical counterparts, work in two main categories: restrictive or malabsorptive.1 Restrictive endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) include intragastric balloons (IGB) that are filled with saline or gas to decrease intragastric luminal size, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty that makes full-thickness plications of the gastric wall to tubularize the stomach like a sleeve gastrectomy, and AspireAssist where patients use a percutaneous gastrostomy to remove part of an ingested meal.1 Malabsorptive procedures include bypass sleeves that use a stentlike device to bypass absorption of food in the duodenum and proximal jejunum, the incisionless magnetic anastomosis system (IMAS) that creates a gastrojejunal bypass for diverting absorption, and duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) that ablates the duodenal mucosa.1,2
The benefits of EBTs over traditional bariatric surgery are that they have a lower risk profile, there is limited anatomic alternation, and they are potentially reversible.1 Although no formal guidelines exist in the United States for the use of EBTs, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) preliminary recommendations describe EBTs as applicable for patients who have failed lifestyle interventions and have BMIs between 30 and 45.1 While some of these techniques were first described in the 1980s, many individual companies and devices still do not have Food and Drug Administration approval and some have even had approval withdrawn. While traditional bariatric surgery may have complication rates up to 17%, EBTs are not without complications.1 Endoscopic barriers can migrate and occlude, cause pancreatitis, cause liver abscesses from biliary occlusion, and more severely cause GI bleeding and perforations.1 Many EBTs are also temporary treatments with IGBs and barrier bypasses placed only for 6-12 months.1 While there have been some studies looking at individual outcomes of the various EBTs, large prospective research trials looking at safety and efficacy, especially when comparing EBT to traditional bariatric surgery or in combination, are lacking.
Continued innovation in medicine and technology is critical to improving patient care. New innovations in medicine have allowed us to treat more disease, save lives, reduce complications, and better care for patients. But what exactly is innovation and when does it become research? The landmark Belmont Report in 1979 distinguishes research from innovative therapy, calling research “an activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”3 Patients in research thus bear the risks while others stand to benefit. The report affirms then that routine medical practice involves interventions designed specifically to benefit the individual patient. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery defines innovations as any “significant modification of a standard technique, a new application of or new indication for an established technique, or an alternative combination of an established technique with another therapeutic modality.”4 As such, innovations should eventually be formally studied with institutional review board (IRB) approval and protocols to establish safety and efficacy. Another complicating factor is that there is no FDA approval for surgical and procedural techniques as there is for medications and certain devices. Therefore, no robust regulatory mechanisms exist to ensure patient safety and benefit. Further complicating matters is that innovative procedures often start as modifications of techniques and are often done regularly to fit specific situations – for example, an additional stitch in a different location or in a different orientation to what is done in the standard fashion. However, true innovations should be distinguished from these modifications. Perhaps then another way to think about the two is to splinter them into three types of activity: research, routine accepted practice, and innovative medicine.5
Given this potential for blurred lines about novel approaches to medical conditions, how do we communicate this to patients? This is where the role of informed consent becomes essential. Informed consent is key to respecting patients’ autonomy – a central tenet of medical ethics. For patients to make autonomous choices they need basic facts to make informed decisions.6 These facts must be unbiased and free from conflicts, and they must not only be truthful but also be comprehensive and free from omission. It is in this informed consent process that we must explain that a technique or procedure is new, outline the risks and benefits, and share our actual experiences with said procedure especially if it is limited.7 We must also be aware of how certain biases and conflicts can affect our decisions to adapt and recommend innovative therapies. We may have incentives to offer innovative therapies to be on the “cutting edge” and attract patients. We may have explicit financial gain if working directly with device manufacturers or reimbursed by our institutions per procedure. Conflicts of interest are not only financial, but they can also be the prospects of promotion or career advancement.3 Institutions as well are incentivized to advertise the “latest” to bolster their prestige and reputations. Ultimately, we should act to the highest levels of professionalism, and ethics, by ignoring benefit to ourselves as physicians and always focusing on the benefits for our patients.7
What about when patients ask for specific innovative procedures as Mrs. Jones did above? What is our responsibility then? In situations where patients specifically push for a new procedure, it remains our duty to inform patients about the novelty of the procedure and the limited study of its safety and efficacy. When speaking about the “experience” with a novel procedure, it is tempting to speak globally and broadly. For example, Dr. Indo spoke about the procedure being done hundreds of times across the country and being safe in this context. It is our duty to be transparent, disclose our own experiences, and consider our own skills when recommending a novel procedure.7 It should be noted that patients are a vulnerable population and many times at the mercy of our recommendations. We’ve often heard patients say “Whatever you say doc; You’re the doctor;” or “I’ll do what you think is best” when presented with treatment options. This is an incredible amount of power, and we must protect this trust patients place in us by clearly acknowledging the uncertainties of new procedures and placing their benefit over our own potential gain.
Dr. Williams is a general surgery resident at the University of Chicago and a fellow at the MacLean Center for clinical medical ethics. Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, vice chairman for ethics, professional development, and wellness, and chief of endocrine surgery, department of surgery, and the associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago. The authors have no conflicts to disclose.
References
1. Goyal H et al. Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;14. doi: 10.1177/2631774520984627.
2. Machytka E et al. Gastrointestinal Endosc. 2017;86(5):904-12. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.07.009.
3. Eastwood GL. J Gastroenterol Hepatol (Australia). 2015;30(S1):8-11. doi: 10.1111/jgh.12755.
4. Neugebauer EAM et al. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(7):1594-1615. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0818-3.
5. Eaton, ML and Kennedy, DL. Innovation in Medical Technology: Ethical Issues and Challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.
6. Angelos P. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108(6):1611-2. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.08.010.
7. Angelos P. Virtual Mentor. 2011;13(1):6-9. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2011.13.1.ccas1-1101.
Mrs. Jones is a 44-year-old woman who has struggled with her weight. She has a body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 and hypertension requiring daily medication. She has tried various diets over the years and has never been able to exercise consistently. She desperately wants to lose weight to improve her confidence and to avoid developing diabetes and dialysis that her parents required. She has considered weight loss surgery but is afraid after her best friend died following uterine fibroid surgery. She saw a billboard that advertised a new weight loss procedure without surgery. She looked up the procedure, found Dr. Indo on the university medical center’s website, and booked an appointment. Dr. Indo talked about performing an incisionless procedure done with an endoscope through her mouth. It would make her stomach into a tube to reduce the amount of food she could eat as well as prevent some absorption of food in her intestines. When Mrs. Jones asked how many of these the doctor had performed, Dr. Indo remarked she personally had done “several” in the past few years including training. Dr. Indo reassured Mrs. Jones that the procedure has been performed hundreds of times around the country and has been shown to be safe. Dr. Indo also explained that studies were still ongoing, including possibly at the university medical center, but that she had never personally seen any serious complications or death, and only one patient she knew of converted to a traditional bariatric surgery.
Obesity is a large international public health problem, with the World Health Organization estimating that there are 600 million obese adults worldwide.1 Bariatric surgery has been an effective way to improve complications related to obesity and quality of life. Endoscopic approaches to bariatric surgery have appeared since at least the late 1980s and, similarly to their traditional surgical counterparts, work in two main categories: restrictive or malabsorptive.1 Restrictive endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) include intragastric balloons (IGB) that are filled with saline or gas to decrease intragastric luminal size, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty that makes full-thickness plications of the gastric wall to tubularize the stomach like a sleeve gastrectomy, and AspireAssist where patients use a percutaneous gastrostomy to remove part of an ingested meal.1 Malabsorptive procedures include bypass sleeves that use a stentlike device to bypass absorption of food in the duodenum and proximal jejunum, the incisionless magnetic anastomosis system (IMAS) that creates a gastrojejunal bypass for diverting absorption, and duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) that ablates the duodenal mucosa.1,2
The benefits of EBTs over traditional bariatric surgery are that they have a lower risk profile, there is limited anatomic alternation, and they are potentially reversible.1 Although no formal guidelines exist in the United States for the use of EBTs, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) preliminary recommendations describe EBTs as applicable for patients who have failed lifestyle interventions and have BMIs between 30 and 45.1 While some of these techniques were first described in the 1980s, many individual companies and devices still do not have Food and Drug Administration approval and some have even had approval withdrawn. While traditional bariatric surgery may have complication rates up to 17%, EBTs are not without complications.1 Endoscopic barriers can migrate and occlude, cause pancreatitis, cause liver abscesses from biliary occlusion, and more severely cause GI bleeding and perforations.1 Many EBTs are also temporary treatments with IGBs and barrier bypasses placed only for 6-12 months.1 While there have been some studies looking at individual outcomes of the various EBTs, large prospective research trials looking at safety and efficacy, especially when comparing EBT to traditional bariatric surgery or in combination, are lacking.
Continued innovation in medicine and technology is critical to improving patient care. New innovations in medicine have allowed us to treat more disease, save lives, reduce complications, and better care for patients. But what exactly is innovation and when does it become research? The landmark Belmont Report in 1979 distinguishes research from innovative therapy, calling research “an activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”3 Patients in research thus bear the risks while others stand to benefit. The report affirms then that routine medical practice involves interventions designed specifically to benefit the individual patient. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery defines innovations as any “significant modification of a standard technique, a new application of or new indication for an established technique, or an alternative combination of an established technique with another therapeutic modality.”4 As such, innovations should eventually be formally studied with institutional review board (IRB) approval and protocols to establish safety and efficacy. Another complicating factor is that there is no FDA approval for surgical and procedural techniques as there is for medications and certain devices. Therefore, no robust regulatory mechanisms exist to ensure patient safety and benefit. Further complicating matters is that innovative procedures often start as modifications of techniques and are often done regularly to fit specific situations – for example, an additional stitch in a different location or in a different orientation to what is done in the standard fashion. However, true innovations should be distinguished from these modifications. Perhaps then another way to think about the two is to splinter them into three types of activity: research, routine accepted practice, and innovative medicine.5
Given this potential for blurred lines about novel approaches to medical conditions, how do we communicate this to patients? This is where the role of informed consent becomes essential. Informed consent is key to respecting patients’ autonomy – a central tenet of medical ethics. For patients to make autonomous choices they need basic facts to make informed decisions.6 These facts must be unbiased and free from conflicts, and they must not only be truthful but also be comprehensive and free from omission. It is in this informed consent process that we must explain that a technique or procedure is new, outline the risks and benefits, and share our actual experiences with said procedure especially if it is limited.7 We must also be aware of how certain biases and conflicts can affect our decisions to adapt and recommend innovative therapies. We may have incentives to offer innovative therapies to be on the “cutting edge” and attract patients. We may have explicit financial gain if working directly with device manufacturers or reimbursed by our institutions per procedure. Conflicts of interest are not only financial, but they can also be the prospects of promotion or career advancement.3 Institutions as well are incentivized to advertise the “latest” to bolster their prestige and reputations. Ultimately, we should act to the highest levels of professionalism, and ethics, by ignoring benefit to ourselves as physicians and always focusing on the benefits for our patients.7
What about when patients ask for specific innovative procedures as Mrs. Jones did above? What is our responsibility then? In situations where patients specifically push for a new procedure, it remains our duty to inform patients about the novelty of the procedure and the limited study of its safety and efficacy. When speaking about the “experience” with a novel procedure, it is tempting to speak globally and broadly. For example, Dr. Indo spoke about the procedure being done hundreds of times across the country and being safe in this context. It is our duty to be transparent, disclose our own experiences, and consider our own skills when recommending a novel procedure.7 It should be noted that patients are a vulnerable population and many times at the mercy of our recommendations. We’ve often heard patients say “Whatever you say doc; You’re the doctor;” or “I’ll do what you think is best” when presented with treatment options. This is an incredible amount of power, and we must protect this trust patients place in us by clearly acknowledging the uncertainties of new procedures and placing their benefit over our own potential gain.
Dr. Williams is a general surgery resident at the University of Chicago and a fellow at the MacLean Center for clinical medical ethics. Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, vice chairman for ethics, professional development, and wellness, and chief of endocrine surgery, department of surgery, and the associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago. The authors have no conflicts to disclose.
References
1. Goyal H et al. Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;14. doi: 10.1177/2631774520984627.
2. Machytka E et al. Gastrointestinal Endosc. 2017;86(5):904-12. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.07.009.
3. Eastwood GL. J Gastroenterol Hepatol (Australia). 2015;30(S1):8-11. doi: 10.1111/jgh.12755.
4. Neugebauer EAM et al. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(7):1594-1615. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0818-3.
5. Eaton, ML and Kennedy, DL. Innovation in Medical Technology: Ethical Issues and Challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.
6. Angelos P. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108(6):1611-2. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.08.010.
7. Angelos P. Virtual Mentor. 2011;13(1):6-9. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2011.13.1.ccas1-1101.
Mrs. Jones is a 44-year-old woman who has struggled with her weight. She has a body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 and hypertension requiring daily medication. She has tried various diets over the years and has never been able to exercise consistently. She desperately wants to lose weight to improve her confidence and to avoid developing diabetes and dialysis that her parents required. She has considered weight loss surgery but is afraid after her best friend died following uterine fibroid surgery. She saw a billboard that advertised a new weight loss procedure without surgery. She looked up the procedure, found Dr. Indo on the university medical center’s website, and booked an appointment. Dr. Indo talked about performing an incisionless procedure done with an endoscope through her mouth. It would make her stomach into a tube to reduce the amount of food she could eat as well as prevent some absorption of food in her intestines. When Mrs. Jones asked how many of these the doctor had performed, Dr. Indo remarked she personally had done “several” in the past few years including training. Dr. Indo reassured Mrs. Jones that the procedure has been performed hundreds of times around the country and has been shown to be safe. Dr. Indo also explained that studies were still ongoing, including possibly at the university medical center, but that she had never personally seen any serious complications or death, and only one patient she knew of converted to a traditional bariatric surgery.
Obesity is a large international public health problem, with the World Health Organization estimating that there are 600 million obese adults worldwide.1 Bariatric surgery has been an effective way to improve complications related to obesity and quality of life. Endoscopic approaches to bariatric surgery have appeared since at least the late 1980s and, similarly to their traditional surgical counterparts, work in two main categories: restrictive or malabsorptive.1 Restrictive endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) include intragastric balloons (IGB) that are filled with saline or gas to decrease intragastric luminal size, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty that makes full-thickness plications of the gastric wall to tubularize the stomach like a sleeve gastrectomy, and AspireAssist where patients use a percutaneous gastrostomy to remove part of an ingested meal.1 Malabsorptive procedures include bypass sleeves that use a stentlike device to bypass absorption of food in the duodenum and proximal jejunum, the incisionless magnetic anastomosis system (IMAS) that creates a gastrojejunal bypass for diverting absorption, and duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) that ablates the duodenal mucosa.1,2
The benefits of EBTs over traditional bariatric surgery are that they have a lower risk profile, there is limited anatomic alternation, and they are potentially reversible.1 Although no formal guidelines exist in the United States for the use of EBTs, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) preliminary recommendations describe EBTs as applicable for patients who have failed lifestyle interventions and have BMIs between 30 and 45.1 While some of these techniques were first described in the 1980s, many individual companies and devices still do not have Food and Drug Administration approval and some have even had approval withdrawn. While traditional bariatric surgery may have complication rates up to 17%, EBTs are not without complications.1 Endoscopic barriers can migrate and occlude, cause pancreatitis, cause liver abscesses from biliary occlusion, and more severely cause GI bleeding and perforations.1 Many EBTs are also temporary treatments with IGBs and barrier bypasses placed only for 6-12 months.1 While there have been some studies looking at individual outcomes of the various EBTs, large prospective research trials looking at safety and efficacy, especially when comparing EBT to traditional bariatric surgery or in combination, are lacking.
Continued innovation in medicine and technology is critical to improving patient care. New innovations in medicine have allowed us to treat more disease, save lives, reduce complications, and better care for patients. But what exactly is innovation and when does it become research? The landmark Belmont Report in 1979 distinguishes research from innovative therapy, calling research “an activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”3 Patients in research thus bear the risks while others stand to benefit. The report affirms then that routine medical practice involves interventions designed specifically to benefit the individual patient. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery defines innovations as any “significant modification of a standard technique, a new application of or new indication for an established technique, or an alternative combination of an established technique with another therapeutic modality.”4 As such, innovations should eventually be formally studied with institutional review board (IRB) approval and protocols to establish safety and efficacy. Another complicating factor is that there is no FDA approval for surgical and procedural techniques as there is for medications and certain devices. Therefore, no robust regulatory mechanisms exist to ensure patient safety and benefit. Further complicating matters is that innovative procedures often start as modifications of techniques and are often done regularly to fit specific situations – for example, an additional stitch in a different location or in a different orientation to what is done in the standard fashion. However, true innovations should be distinguished from these modifications. Perhaps then another way to think about the two is to splinter them into three types of activity: research, routine accepted practice, and innovative medicine.5
Given this potential for blurred lines about novel approaches to medical conditions, how do we communicate this to patients? This is where the role of informed consent becomes essential. Informed consent is key to respecting patients’ autonomy – a central tenet of medical ethics. For patients to make autonomous choices they need basic facts to make informed decisions.6 These facts must be unbiased and free from conflicts, and they must not only be truthful but also be comprehensive and free from omission. It is in this informed consent process that we must explain that a technique or procedure is new, outline the risks and benefits, and share our actual experiences with said procedure especially if it is limited.7 We must also be aware of how certain biases and conflicts can affect our decisions to adapt and recommend innovative therapies. We may have incentives to offer innovative therapies to be on the “cutting edge” and attract patients. We may have explicit financial gain if working directly with device manufacturers or reimbursed by our institutions per procedure. Conflicts of interest are not only financial, but they can also be the prospects of promotion or career advancement.3 Institutions as well are incentivized to advertise the “latest” to bolster their prestige and reputations. Ultimately, we should act to the highest levels of professionalism, and ethics, by ignoring benefit to ourselves as physicians and always focusing on the benefits for our patients.7
What about when patients ask for specific innovative procedures as Mrs. Jones did above? What is our responsibility then? In situations where patients specifically push for a new procedure, it remains our duty to inform patients about the novelty of the procedure and the limited study of its safety and efficacy. When speaking about the “experience” with a novel procedure, it is tempting to speak globally and broadly. For example, Dr. Indo spoke about the procedure being done hundreds of times across the country and being safe in this context. It is our duty to be transparent, disclose our own experiences, and consider our own skills when recommending a novel procedure.7 It should be noted that patients are a vulnerable population and many times at the mercy of our recommendations. We’ve often heard patients say “Whatever you say doc; You’re the doctor;” or “I’ll do what you think is best” when presented with treatment options. This is an incredible amount of power, and we must protect this trust patients place in us by clearly acknowledging the uncertainties of new procedures and placing their benefit over our own potential gain.
Dr. Williams is a general surgery resident at the University of Chicago and a fellow at the MacLean Center for clinical medical ethics. Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, vice chairman for ethics, professional development, and wellness, and chief of endocrine surgery, department of surgery, and the associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago. The authors have no conflicts to disclose.
References
1. Goyal H et al. Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;14. doi: 10.1177/2631774520984627.
2. Machytka E et al. Gastrointestinal Endosc. 2017;86(5):904-12. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.07.009.
3. Eastwood GL. J Gastroenterol Hepatol (Australia). 2015;30(S1):8-11. doi: 10.1111/jgh.12755.
4. Neugebauer EAM et al. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(7):1594-1615. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0818-3.
5. Eaton, ML and Kennedy, DL. Innovation in Medical Technology: Ethical Issues and Challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.
6. Angelos P. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108(6):1611-2. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.08.010.
7. Angelos P. Virtual Mentor. 2011;13(1):6-9. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2011.13.1.ccas1-1101.
Get the science right
Get the science right. I have spent years researching and reflecting on what makes the best physicians, the best medicine, the optimal organized medical system, and the best medical ethics and law to support all of it. I have traveled to almost innumerable conferences to discuss these topics with colleagues who have similar goals. Time and time again, I come back to the conclusion that, in the modern era, the second-most important thing to do is to get the science right.
The practice of medicine in my Western world can be traced back to Hippocrates and earlier. The practice of nursing has other milestones. The healing arts have different points of origin in other cultures, such as China. In a modern world of mass communication, these various historical paths are converging on scientific evidence. The science to support medicine has always had flaws, but it has fared better than the other options. Sometimes, the science was so sketchy that the key was to believe in whatever the shaman was providing. But for the past 100 years, science, rather than tradition and hierarchy, has been relied upon to guide policy and action. For the past 50 years, evidence-based medicine has ascended. Have we become better than the snake oil salesmen of the late 19th century?
Modern health care is far from perfect. The pandemic has been a major stressor to the health care system. The pandemic has revealed flaws and weaknesses, including inequity in access to care, health illiteracy, and a shaky moral compass balancing individual liberty and social good. Overall, despite multiple mistakes dealing with a novel threat, I think the institutions promoting science have performed well during the pandemic, especially when compared with the moral and governmental institutions encouraging ethical behavior and making policies to promote justice.
My highest praise would be for the professionalism of health care workers. Nurses and physicians have staffed the hospitals and clinics caring for people when the hallways were overflowing for days without end. Without the commitment, the teamwork, and the courage to provide that care, the death toll would have been much higher and the suffering unimaginable. My observation is that these people were not motivated by an abstract primum non nocere, first do no harm. It was the commitment to love one’s neighbor and care for the sick. This dedication is the first most important thing in professionalism.
Part of what fuels that commitment is a belief that what they are doing makes a difference. The belief is stronger when there is measurable, scientific evidence that a difference is being made. The scientific decisions have not been perfect, but at this point the evidence is clear that the shutdown flattened the curve. Vaccines saved lives and will continue to do so. Masks saved lives. Nursing care, particularly intensive care, reduced the case fatality rate and assuaged suffering and grief.
What lessons about training new providers can be gleaned from the past 2 years? Those who teach professionalism for physicians, nurses, and other health care workers should strengthen the common value systems that undergird the commitment people have to the patients and the professions. In the face of postmodern nihilism and relativism, virtues need to be clarified and reinforced. In the face of political polarization which seeks to make a political affiliation the locus of loyalty and commitment, emphasize the fellowship of the health care professions.
To me as a scientist, a key lesson is that we need to be better at getting the science right. Two years ago I was wiping some groceries with alcohol and quarantining cans in shopping bags in the corner of the kitchen for 24 hours before shelving them. I still push elevator buttons with my knuckles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needs to revamp their policy making procedures.
Institutions must work to reestablish the public trust in science. That is a challenge because while many amazing scientific advances have occurred (i.e., my MRI last week showed far more going on than my orthopedist and physical therapist detected based on clinical exam). Imaging such as MR and ultrasound have been major advances in diagnostic medicine, but there are also repeated examples demonstrating where medicine has been wrong. In the past 6 months I have read new guidelines for ear tubes, for neonatal jaundice, for newborn sepsis, and for newborn hypoglycemia. All indicate to me that my training 30 years ago was on target and the interval “improvements” in practice have been worthless Brownian motion based on false scientific discoveries. My recommendation would be that pediatrics do one-third as much research but do that research three times better and get it right.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Get the science right. I have spent years researching and reflecting on what makes the best physicians, the best medicine, the optimal organized medical system, and the best medical ethics and law to support all of it. I have traveled to almost innumerable conferences to discuss these topics with colleagues who have similar goals. Time and time again, I come back to the conclusion that, in the modern era, the second-most important thing to do is to get the science right.
The practice of medicine in my Western world can be traced back to Hippocrates and earlier. The practice of nursing has other milestones. The healing arts have different points of origin in other cultures, such as China. In a modern world of mass communication, these various historical paths are converging on scientific evidence. The science to support medicine has always had flaws, but it has fared better than the other options. Sometimes, the science was so sketchy that the key was to believe in whatever the shaman was providing. But for the past 100 years, science, rather than tradition and hierarchy, has been relied upon to guide policy and action. For the past 50 years, evidence-based medicine has ascended. Have we become better than the snake oil salesmen of the late 19th century?
Modern health care is far from perfect. The pandemic has been a major stressor to the health care system. The pandemic has revealed flaws and weaknesses, including inequity in access to care, health illiteracy, and a shaky moral compass balancing individual liberty and social good. Overall, despite multiple mistakes dealing with a novel threat, I think the institutions promoting science have performed well during the pandemic, especially when compared with the moral and governmental institutions encouraging ethical behavior and making policies to promote justice.
My highest praise would be for the professionalism of health care workers. Nurses and physicians have staffed the hospitals and clinics caring for people when the hallways were overflowing for days without end. Without the commitment, the teamwork, and the courage to provide that care, the death toll would have been much higher and the suffering unimaginable. My observation is that these people were not motivated by an abstract primum non nocere, first do no harm. It was the commitment to love one’s neighbor and care for the sick. This dedication is the first most important thing in professionalism.
Part of what fuels that commitment is a belief that what they are doing makes a difference. The belief is stronger when there is measurable, scientific evidence that a difference is being made. The scientific decisions have not been perfect, but at this point the evidence is clear that the shutdown flattened the curve. Vaccines saved lives and will continue to do so. Masks saved lives. Nursing care, particularly intensive care, reduced the case fatality rate and assuaged suffering and grief.
What lessons about training new providers can be gleaned from the past 2 years? Those who teach professionalism for physicians, nurses, and other health care workers should strengthen the common value systems that undergird the commitment people have to the patients and the professions. In the face of postmodern nihilism and relativism, virtues need to be clarified and reinforced. In the face of political polarization which seeks to make a political affiliation the locus of loyalty and commitment, emphasize the fellowship of the health care professions.
To me as a scientist, a key lesson is that we need to be better at getting the science right. Two years ago I was wiping some groceries with alcohol and quarantining cans in shopping bags in the corner of the kitchen for 24 hours before shelving them. I still push elevator buttons with my knuckles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needs to revamp their policy making procedures.
Institutions must work to reestablish the public trust in science. That is a challenge because while many amazing scientific advances have occurred (i.e., my MRI last week showed far more going on than my orthopedist and physical therapist detected based on clinical exam). Imaging such as MR and ultrasound have been major advances in diagnostic medicine, but there are also repeated examples demonstrating where medicine has been wrong. In the past 6 months I have read new guidelines for ear tubes, for neonatal jaundice, for newborn sepsis, and for newborn hypoglycemia. All indicate to me that my training 30 years ago was on target and the interval “improvements” in practice have been worthless Brownian motion based on false scientific discoveries. My recommendation would be that pediatrics do one-third as much research but do that research three times better and get it right.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Get the science right. I have spent years researching and reflecting on what makes the best physicians, the best medicine, the optimal organized medical system, and the best medical ethics and law to support all of it. I have traveled to almost innumerable conferences to discuss these topics with colleagues who have similar goals. Time and time again, I come back to the conclusion that, in the modern era, the second-most important thing to do is to get the science right.
The practice of medicine in my Western world can be traced back to Hippocrates and earlier. The practice of nursing has other milestones. The healing arts have different points of origin in other cultures, such as China. In a modern world of mass communication, these various historical paths are converging on scientific evidence. The science to support medicine has always had flaws, but it has fared better than the other options. Sometimes, the science was so sketchy that the key was to believe in whatever the shaman was providing. But for the past 100 years, science, rather than tradition and hierarchy, has been relied upon to guide policy and action. For the past 50 years, evidence-based medicine has ascended. Have we become better than the snake oil salesmen of the late 19th century?
Modern health care is far from perfect. The pandemic has been a major stressor to the health care system. The pandemic has revealed flaws and weaknesses, including inequity in access to care, health illiteracy, and a shaky moral compass balancing individual liberty and social good. Overall, despite multiple mistakes dealing with a novel threat, I think the institutions promoting science have performed well during the pandemic, especially when compared with the moral and governmental institutions encouraging ethical behavior and making policies to promote justice.
My highest praise would be for the professionalism of health care workers. Nurses and physicians have staffed the hospitals and clinics caring for people when the hallways were overflowing for days without end. Without the commitment, the teamwork, and the courage to provide that care, the death toll would have been much higher and the suffering unimaginable. My observation is that these people were not motivated by an abstract primum non nocere, first do no harm. It was the commitment to love one’s neighbor and care for the sick. This dedication is the first most important thing in professionalism.
Part of what fuels that commitment is a belief that what they are doing makes a difference. The belief is stronger when there is measurable, scientific evidence that a difference is being made. The scientific decisions have not been perfect, but at this point the evidence is clear that the shutdown flattened the curve. Vaccines saved lives and will continue to do so. Masks saved lives. Nursing care, particularly intensive care, reduced the case fatality rate and assuaged suffering and grief.
What lessons about training new providers can be gleaned from the past 2 years? Those who teach professionalism for physicians, nurses, and other health care workers should strengthen the common value systems that undergird the commitment people have to the patients and the professions. In the face of postmodern nihilism and relativism, virtues need to be clarified and reinforced. In the face of political polarization which seeks to make a political affiliation the locus of loyalty and commitment, emphasize the fellowship of the health care professions.
To me as a scientist, a key lesson is that we need to be better at getting the science right. Two years ago I was wiping some groceries with alcohol and quarantining cans in shopping bags in the corner of the kitchen for 24 hours before shelving them. I still push elevator buttons with my knuckles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needs to revamp their policy making procedures.
Institutions must work to reestablish the public trust in science. That is a challenge because while many amazing scientific advances have occurred (i.e., my MRI last week showed far more going on than my orthopedist and physical therapist detected based on clinical exam). Imaging such as MR and ultrasound have been major advances in diagnostic medicine, but there are also repeated examples demonstrating where medicine has been wrong. In the past 6 months I have read new guidelines for ear tubes, for neonatal jaundice, for newborn sepsis, and for newborn hypoglycemia. All indicate to me that my training 30 years ago was on target and the interval “improvements” in practice have been worthless Brownian motion based on false scientific discoveries. My recommendation would be that pediatrics do one-third as much research but do that research three times better and get it right.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Walking 10,000 steps a day: Desirable goal or urban myth?
Some myths never die. The idea of taking 10,000 steps a day is one of them. What started as a catchy marketing slogan has become a mantra for anyone promoting physical activity.
It all began in 1965 when the Japanese company Yamasa Tokei began selling a new step-counter which they called manpo-kei (ten-thousand steps meter). They coupled the product launch with an ad campaign – “Let’s walk 10,000 steps a day!” – in a bid to encourage physical activity. The threshold was always somewhat arbitrary, but the idea of 10,000 steps cemented itself in the public consciousness from that point forward.
To be fair, there is nothing wrong with taking 10,000 steps a day, and it does roughly correlate with the generally recommended amount of physical activity. Most people will take somewhere between 5,000 and 7,500 steps a day even if they lead largely sedentary lives. If you add 30 minutes of walking to your daily routine, that will account for an extra 3,000-4,000 steps and bring you close to that 10,000-step threshold. As such, setting a 10,000-step target is a potentially useful shorthand for people aspiring to achieve ideal levels of physical activity.
But walking fewer steps still has a benefit. A study in JAMA Network Open followed a cohort of 2,110 adults from the CARDIA study and found, rather unsurprisingly, that those with more steps per day had lower rates of all-cause mortality. But interestingly, those who averaged 7,000-10,000 steps per day did just as well as those who walked more than 10,000 steps, suggesting that the lower threshold was probably the inflection point.
Other research has shown that improving your step count is probably more important than achieving any specific threshold. In one Canadian study, patients with diabetes were randomized to usual care or to an exercise prescription from their physicians. The intervention group improved their daily step count from around 5,000 steps per day to about 6,200 steps per day. While the increase was less than the researchers had hoped for, it still resulted in improvements in blood sugar control. In another study, a 24-week walking program reduced blood pressure by 11 points in postmenopausal women, even though their increased daily step counts fell shy of the 10,000 goal at about 9,000 steps. Similarly, a small Japanese study found that enrolling postmenopausal women in a weekly exercise program helped improve their lipid profile even though they only increased their daily step count from 6,800 to 8,500 steps per day. And an analysis of U.S. NHANES data showed a mortality benefit when individuals taking more than 8,000 steps were compared with those taking fewer than 4,000 steps per day. The benefits largely plateaued beyond 9,000-10,000 steps.
The reality is that walking 10,000 steps a day is a laudable goal and is almost certainly beneficial. But even lower levels of physical activity have benefits. The trick is not so much to aim for some theoretical ideal but to improve upon your current baseline. Encouraging patients to get into the habit of taking a daily walk (be it in the morning, during lunchtime, or in the evening) is going to pay dividends regardless of their daily step count. The point is that when it comes to physical activity, the greatest benefit seems to be when we go from doing nothing to doing something.
Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Queen Elizabeth Health Complex, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some myths never die. The idea of taking 10,000 steps a day is one of them. What started as a catchy marketing slogan has become a mantra for anyone promoting physical activity.
It all began in 1965 when the Japanese company Yamasa Tokei began selling a new step-counter which they called manpo-kei (ten-thousand steps meter). They coupled the product launch with an ad campaign – “Let’s walk 10,000 steps a day!” – in a bid to encourage physical activity. The threshold was always somewhat arbitrary, but the idea of 10,000 steps cemented itself in the public consciousness from that point forward.
To be fair, there is nothing wrong with taking 10,000 steps a day, and it does roughly correlate with the generally recommended amount of physical activity. Most people will take somewhere between 5,000 and 7,500 steps a day even if they lead largely sedentary lives. If you add 30 minutes of walking to your daily routine, that will account for an extra 3,000-4,000 steps and bring you close to that 10,000-step threshold. As such, setting a 10,000-step target is a potentially useful shorthand for people aspiring to achieve ideal levels of physical activity.
But walking fewer steps still has a benefit. A study in JAMA Network Open followed a cohort of 2,110 adults from the CARDIA study and found, rather unsurprisingly, that those with more steps per day had lower rates of all-cause mortality. But interestingly, those who averaged 7,000-10,000 steps per day did just as well as those who walked more than 10,000 steps, suggesting that the lower threshold was probably the inflection point.
Other research has shown that improving your step count is probably more important than achieving any specific threshold. In one Canadian study, patients with diabetes were randomized to usual care or to an exercise prescription from their physicians. The intervention group improved their daily step count from around 5,000 steps per day to about 6,200 steps per day. While the increase was less than the researchers had hoped for, it still resulted in improvements in blood sugar control. In another study, a 24-week walking program reduced blood pressure by 11 points in postmenopausal women, even though their increased daily step counts fell shy of the 10,000 goal at about 9,000 steps. Similarly, a small Japanese study found that enrolling postmenopausal women in a weekly exercise program helped improve their lipid profile even though they only increased their daily step count from 6,800 to 8,500 steps per day. And an analysis of U.S. NHANES data showed a mortality benefit when individuals taking more than 8,000 steps were compared with those taking fewer than 4,000 steps per day. The benefits largely plateaued beyond 9,000-10,000 steps.
The reality is that walking 10,000 steps a day is a laudable goal and is almost certainly beneficial. But even lower levels of physical activity have benefits. The trick is not so much to aim for some theoretical ideal but to improve upon your current baseline. Encouraging patients to get into the habit of taking a daily walk (be it in the morning, during lunchtime, or in the evening) is going to pay dividends regardless of their daily step count. The point is that when it comes to physical activity, the greatest benefit seems to be when we go from doing nothing to doing something.
Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Queen Elizabeth Health Complex, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some myths never die. The idea of taking 10,000 steps a day is one of them. What started as a catchy marketing slogan has become a mantra for anyone promoting physical activity.
It all began in 1965 when the Japanese company Yamasa Tokei began selling a new step-counter which they called manpo-kei (ten-thousand steps meter). They coupled the product launch with an ad campaign – “Let’s walk 10,000 steps a day!” – in a bid to encourage physical activity. The threshold was always somewhat arbitrary, but the idea of 10,000 steps cemented itself in the public consciousness from that point forward.
To be fair, there is nothing wrong with taking 10,000 steps a day, and it does roughly correlate with the generally recommended amount of physical activity. Most people will take somewhere between 5,000 and 7,500 steps a day even if they lead largely sedentary lives. If you add 30 minutes of walking to your daily routine, that will account for an extra 3,000-4,000 steps and bring you close to that 10,000-step threshold. As such, setting a 10,000-step target is a potentially useful shorthand for people aspiring to achieve ideal levels of physical activity.
But walking fewer steps still has a benefit. A study in JAMA Network Open followed a cohort of 2,110 adults from the CARDIA study and found, rather unsurprisingly, that those with more steps per day had lower rates of all-cause mortality. But interestingly, those who averaged 7,000-10,000 steps per day did just as well as those who walked more than 10,000 steps, suggesting that the lower threshold was probably the inflection point.
Other research has shown that improving your step count is probably more important than achieving any specific threshold. In one Canadian study, patients with diabetes were randomized to usual care or to an exercise prescription from their physicians. The intervention group improved their daily step count from around 5,000 steps per day to about 6,200 steps per day. While the increase was less than the researchers had hoped for, it still resulted in improvements in blood sugar control. In another study, a 24-week walking program reduced blood pressure by 11 points in postmenopausal women, even though their increased daily step counts fell shy of the 10,000 goal at about 9,000 steps. Similarly, a small Japanese study found that enrolling postmenopausal women in a weekly exercise program helped improve their lipid profile even though they only increased their daily step count from 6,800 to 8,500 steps per day. And an analysis of U.S. NHANES data showed a mortality benefit when individuals taking more than 8,000 steps were compared with those taking fewer than 4,000 steps per day. The benefits largely plateaued beyond 9,000-10,000 steps.
The reality is that walking 10,000 steps a day is a laudable goal and is almost certainly beneficial. But even lower levels of physical activity have benefits. The trick is not so much to aim for some theoretical ideal but to improve upon your current baseline. Encouraging patients to get into the habit of taking a daily walk (be it in the morning, during lunchtime, or in the evening) is going to pay dividends regardless of their daily step count. The point is that when it comes to physical activity, the greatest benefit seems to be when we go from doing nothing to doing something.
Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Queen Elizabeth Health Complex, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘We don’t want to be an inspiration’
Over 2.5 million people have fled the ghastly war in Ukraine for safety. But, not everyone is trying to leave. Shockingly, hundreds of thousands are actually flocking toward the danger in Ukraine right now. Many of them are women.
I was commuting to work when I first heard this story on a podcast. In astonishing numbers, women have chosen to return to or stay in Ukraine because they’re needed to fight and to protect their families. My reaction, like yours, was to be inspired. What amazing courage! Twitter and Instagram will swell with images of their balaclava masked faces standing in the breach once more. Like the women in medicine who armed themselves with surgical masks and face shields and babies on their backs to join the fight against COVID-19. They will be poster girls, blue sleeves rolled up and red polka dotted bandanas covering their hair.
But that’s not what they want. “We don’t want to be an inspiration,” said one fearless Ukrainian fighter in the story, “we want to be alive.”
At the time of this writing as we celebrate the brilliant accomplishments of women on March 8, International Women’s Day, I wonder if we don’t have it slightly wrong.
Although acknowledgment is appreciated, the women I work alongside don’t need me to be inspired by them. They need me to stand with them, to help them. . The “she-session” it’s been called, refers to the million women who have not rejoined the workforce since COVID-19. This is especially acute for us in medicine where women are significantly more likely than are men to report not working full time, or not working at all.
The truth is that even in 2022, the burdens of family life are still not borne equally. Bias against mothers in particular can be insidious. Take academia, where there is little sympathy for not publishing on schedule. Perhaps there are unexplained gaps, but where exactly on a CV does one put “recurrent pregnancy loss?” Do you know how many clinics or ORs a woman must cancel to attempt maddeningly unpredictable egg retrievals and embryo transfers? A lot. Not to mention the financial burden of doing so.
During the pandemic, female physicians were more likely to manage child care, schooling, and household duties, compared to male physicians.
And yet (perhaps even because of that?) women in medicine make less money. How much? About $80,000 less on average in dermatology. Inspired? Indeed. No thanks. Let’s #BreakTheBias rather.
I’m not a policy expert nor a sociologist. I don’t know what advice might be helpful here. I’d say raising our collective consciousness of the unfairness, highlighting discrepancies, and advocating for equality are good starts. But, International Women’s Day isn’t new. It’s old. Like over a hundred years old (since 1909 to be exact). We don’t just need a better hashtag, we need to do something. Give equity in pay. Offer opportunities for leadership that accommodate the extra duty women might have outside work. Create flexibility in schedules and without the penalty of having to pump at work or leave early to pick up a child. Not to mention all the opportunities we men have to do more of the household work that women currently do.
The gallant women of Ukraine don’t need our approbation. They need our aid and our prayers. Like the women in my department, at my medical center, in my community, they aren’t posing to be made into posters. There’s work to be done and they are flocking toward it right now.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Over 2.5 million people have fled the ghastly war in Ukraine for safety. But, not everyone is trying to leave. Shockingly, hundreds of thousands are actually flocking toward the danger in Ukraine right now. Many of them are women.
I was commuting to work when I first heard this story on a podcast. In astonishing numbers, women have chosen to return to or stay in Ukraine because they’re needed to fight and to protect their families. My reaction, like yours, was to be inspired. What amazing courage! Twitter and Instagram will swell with images of their balaclava masked faces standing in the breach once more. Like the women in medicine who armed themselves with surgical masks and face shields and babies on their backs to join the fight against COVID-19. They will be poster girls, blue sleeves rolled up and red polka dotted bandanas covering their hair.
But that’s not what they want. “We don’t want to be an inspiration,” said one fearless Ukrainian fighter in the story, “we want to be alive.”
At the time of this writing as we celebrate the brilliant accomplishments of women on March 8, International Women’s Day, I wonder if we don’t have it slightly wrong.
Although acknowledgment is appreciated, the women I work alongside don’t need me to be inspired by them. They need me to stand with them, to help them. . The “she-session” it’s been called, refers to the million women who have not rejoined the workforce since COVID-19. This is especially acute for us in medicine where women are significantly more likely than are men to report not working full time, or not working at all.
The truth is that even in 2022, the burdens of family life are still not borne equally. Bias against mothers in particular can be insidious. Take academia, where there is little sympathy for not publishing on schedule. Perhaps there are unexplained gaps, but where exactly on a CV does one put “recurrent pregnancy loss?” Do you know how many clinics or ORs a woman must cancel to attempt maddeningly unpredictable egg retrievals and embryo transfers? A lot. Not to mention the financial burden of doing so.
During the pandemic, female physicians were more likely to manage child care, schooling, and household duties, compared to male physicians.
And yet (perhaps even because of that?) women in medicine make less money. How much? About $80,000 less on average in dermatology. Inspired? Indeed. No thanks. Let’s #BreakTheBias rather.
I’m not a policy expert nor a sociologist. I don’t know what advice might be helpful here. I’d say raising our collective consciousness of the unfairness, highlighting discrepancies, and advocating for equality are good starts. But, International Women’s Day isn’t new. It’s old. Like over a hundred years old (since 1909 to be exact). We don’t just need a better hashtag, we need to do something. Give equity in pay. Offer opportunities for leadership that accommodate the extra duty women might have outside work. Create flexibility in schedules and without the penalty of having to pump at work or leave early to pick up a child. Not to mention all the opportunities we men have to do more of the household work that women currently do.
The gallant women of Ukraine don’t need our approbation. They need our aid and our prayers. Like the women in my department, at my medical center, in my community, they aren’t posing to be made into posters. There’s work to be done and they are flocking toward it right now.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Over 2.5 million people have fled the ghastly war in Ukraine for safety. But, not everyone is trying to leave. Shockingly, hundreds of thousands are actually flocking toward the danger in Ukraine right now. Many of them are women.
I was commuting to work when I first heard this story on a podcast. In astonishing numbers, women have chosen to return to or stay in Ukraine because they’re needed to fight and to protect their families. My reaction, like yours, was to be inspired. What amazing courage! Twitter and Instagram will swell with images of their balaclava masked faces standing in the breach once more. Like the women in medicine who armed themselves with surgical masks and face shields and babies on their backs to join the fight against COVID-19. They will be poster girls, blue sleeves rolled up and red polka dotted bandanas covering their hair.
But that’s not what they want. “We don’t want to be an inspiration,” said one fearless Ukrainian fighter in the story, “we want to be alive.”
At the time of this writing as we celebrate the brilliant accomplishments of women on March 8, International Women’s Day, I wonder if we don’t have it slightly wrong.
Although acknowledgment is appreciated, the women I work alongside don’t need me to be inspired by them. They need me to stand with them, to help them. . The “she-session” it’s been called, refers to the million women who have not rejoined the workforce since COVID-19. This is especially acute for us in medicine where women are significantly more likely than are men to report not working full time, or not working at all.
The truth is that even in 2022, the burdens of family life are still not borne equally. Bias against mothers in particular can be insidious. Take academia, where there is little sympathy for not publishing on schedule. Perhaps there are unexplained gaps, but where exactly on a CV does one put “recurrent pregnancy loss?” Do you know how many clinics or ORs a woman must cancel to attempt maddeningly unpredictable egg retrievals and embryo transfers? A lot. Not to mention the financial burden of doing so.
During the pandemic, female physicians were more likely to manage child care, schooling, and household duties, compared to male physicians.
And yet (perhaps even because of that?) women in medicine make less money. How much? About $80,000 less on average in dermatology. Inspired? Indeed. No thanks. Let’s #BreakTheBias rather.
I’m not a policy expert nor a sociologist. I don’t know what advice might be helpful here. I’d say raising our collective consciousness of the unfairness, highlighting discrepancies, and advocating for equality are good starts. But, International Women’s Day isn’t new. It’s old. Like over a hundred years old (since 1909 to be exact). We don’t just need a better hashtag, we need to do something. Give equity in pay. Offer opportunities for leadership that accommodate the extra duty women might have outside work. Create flexibility in schedules and without the penalty of having to pump at work or leave early to pick up a child. Not to mention all the opportunities we men have to do more of the household work that women currently do.
The gallant women of Ukraine don’t need our approbation. They need our aid and our prayers. Like the women in my department, at my medical center, in my community, they aren’t posing to be made into posters. There’s work to be done and they are flocking toward it right now.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Waiting for the under-5 COVID-19 vaccine
In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.
This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.
It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.
There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.
It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.
Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.
First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.
Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.
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 [email protected].
In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.
This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.
It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.
There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.
It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.
Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.
First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.
Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.
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 [email protected].
In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.
This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.
It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.
There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.
It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.
Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.
First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.
Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.
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 [email protected].
Answering parents’ questions about Cronobacter and powdered formula
A 6-month-old boy presented with 2 days of looser-than-normal stools without blood or mucous. Before the onset of diarrhea, he had been fed at least two bottles of an infant formula identified in a national recall. His mom requested testing for Cronobacter sakazakii.
In mid-February, Abbott Nutrition recalled specific lots of powdered formula produced at one Michigan manufacturing facility because of possible Cronobacter contamination. To date, a public health investigation has identified four infants in three states who developed Cronobacter infection after consuming formula that was part of the recall. Two of the infants died.
As media reports urged families to search their kitchens for containers of the implicated formula and return them for a refund, worried parents reached out to pediatric care providers for advice.
Cronobacter sakazakii and other Cronobacter species are Gram-negative environmental organisms that occasionally cause bacteremia and meningitis in young infants. Although these infections are not subject to mandatory reporting in most states, laboratory-based surveillance suggests that 18 cases occur annually in the United States (0.49 cases/100,00 infants).
While early reports in the literature described cases in hospitalized, preterm infants, infections also occur in the community and in children born at or near term. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review of domestic and international cases identified 183 children <12 months of age between 1961 and 2018 described as diagnosed with Cronobacter bacteremia or meningitis.1 Of the 79 U.S. cases, 34 occurred in term infants and 50 were community onset. Most cases occurred in the first month of life; the oldest child was 35 days of age at the onset of symptoms. Meningitis was more likely in infants born close to term and who were not hospitalized at the time of infection. The majority of infants for whom a feeding history was available had consumed powdered formula.
Back in the exam room, the 6-month-old was examined and found to be vigorous and well-appearing with normal vital signs and no signs of dehydration. The infant’s pediatrician found no clinical indication to perform a blood culture or lumbar puncture, the tests used to diagnose invasive Cronobacter infection. She explained that stool cultures are not recommended, as Cronobacter does not usually cause diarrhea in infants and finding the bacteria in the stool may represent colonization rather than infection.
The pediatrician did take the opportunity to talk to the mom about her formula preparation practices and shared a handout. Powdered formula isn’t sterile, but it is safe for most infants when prepared according to manufacturer’s directions. Contamination of formula during or after preparation can also result in Cronobacter infection in vulnerable infants.
The mom was surprised – and unhappy – to learn that Cronobacter could be lurking in her kitchen. More than a decade ago, investigators visited 78 households in Tennessee and cultured multiple kitchen surfaces.2C. sakazakii was recovered from 21 homes. Most of the positive cultures were from sinks, counter tops, and used dishcloths. Cronobacter has also been cultured from a variety of dried food items, including powdered milk, herbal tea, and starches.
According to the CDC, liquid formula, a product that is sterile until opened, is a safer choice for formula-fed infants who are less than 3 months of age, were born prematurely, or have a compromised immune system. When these infants must be fed powdered formula, preparing it with water heated to at least 158°F or 70°C can kill Cronobacter organisms. Parents should be instructed to boil water and let it cool for about 5 minutes before using it to mix formula.
While most cases of Cronobacter in infants have been epidemiologically linked to consumption of powdered formula, sporadic case reports describe infection in infants fed expressed breast milk. In one report, identical bacterial isolates were recovered from expressed milk fed to an infected infant and the breast pump used to express the milk.3
Moms who express milk should be instructed in proper breast pump hygiene, including washing hands thoroughly before handling breast pumps; disassembling and cleaning breast pumps kits after each use, either in hot soapy water with a dedicated brush and basin or in the dishwasher; air drying on a clean surface; and sanitizing at least daily by boiling, steaming, or using a dishwasher’s sanitize cycle.
Health care providers are encouraged to report Cronobacter cases to their state or local health departments.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Strysko J et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):857-65.
2. Kilonzo-Nthenge A et al. J Food Protect 2012;75(8):1512-7.
3. Bowen A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:761-2.
A 6-month-old boy presented with 2 days of looser-than-normal stools without blood or mucous. Before the onset of diarrhea, he had been fed at least two bottles of an infant formula identified in a national recall. His mom requested testing for Cronobacter sakazakii.
In mid-February, Abbott Nutrition recalled specific lots of powdered formula produced at one Michigan manufacturing facility because of possible Cronobacter contamination. To date, a public health investigation has identified four infants in three states who developed Cronobacter infection after consuming formula that was part of the recall. Two of the infants died.
As media reports urged families to search their kitchens for containers of the implicated formula and return them for a refund, worried parents reached out to pediatric care providers for advice.
Cronobacter sakazakii and other Cronobacter species are Gram-negative environmental organisms that occasionally cause bacteremia and meningitis in young infants. Although these infections are not subject to mandatory reporting in most states, laboratory-based surveillance suggests that 18 cases occur annually in the United States (0.49 cases/100,00 infants).
While early reports in the literature described cases in hospitalized, preterm infants, infections also occur in the community and in children born at or near term. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review of domestic and international cases identified 183 children <12 months of age between 1961 and 2018 described as diagnosed with Cronobacter bacteremia or meningitis.1 Of the 79 U.S. cases, 34 occurred in term infants and 50 were community onset. Most cases occurred in the first month of life; the oldest child was 35 days of age at the onset of symptoms. Meningitis was more likely in infants born close to term and who were not hospitalized at the time of infection. The majority of infants for whom a feeding history was available had consumed powdered formula.
Back in the exam room, the 6-month-old was examined and found to be vigorous and well-appearing with normal vital signs and no signs of dehydration. The infant’s pediatrician found no clinical indication to perform a blood culture or lumbar puncture, the tests used to diagnose invasive Cronobacter infection. She explained that stool cultures are not recommended, as Cronobacter does not usually cause diarrhea in infants and finding the bacteria in the stool may represent colonization rather than infection.
The pediatrician did take the opportunity to talk to the mom about her formula preparation practices and shared a handout. Powdered formula isn’t sterile, but it is safe for most infants when prepared according to manufacturer’s directions. Contamination of formula during or after preparation can also result in Cronobacter infection in vulnerable infants.
The mom was surprised – and unhappy – to learn that Cronobacter could be lurking in her kitchen. More than a decade ago, investigators visited 78 households in Tennessee and cultured multiple kitchen surfaces.2C. sakazakii was recovered from 21 homes. Most of the positive cultures were from sinks, counter tops, and used dishcloths. Cronobacter has also been cultured from a variety of dried food items, including powdered milk, herbal tea, and starches.
According to the CDC, liquid formula, a product that is sterile until opened, is a safer choice for formula-fed infants who are less than 3 months of age, were born prematurely, or have a compromised immune system. When these infants must be fed powdered formula, preparing it with water heated to at least 158°F or 70°C can kill Cronobacter organisms. Parents should be instructed to boil water and let it cool for about 5 minutes before using it to mix formula.
While most cases of Cronobacter in infants have been epidemiologically linked to consumption of powdered formula, sporadic case reports describe infection in infants fed expressed breast milk. In one report, identical bacterial isolates were recovered from expressed milk fed to an infected infant and the breast pump used to express the milk.3
Moms who express milk should be instructed in proper breast pump hygiene, including washing hands thoroughly before handling breast pumps; disassembling and cleaning breast pumps kits after each use, either in hot soapy water with a dedicated brush and basin or in the dishwasher; air drying on a clean surface; and sanitizing at least daily by boiling, steaming, or using a dishwasher’s sanitize cycle.
Health care providers are encouraged to report Cronobacter cases to their state or local health departments.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Strysko J et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):857-65.
2. Kilonzo-Nthenge A et al. J Food Protect 2012;75(8):1512-7.
3. Bowen A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:761-2.
A 6-month-old boy presented with 2 days of looser-than-normal stools without blood or mucous. Before the onset of diarrhea, he had been fed at least two bottles of an infant formula identified in a national recall. His mom requested testing for Cronobacter sakazakii.
In mid-February, Abbott Nutrition recalled specific lots of powdered formula produced at one Michigan manufacturing facility because of possible Cronobacter contamination. To date, a public health investigation has identified four infants in three states who developed Cronobacter infection after consuming formula that was part of the recall. Two of the infants died.
As media reports urged families to search their kitchens for containers of the implicated formula and return them for a refund, worried parents reached out to pediatric care providers for advice.
Cronobacter sakazakii and other Cronobacter species are Gram-negative environmental organisms that occasionally cause bacteremia and meningitis in young infants. Although these infections are not subject to mandatory reporting in most states, laboratory-based surveillance suggests that 18 cases occur annually in the United States (0.49 cases/100,00 infants).
While early reports in the literature described cases in hospitalized, preterm infants, infections also occur in the community and in children born at or near term. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review of domestic and international cases identified 183 children <12 months of age between 1961 and 2018 described as diagnosed with Cronobacter bacteremia or meningitis.1 Of the 79 U.S. cases, 34 occurred in term infants and 50 were community onset. Most cases occurred in the first month of life; the oldest child was 35 days of age at the onset of symptoms. Meningitis was more likely in infants born close to term and who were not hospitalized at the time of infection. The majority of infants for whom a feeding history was available had consumed powdered formula.
Back in the exam room, the 6-month-old was examined and found to be vigorous and well-appearing with normal vital signs and no signs of dehydration. The infant’s pediatrician found no clinical indication to perform a blood culture or lumbar puncture, the tests used to diagnose invasive Cronobacter infection. She explained that stool cultures are not recommended, as Cronobacter does not usually cause diarrhea in infants and finding the bacteria in the stool may represent colonization rather than infection.
The pediatrician did take the opportunity to talk to the mom about her formula preparation practices and shared a handout. Powdered formula isn’t sterile, but it is safe for most infants when prepared according to manufacturer’s directions. Contamination of formula during or after preparation can also result in Cronobacter infection in vulnerable infants.
The mom was surprised – and unhappy – to learn that Cronobacter could be lurking in her kitchen. More than a decade ago, investigators visited 78 households in Tennessee and cultured multiple kitchen surfaces.2C. sakazakii was recovered from 21 homes. Most of the positive cultures were from sinks, counter tops, and used dishcloths. Cronobacter has also been cultured from a variety of dried food items, including powdered milk, herbal tea, and starches.
According to the CDC, liquid formula, a product that is sterile until opened, is a safer choice for formula-fed infants who are less than 3 months of age, were born prematurely, or have a compromised immune system. When these infants must be fed powdered formula, preparing it with water heated to at least 158°F or 70°C can kill Cronobacter organisms. Parents should be instructed to boil water and let it cool for about 5 minutes before using it to mix formula.
While most cases of Cronobacter in infants have been epidemiologically linked to consumption of powdered formula, sporadic case reports describe infection in infants fed expressed breast milk. In one report, identical bacterial isolates were recovered from expressed milk fed to an infected infant and the breast pump used to express the milk.3
Moms who express milk should be instructed in proper breast pump hygiene, including washing hands thoroughly before handling breast pumps; disassembling and cleaning breast pumps kits after each use, either in hot soapy water with a dedicated brush and basin or in the dishwasher; air drying on a clean surface; and sanitizing at least daily by boiling, steaming, or using a dishwasher’s sanitize cycle.
Health care providers are encouraged to report Cronobacter cases to their state or local health departments.
Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Strysko J et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):857-65.
2. Kilonzo-Nthenge A et al. J Food Protect 2012;75(8):1512-7.
3. Bowen A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:761-2.
Mercury and other risks of cosmetic skin lighteners
Skin hyperpigmentation – whether it is caused by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne or trauma to the skin, melasma, autoimmune disorders, or disorders of pigmentation – is a condition where treatment is commonly sought after in dermatology offices. Topical products used to fade hyperpigmented areas of the skin have long been used around the world, and because of safety concerns, regulations aimed at reducing potential harm or adverse effects caused by certain ingredients in these products are increasing in different countries.
For example, while extremely effective at treating most forms of hyperpigmentation, hydroquinone has been definitively linked to ochronosis, kojic acid has been linked to contact dermatitis in humans, and acid peels and retinoids are associated with irritant dermatitis, disruption of the skin barrier, and photosensitivity. In animal studies, licorice root extract has been linked to endocrine and other organ system irregularities.
Kojic acid was banned in Japan in 2003, and subsequently in South Korea and Switzerland because of concerns over animal studies indicating that its fungal metabolite might be carcinogenic (. Hydroquinone is classified as a drug and has been banned for use in cosmetic products in Japan, the European Union, Australia, and several African nations since at least 2006 because of concerns over adrenal gland dysregulation and high levels of mercury in hydroquinone products in those countries. In Africa specifically, South Africa banned all but 2% hydroquinone in 1983, the Ivory Coast banned all skin whitening creams in 2015, and in 2016, Ghana initiated a ban on certain skin products containing hydroquinone.
The United States followed suit in February 2020 with the Food and Drug Administration introducing a ban on all OTC hydroquinone-containing products because of concerns over carcinogenicity in animal studies (which has not been shown in human studies to date). The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security” (CARES) Act signed in March 2020 then made the changes effective by halting the sale of OTC hydroquinone products in the United States as of September 2020.
Mercury concerns
Despite these bans, hydroquinone continues to be sold in cosmetics and OTC products around the world and online. And despite being banned or limited in these products, in particular. Mercury has been used in cosmetic products as a skin lightening agent (on its own) and as a preservative.
Mercury has been shown to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, as well as cytotoxic to the renal and endocrine systems, causes reproductive toxicity, and may be bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans. There is particular concern regarding the risks of exposure in pregnant women and babies because of potential harm to the developing brain and nervous system. Initial signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning include irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, memory problems, depression, numbness and tingling in the hands, feet, or around the mouth.
Organizations such as the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) – an international coalition of public interest environmental and health nongovernmental organizations from more than 55 countries, focused on eliminating the use, release, and exposure to mercury – have been working to help ensure safety and mercury levels are below the threshold deemed allowable in hydroquinone-containing products.
On March 10, the ZMWG published the results of a new study demonstrating that skin lighteners containing mercury are still being sold online, despite bans and safety concerns. Ebay, Amazon, Shopee, Jiji, and Flipkart are among the websites still selling high mercury–containing skin lightener products. Some of them were the same offenders selling the banned products in 2019. Of the 271 online products tested from 17 countries, nearly half contained over 1 ppm of mercury, which is the legal limit that has been established by most governments and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Based on their packaging, the majority of these products were manufactured in Asia, most often in Pakistan (43%), Thailand (8%), China (6%), and Taiwan (4%), according to the report.
In ZMWG’s prior publications, mercury concentrations reported in some of these products ranged from 93 ppm to over 16,000 ppm. Even higher concentrations have been reported by other entities. And according to a World Health Organization November 2019 report, mercury-containing skin lightening products have been manufactured in many countries and areas, including Bangladesh, China, Dominican Republic Hong Kong SAR (China), Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the United States. According to the ZMWG, 137 countries have committed to the Minamata Convention to phase out and limit mercury, including in cosmetics.
Despite bans on some of these products, consumers in the United States and other countries with bans and restrictions are still at risk of exposure to mercury-containing skin lighteners because of online sales. Hopefully, the work of the ZMWG and similar entities will continue to help limit potentially harmful exposures to mercury, while maintaining access to safe and effective methods to treat hyperpigmentation.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Lily Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
Skin hyperpigmentation – whether it is caused by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne or trauma to the skin, melasma, autoimmune disorders, or disorders of pigmentation – is a condition where treatment is commonly sought after in dermatology offices. Topical products used to fade hyperpigmented areas of the skin have long been used around the world, and because of safety concerns, regulations aimed at reducing potential harm or adverse effects caused by certain ingredients in these products are increasing in different countries.
For example, while extremely effective at treating most forms of hyperpigmentation, hydroquinone has been definitively linked to ochronosis, kojic acid has been linked to contact dermatitis in humans, and acid peels and retinoids are associated with irritant dermatitis, disruption of the skin barrier, and photosensitivity. In animal studies, licorice root extract has been linked to endocrine and other organ system irregularities.
Kojic acid was banned in Japan in 2003, and subsequently in South Korea and Switzerland because of concerns over animal studies indicating that its fungal metabolite might be carcinogenic (. Hydroquinone is classified as a drug and has been banned for use in cosmetic products in Japan, the European Union, Australia, and several African nations since at least 2006 because of concerns over adrenal gland dysregulation and high levels of mercury in hydroquinone products in those countries. In Africa specifically, South Africa banned all but 2% hydroquinone in 1983, the Ivory Coast banned all skin whitening creams in 2015, and in 2016, Ghana initiated a ban on certain skin products containing hydroquinone.
The United States followed suit in February 2020 with the Food and Drug Administration introducing a ban on all OTC hydroquinone-containing products because of concerns over carcinogenicity in animal studies (which has not been shown in human studies to date). The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security” (CARES) Act signed in March 2020 then made the changes effective by halting the sale of OTC hydroquinone products in the United States as of September 2020.
Mercury concerns
Despite these bans, hydroquinone continues to be sold in cosmetics and OTC products around the world and online. And despite being banned or limited in these products, in particular. Mercury has been used in cosmetic products as a skin lightening agent (on its own) and as a preservative.
Mercury has been shown to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, as well as cytotoxic to the renal and endocrine systems, causes reproductive toxicity, and may be bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans. There is particular concern regarding the risks of exposure in pregnant women and babies because of potential harm to the developing brain and nervous system. Initial signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning include irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, memory problems, depression, numbness and tingling in the hands, feet, or around the mouth.
Organizations such as the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) – an international coalition of public interest environmental and health nongovernmental organizations from more than 55 countries, focused on eliminating the use, release, and exposure to mercury – have been working to help ensure safety and mercury levels are below the threshold deemed allowable in hydroquinone-containing products.
On March 10, the ZMWG published the results of a new study demonstrating that skin lighteners containing mercury are still being sold online, despite bans and safety concerns. Ebay, Amazon, Shopee, Jiji, and Flipkart are among the websites still selling high mercury–containing skin lightener products. Some of them were the same offenders selling the banned products in 2019. Of the 271 online products tested from 17 countries, nearly half contained over 1 ppm of mercury, which is the legal limit that has been established by most governments and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Based on their packaging, the majority of these products were manufactured in Asia, most often in Pakistan (43%), Thailand (8%), China (6%), and Taiwan (4%), according to the report.
In ZMWG’s prior publications, mercury concentrations reported in some of these products ranged from 93 ppm to over 16,000 ppm. Even higher concentrations have been reported by other entities. And according to a World Health Organization November 2019 report, mercury-containing skin lightening products have been manufactured in many countries and areas, including Bangladesh, China, Dominican Republic Hong Kong SAR (China), Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the United States. According to the ZMWG, 137 countries have committed to the Minamata Convention to phase out and limit mercury, including in cosmetics.
Despite bans on some of these products, consumers in the United States and other countries with bans and restrictions are still at risk of exposure to mercury-containing skin lighteners because of online sales. Hopefully, the work of the ZMWG and similar entities will continue to help limit potentially harmful exposures to mercury, while maintaining access to safe and effective methods to treat hyperpigmentation.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Lily Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
Skin hyperpigmentation – whether it is caused by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne or trauma to the skin, melasma, autoimmune disorders, or disorders of pigmentation – is a condition where treatment is commonly sought after in dermatology offices. Topical products used to fade hyperpigmented areas of the skin have long been used around the world, and because of safety concerns, regulations aimed at reducing potential harm or adverse effects caused by certain ingredients in these products are increasing in different countries.
For example, while extremely effective at treating most forms of hyperpigmentation, hydroquinone has been definitively linked to ochronosis, kojic acid has been linked to contact dermatitis in humans, and acid peels and retinoids are associated with irritant dermatitis, disruption of the skin barrier, and photosensitivity. In animal studies, licorice root extract has been linked to endocrine and other organ system irregularities.
Kojic acid was banned in Japan in 2003, and subsequently in South Korea and Switzerland because of concerns over animal studies indicating that its fungal metabolite might be carcinogenic (. Hydroquinone is classified as a drug and has been banned for use in cosmetic products in Japan, the European Union, Australia, and several African nations since at least 2006 because of concerns over adrenal gland dysregulation and high levels of mercury in hydroquinone products in those countries. In Africa specifically, South Africa banned all but 2% hydroquinone in 1983, the Ivory Coast banned all skin whitening creams in 2015, and in 2016, Ghana initiated a ban on certain skin products containing hydroquinone.
The United States followed suit in February 2020 with the Food and Drug Administration introducing a ban on all OTC hydroquinone-containing products because of concerns over carcinogenicity in animal studies (which has not been shown in human studies to date). The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security” (CARES) Act signed in March 2020 then made the changes effective by halting the sale of OTC hydroquinone products in the United States as of September 2020.
Mercury concerns
Despite these bans, hydroquinone continues to be sold in cosmetics and OTC products around the world and online. And despite being banned or limited in these products, in particular. Mercury has been used in cosmetic products as a skin lightening agent (on its own) and as a preservative.
Mercury has been shown to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, as well as cytotoxic to the renal and endocrine systems, causes reproductive toxicity, and may be bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans. There is particular concern regarding the risks of exposure in pregnant women and babies because of potential harm to the developing brain and nervous system. Initial signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning include irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, memory problems, depression, numbness and tingling in the hands, feet, or around the mouth.
Organizations such as the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) – an international coalition of public interest environmental and health nongovernmental organizations from more than 55 countries, focused on eliminating the use, release, and exposure to mercury – have been working to help ensure safety and mercury levels are below the threshold deemed allowable in hydroquinone-containing products.
On March 10, the ZMWG published the results of a new study demonstrating that skin lighteners containing mercury are still being sold online, despite bans and safety concerns. Ebay, Amazon, Shopee, Jiji, and Flipkart are among the websites still selling high mercury–containing skin lightener products. Some of them were the same offenders selling the banned products in 2019. Of the 271 online products tested from 17 countries, nearly half contained over 1 ppm of mercury, which is the legal limit that has been established by most governments and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Based on their packaging, the majority of these products were manufactured in Asia, most often in Pakistan (43%), Thailand (8%), China (6%), and Taiwan (4%), according to the report.
In ZMWG’s prior publications, mercury concentrations reported in some of these products ranged from 93 ppm to over 16,000 ppm. Even higher concentrations have been reported by other entities. And according to a World Health Organization November 2019 report, mercury-containing skin lightening products have been manufactured in many countries and areas, including Bangladesh, China, Dominican Republic Hong Kong SAR (China), Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the United States. According to the ZMWG, 137 countries have committed to the Minamata Convention to phase out and limit mercury, including in cosmetics.
Despite bans on some of these products, consumers in the United States and other countries with bans and restrictions are still at risk of exposure to mercury-containing skin lighteners because of online sales. Hopefully, the work of the ZMWG and similar entities will continue to help limit potentially harmful exposures to mercury, while maintaining access to safe and effective methods to treat hyperpigmentation.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Lily Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
A 31-year-old female presented with a burning rash on upper arms, groin, and axillae
The exact cause is unknown, but possible causes include medications, dental amalgam fillings, or an autoimmune reaction. Drugs implicated in causing LP include beta-blockers, methyldopa, penicillamine, quinidine, and quinine. A meta-analysis of case-control studies show a statistically significant association between hepatitis C infection and LP patients; thus, all patients presenting with LP should be screened for hepatitis.1 Individuals of all age groups and races can be affected by LP, but it is predominantly observed in middle-aged adults. Women are also twice as likely to get oral lichen planus.2
Atrophic lichen planus, the least common form of LP, presents as flat, violaceous papules with an atrophic, pale center. Although these papules can be found anywhere on the body, they most commonly affect the trunk and/or legs on areas of the skin previously affected by classical lichen planus.3 In most cases, LP is diagnosed by observing its clinical features. A biopsy is recommended to confirm the diagnosis for more atypical cases.
Histopathology reveals thinning of the epidermis with flattening of the rete ridges, vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer, and a lichenoid mononuclear infiltrate in the papillary dermis.
If the patient is diagnosed with LP but experiences no symptoms, treatment is not needed as LP may resolve spontaneously within 1-2 years. Recurrences are common, however. Lesions may heal with hyperpigmentation. Possible treatments that can help relieve symptoms of pruritus are high potency topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and antihistamines. In more severe and widespread cases, lesions may respond well to systemic corticosteroids or intralesional steroid injections.4 Phototherapy is reported to be effective as well. Acitretin, isotretinoin, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and mycophenolate mofetil are all described in the literature. It is important to note that LP on mucous membranes may be more persistent and resistant to treatment.1
In this patient, a punch biopsy was performed, confirming the diagnosis. The patient was treated with topical and intralesional steroids, as well as a course of prednisone, and her lesions improved with treatment. Hepatitis serologies were negative.
This case and photo were submitted by Ms. Erras of the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Sateesh, of San Diego Family Dermatology, and edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Usatine R, Tinitigan M. Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jul 1;84(1):53-602.
2. Lichen planus, Johns Hopkins Medicine. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
3. Atrophic lichen planus, Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
4. ”Atrophic lichen planus,” Medscape, 2004 Feb 1. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
The exact cause is unknown, but possible causes include medications, dental amalgam fillings, or an autoimmune reaction. Drugs implicated in causing LP include beta-blockers, methyldopa, penicillamine, quinidine, and quinine. A meta-analysis of case-control studies show a statistically significant association between hepatitis C infection and LP patients; thus, all patients presenting with LP should be screened for hepatitis.1 Individuals of all age groups and races can be affected by LP, but it is predominantly observed in middle-aged adults. Women are also twice as likely to get oral lichen planus.2
Atrophic lichen planus, the least common form of LP, presents as flat, violaceous papules with an atrophic, pale center. Although these papules can be found anywhere on the body, they most commonly affect the trunk and/or legs on areas of the skin previously affected by classical lichen planus.3 In most cases, LP is diagnosed by observing its clinical features. A biopsy is recommended to confirm the diagnosis for more atypical cases.
Histopathology reveals thinning of the epidermis with flattening of the rete ridges, vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer, and a lichenoid mononuclear infiltrate in the papillary dermis.
If the patient is diagnosed with LP but experiences no symptoms, treatment is not needed as LP may resolve spontaneously within 1-2 years. Recurrences are common, however. Lesions may heal with hyperpigmentation. Possible treatments that can help relieve symptoms of pruritus are high potency topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and antihistamines. In more severe and widespread cases, lesions may respond well to systemic corticosteroids or intralesional steroid injections.4 Phototherapy is reported to be effective as well. Acitretin, isotretinoin, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and mycophenolate mofetil are all described in the literature. It is important to note that LP on mucous membranes may be more persistent and resistant to treatment.1
In this patient, a punch biopsy was performed, confirming the diagnosis. The patient was treated with topical and intralesional steroids, as well as a course of prednisone, and her lesions improved with treatment. Hepatitis serologies were negative.
This case and photo were submitted by Ms. Erras of the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Sateesh, of San Diego Family Dermatology, and edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Usatine R, Tinitigan M. Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jul 1;84(1):53-602.
2. Lichen planus, Johns Hopkins Medicine. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
3. Atrophic lichen planus, Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
4. ”Atrophic lichen planus,” Medscape, 2004 Feb 1. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
The exact cause is unknown, but possible causes include medications, dental amalgam fillings, or an autoimmune reaction. Drugs implicated in causing LP include beta-blockers, methyldopa, penicillamine, quinidine, and quinine. A meta-analysis of case-control studies show a statistically significant association between hepatitis C infection and LP patients; thus, all patients presenting with LP should be screened for hepatitis.1 Individuals of all age groups and races can be affected by LP, but it is predominantly observed in middle-aged adults. Women are also twice as likely to get oral lichen planus.2
Atrophic lichen planus, the least common form of LP, presents as flat, violaceous papules with an atrophic, pale center. Although these papules can be found anywhere on the body, they most commonly affect the trunk and/or legs on areas of the skin previously affected by classical lichen planus.3 In most cases, LP is diagnosed by observing its clinical features. A biopsy is recommended to confirm the diagnosis for more atypical cases.
Histopathology reveals thinning of the epidermis with flattening of the rete ridges, vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer, and a lichenoid mononuclear infiltrate in the papillary dermis.
If the patient is diagnosed with LP but experiences no symptoms, treatment is not needed as LP may resolve spontaneously within 1-2 years. Recurrences are common, however. Lesions may heal with hyperpigmentation. Possible treatments that can help relieve symptoms of pruritus are high potency topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and antihistamines. In more severe and widespread cases, lesions may respond well to systemic corticosteroids or intralesional steroid injections.4 Phototherapy is reported to be effective as well. Acitretin, isotretinoin, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and mycophenolate mofetil are all described in the literature. It is important to note that LP on mucous membranes may be more persistent and resistant to treatment.1
In this patient, a punch biopsy was performed, confirming the diagnosis. The patient was treated with topical and intralesional steroids, as well as a course of prednisone, and her lesions improved with treatment. Hepatitis serologies were negative.
This case and photo were submitted by Ms. Erras of the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Sateesh, of San Diego Family Dermatology, and edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Usatine R, Tinitigan M. Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jul 1;84(1):53-602.
2. Lichen planus, Johns Hopkins Medicine. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
3. Atrophic lichen planus, Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
4. ”Atrophic lichen planus,” Medscape, 2004 Feb 1. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]
Betamethasone cream did not alleviate symptoms.