Opinion

In a recent issue of Pediatric News, the Child Psychiatry Consult column featured an excellent discussion by Dr. David Rettew of some new research into a possible association between excessive crying in infancy and emotional problems later in childhood. This longitudinal study of almost 5,000 children included an assessment at 3 months and an MRI at age 10, which found that the infants who were excessive criers also had smaller amygdala. While the orders of magnitude of the researchers’ observations is small, it is interesting that the mothers of excessive criers were slightly more likely to experience mental health problems.

Dr. Rettew wisely cautions us to take note of this study’s findings but avoid overreacting. If indeed excessive crying in infancy is a marker for future problems, at the moment we may want to increase our efforts in helping parents improve their parenting skills using a nonjudgmental approach.

Using Dr. Rettew’s sage advice as a leaping off point, I will add the reminder that we must continue to meet head on the venerable myth that “colic” is a gastrointestinal problem. We must promise to never code out a parental complaint as “colic.” If we want to label it “excessive crying of infancy,” that’s one thing, but using “colic” only serves to perpetuate the myth and all the old, and sometimes dangerous, remedies that continue to cling to it.

Whether we use the term “colicky behavior” or call it “excessive crying,” we must remember these are merely descriptive terms. We have not made a diagnosis and are obligated to keep our minds open to serious and life-threatening conditions that make infants cry excessively — aberrant coronary arteries and urinary obstructions to name just two.

I can’t leave the phenomenon of colic without adding a nickel to the two cents I have already gifted you. When I was in medical school, I am sure I was told something about the amygdala. But, I suspect that I was only expected to recall where it lived. In the 50+ years since that brief encounter, other folks have learned much more. Prompted by this study, I searched what is known about small amygdala. Turns out that sleep deprivation has been associated with smaller amygdala, as has episodic migraine headaches, both in adults.

Regular readers of Letters from Maine can already smell where this is going. For decades I have believed that both excessive crying in infancy and episodic migraine in children are associated with, and my bias would say “caused” by, sleep deprivation. We learned from this study that mothers of excessively crying infants are more likely to have mental health problems. And, I will add that at least one study has shown that mothers and fathers of excessively crying infants are more likely to suffer from migraines.

Whether you join me in my biased interpretation isn’t important. What this study tells us is that there is likely to be something going on in infancy that may be a marker for future mental health problems. Were these children born with small or vulnerable amygdala? Did poor sleep hygiene contribute to the problem by interfering with the growth of their amygdala? I can envision studies that could provide some clarity. I’m not sure many parents would agree to have their happy and well-slept 3-month-olds slid into an MRI tube to serve as controls. But, I wouldn’t be surprised that we could find a sizable number of sleep deprived and frazzled parents of colicky infants who would agree if we told them it might help find an answer.
 

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 a recent issue of Pediatric News, the Child Psychiatry Consult column featured an excellent discussion by Dr. David Rettew of some new research into a possible association between excessive crying in infancy and emotional problems later in childhood. This longitudinal study of almost 5,000 children included an assessment at 3 months and an MRI at age 10, which found that the infants who were excessive criers also had smaller amygdala. While the orders of magnitude of the researchers’ observations is small, it is interesting that the mothers of excessive criers were slightly more likely to experience mental health problems.

Dr. Rettew wisely cautions us to take note of this study’s findings but avoid overreacting. If indeed excessive crying in infancy is a marker for future problems, at the moment we may want to increase our efforts in helping parents improve their parenting skills using a nonjudgmental approach.

Using Dr. Rettew’s sage advice as a leaping off point, I will add the reminder that we must continue to meet head on the venerable myth that “colic” is a gastrointestinal problem. We must promise to never code out a parental complaint as “colic.” If we want to label it “excessive crying of infancy,” that’s one thing, but using “colic” only serves to perpetuate the myth and all the old, and sometimes dangerous, remedies that continue to cling to it.

Whether we use the term “colicky behavior” or call it “excessive crying,” we must remember these are merely descriptive terms. We have not made a diagnosis and are obligated to keep our minds open to serious and life-threatening conditions that make infants cry excessively — aberrant coronary arteries and urinary obstructions to name just two.

I can’t leave the phenomenon of colic without adding a nickel to the two cents I have already gifted you. When I was in medical school, I am sure I was told something about the amygdala. But, I suspect that I was only expected to recall where it lived. In the 50+ years since that brief encounter, other folks have learned much more. Prompted by this study, I searched what is known about small amygdala. Turns out that sleep deprivation has been associated with smaller amygdala, as has episodic migraine headaches, both in adults.

Regular readers of Letters from Maine can already smell where this is going. For decades I have believed that both excessive crying in infancy and episodic migraine in children are associated with, and my bias would say “caused” by, sleep deprivation. We learned from this study that mothers of excessively crying infants are more likely to have mental health problems. And, I will add that at least one study has shown that mothers and fathers of excessively crying infants are more likely to suffer from migraines.

Whether you join me in my biased interpretation isn’t important. What this study tells us is that there is likely to be something going on in infancy that may be a marker for future mental health problems. Were these children born with small or vulnerable amygdala? Did poor sleep hygiene contribute to the problem by interfering with the growth of their amygdala? I can envision studies that could provide some clarity. I’m not sure many parents would agree to have their happy and well-slept 3-month-olds slid into an MRI tube to serve as controls. But, I wouldn’t be surprised that we could find a sizable number of sleep deprived and frazzled parents of colicky infants who would agree if we told them it might help find an answer.
 

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 a recent issue of Pediatric News, the Child Psychiatry Consult column featured an excellent discussion by Dr. David Rettew of some new research into a possible association between excessive crying in infancy and emotional problems later in childhood. This longitudinal study of almost 5,000 children included an assessment at 3 months and an MRI at age 10, which found that the infants who were excessive criers also had smaller amygdala. While the orders of magnitude of the researchers’ observations is small, it is interesting that the mothers of excessive criers were slightly more likely to experience mental health problems.

Dr. Rettew wisely cautions us to take note of this study’s findings but avoid overreacting. If indeed excessive crying in infancy is a marker for future problems, at the moment we may want to increase our efforts in helping parents improve their parenting skills using a nonjudgmental approach.

Using Dr. Rettew’s sage advice as a leaping off point, I will add the reminder that we must continue to meet head on the venerable myth that “colic” is a gastrointestinal problem. We must promise to never code out a parental complaint as “colic.” If we want to label it “excessive crying of infancy,” that’s one thing, but using “colic” only serves to perpetuate the myth and all the old, and sometimes dangerous, remedies that continue to cling to it.

Whether we use the term “colicky behavior” or call it “excessive crying,” we must remember these are merely descriptive terms. We have not made a diagnosis and are obligated to keep our minds open to serious and life-threatening conditions that make infants cry excessively — aberrant coronary arteries and urinary obstructions to name just two.

I can’t leave the phenomenon of colic without adding a nickel to the two cents I have already gifted you. When I was in medical school, I am sure I was told something about the amygdala. But, I suspect that I was only expected to recall where it lived. In the 50+ years since that brief encounter, other folks have learned much more. Prompted by this study, I searched what is known about small amygdala. Turns out that sleep deprivation has been associated with smaller amygdala, as has episodic migraine headaches, both in adults.

Regular readers of Letters from Maine can already smell where this is going. For decades I have believed that both excessive crying in infancy and episodic migraine in children are associated with, and my bias would say “caused” by, sleep deprivation. We learned from this study that mothers of excessively crying infants are more likely to have mental health problems. And, I will add that at least one study has shown that mothers and fathers of excessively crying infants are more likely to suffer from migraines.

Whether you join me in my biased interpretation isn’t important. What this study tells us is that there is likely to be something going on in infancy that may be a marker for future mental health problems. Were these children born with small or vulnerable amygdala? Did poor sleep hygiene contribute to the problem by interfering with the growth of their amygdala? I can envision studies that could provide some clarity. I’m not sure many parents would agree to have their happy and well-slept 3-month-olds slid into an MRI tube to serve as controls. But, I wouldn’t be surprised that we could find a sizable number of sleep deprived and frazzled parents of colicky infants who would agree if we told them it might help find an answer.
 

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].

Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals are a stepchild in the bizarre mishmash of the U.S. healthcare system. They’re best known (often justifiably so) for rather cantankerous patients, rigid rules, and other oddities (such as patients being able to go on leave and come back).

The majority of American doctors, including myself, did at least part of our training at a VA and have no shortage of stories about them. One I worked at (Omaha VA) was powered by its own nuclear reactor in the basement (no, really, it was, though sadly it’s since been taken out).

VA hospitals, in general, are no-frills — linoleum floors, no piano player in the lobby, very few private rooms, and occasionally in the news for scandals like the one at my hometown Carl T. Hayden VA hospital (I trained there, too).

Yet, a recent study found VA hospitals to be surprisingly efficient compared with the private sector. Their focus on patient care, rather than profits, allows them to run with 8% fewer administrative staff since they generally don’t have to deal with insurance billings, denials, and other paperwork (they also don’t have to deal with shareholders and investor demands or ridiculous CEO salaries, though the study didn’t address that).

On a national scale, this would mean roughly 900,000 fewer administrative jobs in the private sector. Granted, that also would mean those people would have to find other jobs, but let’s look at the patient side. If you had 900,000 fewer desk workers, you’d have the money to hire more nurses, respiratory techs, therapists, and other people directly involved in patient care. You’d also need a lot less office space, which further brings down overhead.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the current medical business is in marketing — how many ads do you see each day for different hospitals in your area? — and upcoding to extract more money from each billing. Neither of these has any clinical value on the patient side of things.

You don’t have to look back too far (2020) for the study that found U.S. healthcare spent four times as much money ($812 billion) per capita than our northern neighbors.

And, for all the jokes we make about the VA (myself included), a study last year found its care was on par (or even better than) most hospitals .

I’m not saying the VA is perfect. All of us who worked there can think of times it wasn’t. But we also remember plenty of issues we’ve had at other places we’ve practiced, too.

Maybe it’s time to stop laughing at the VA and realize they’re doing something right — and learn from it to make healthcare better at the other 6,000 or so hospitals in the U.S.
 

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

Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals are a stepchild in the bizarre mishmash of the U.S. healthcare system. They’re best known (often justifiably so) for rather cantankerous patients, rigid rules, and other oddities (such as patients being able to go on leave and come back).

The majority of American doctors, including myself, did at least part of our training at a VA and have no shortage of stories about them. One I worked at (Omaha VA) was powered by its own nuclear reactor in the basement (no, really, it was, though sadly it’s since been taken out).

VA hospitals, in general, are no-frills — linoleum floors, no piano player in the lobby, very few private rooms, and occasionally in the news for scandals like the one at my hometown Carl T. Hayden VA hospital (I trained there, too).

Yet, a recent study found VA hospitals to be surprisingly efficient compared with the private sector. Their focus on patient care, rather than profits, allows them to run with 8% fewer administrative staff since they generally don’t have to deal with insurance billings, denials, and other paperwork (they also don’t have to deal with shareholders and investor demands or ridiculous CEO salaries, though the study didn’t address that).

On a national scale, this would mean roughly 900,000 fewer administrative jobs in the private sector. Granted, that also would mean those people would have to find other jobs, but let’s look at the patient side. If you had 900,000 fewer desk workers, you’d have the money to hire more nurses, respiratory techs, therapists, and other people directly involved in patient care. You’d also need a lot less office space, which further brings down overhead.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the current medical business is in marketing — how many ads do you see each day for different hospitals in your area? — and upcoding to extract more money from each billing. Neither of these has any clinical value on the patient side of things.

You don’t have to look back too far (2020) for the study that found U.S. healthcare spent four times as much money ($812 billion) per capita than our northern neighbors.

And, for all the jokes we make about the VA (myself included), a study last year found its care was on par (or even better than) most hospitals .

I’m not saying the VA is perfect. All of us who worked there can think of times it wasn’t. But we also remember plenty of issues we’ve had at other places we’ve practiced, too.

Maybe it’s time to stop laughing at the VA and realize they’re doing something right — and learn from it to make healthcare better at the other 6,000 or so hospitals in the U.S.
 

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

Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals are a stepchild in the bizarre mishmash of the U.S. healthcare system. They’re best known (often justifiably so) for rather cantankerous patients, rigid rules, and other oddities (such as patients being able to go on leave and come back).

The majority of American doctors, including myself, did at least part of our training at a VA and have no shortage of stories about them. One I worked at (Omaha VA) was powered by its own nuclear reactor in the basement (no, really, it was, though sadly it’s since been taken out).

VA hospitals, in general, are no-frills — linoleum floors, no piano player in the lobby, very few private rooms, and occasionally in the news for scandals like the one at my hometown Carl T. Hayden VA hospital (I trained there, too).

Yet, a recent study found VA hospitals to be surprisingly efficient compared with the private sector. Their focus on patient care, rather than profits, allows them to run with 8% fewer administrative staff since they generally don’t have to deal with insurance billings, denials, and other paperwork (they also don’t have to deal with shareholders and investor demands or ridiculous CEO salaries, though the study didn’t address that).

On a national scale, this would mean roughly 900,000 fewer administrative jobs in the private sector. Granted, that also would mean those people would have to find other jobs, but let’s look at the patient side. If you had 900,000 fewer desk workers, you’d have the money to hire more nurses, respiratory techs, therapists, and other people directly involved in patient care. You’d also need a lot less office space, which further brings down overhead.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the current medical business is in marketing — how many ads do you see each day for different hospitals in your area? — and upcoding to extract more money from each billing. Neither of these has any clinical value on the patient side of things.

You don’t have to look back too far (2020) for the study that found U.S. healthcare spent four times as much money ($812 billion) per capita than our northern neighbors.

And, for all the jokes we make about the VA (myself included), a study last year found its care was on par (or even better than) most hospitals .

I’m not saying the VA is perfect. All of us who worked there can think of times it wasn’t. But we also remember plenty of issues we’ve had at other places we’ve practiced, too.

Maybe it’s time to stop laughing at the VA and realize they’re doing something right — and learn from it to make healthcare better at the other 6,000 or so hospitals in the U.S.
 

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

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.

These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.

His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.

Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.

A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.

And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.

This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.

One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.

Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?

Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.

It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.

Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.

Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.

Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.

Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).

Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”

We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.

Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.

I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.

Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.

But it’s one thing to say a superstition is silly. It’s another to actually convince your primeval self of it.

I’m going to knock on wood now.

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

Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.

These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.

His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.

Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.

A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.

And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.

This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.

One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.

Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?

Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.

It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.

Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.

Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.

Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.

Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).

Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”

We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.

Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.

I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.

Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.

But it’s one thing to say a superstition is silly. It’s another to actually convince your primeval self of it.

I’m going to knock on wood now.

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

Mr. Smith was once a nice guy.

These days, unfortunately, he’s anything but. The ravages of a neurodegenerative disease have left him demented, impulsive, and agitated.

His family is trying to find placement for him, and in the meantime I’m doing my best to keep his behavior controlled. Like many things in medicine, this is as much art as science. A tablet of this, a capsule of that, increase this slightly, add something for PRN use ... a witch’s brew of modern medicine.

Because of his worsening, his wife was calling us several times a week with updates, not in an annoying way but in an “I need help” way. I began answering the phone myself if I saw her number come up, because it was easier and faster for me to deal with her directly, and I knew she wasn’t calling for fun.

A few months ago I stopped a medication that didn’t seem to be doing much and started a different one.

And then things went quiet. His wife’s calls went from 3-4 a week to none.

This worried me. I mean, maybe the new medicine was working. ... but the sudden silence was deafening.

One week went by, then two ... I did a Google search to make sure he and his wife hadn’t died or been in the news.

Of course, I could have picked up the phone and called his wife, but why tempt fate?

Three weeks ... I was sure my MA, who handles far more calls than I do, had probably noticed this, too.

It would have been easy to mention it, but even with 16 years of school and 5 years of medical training, not to mention 3,000-4,000 years of hard-earned science behind me, there was the old grade school notion of jinxing myself. To say something is to invite trouble.

Four weeks. Finally, his wife called in and reached my MA. The medication had been working, but now was wearing off and the dose needed to be adjusted. So we did that.

Afterward I mentioned the time lapse to my MA, that I’d been afraid of jinxing it by saying something to her, and she told me she’d been thinking the same thing.

Funny when you think about it. We’re both educated people, believers in science, and (I hope) intelligent. We’re living in a (by human standards) technologically advanced time.

Yet, the old superstitions are still there, the idea that we somehow have magical control over time, space, random chance, and the actions of others by not talking about a phone call (or the lack of one).

Surprisingly (or maybe not), this is pretty normal. When on call we never say “quiet,” for fear of enraging the mysterious Call Gods. If needed, we use “the Q word.”

We still try not to walk under ladders, avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, carry good luck charms, cross fingers, and fight over wishbones.

Superstitions such as saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when someone sneezes are so ingrained into us that they’re now part of good manners and polite society.

I’ve worked in quite a few hospitals over the years. Not one of them had a room on any floor that ended in 13, always jumping from 12 to 14.

Civilization is roughly 10,000-15,000 years old. We have the internet and can travel to (relatively nearby) space and back. We have probes exploring — and even leaving — our solar system.

But it’s one thing to say a superstition is silly. It’s another to actually convince your primeval self of it.

I’m going to knock on wood now.

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

Since very few of us practice medicine without being either an employer or an employee, we should probably be paying more attention to research in industrial and employee relations, not an area most of us have studied. One of the hot topics for employers in these days of low unemployment is the question of whether to offer free wellness-enhancing programs companywide.

Almost by definition anything “free” has a good public relations aura surrounding it. Recent surveys have shown that a large chunk of the population is feeling stressed. If your boss is offering you a free opportunity to help you feel better about yourself, he/she must understand at least a bit of what you are going through.

From the employer’s standpoint these programs offer the potential for a double win. On one hand, offering a free well-being program is a perk the company can tout as it competes in the tight market for new employees. On the other hand, if the program is effective then the employees will be happier. And we all know that happy workers are more productive and less likely to leave and feed the expensive cycle of hiring and training new workers to replace the unhappy and disgruntled workers who have quit. Even if the employer’s total focus is on the company’s bottom line, offering a wellness program should pay a dividend.

Well ... this may be one of those situations where wishful thinking isn’t going to work. A recent study published in Industrial Relations Journal suggests that these well-being programs, which include employee mental services, may not be living up to their promise. In this large study of nearly 50,00 workers in the United Kingdom, the researcher discovered that workers who had been offered coaching and relaxation classes, internet-based apps, and courses in time management and financial health were “no better off” than their coworkers who had not participated in these programs. In fact, training programs in stress management and resilience appeared to possibly have had a negative effect.

In a New York Times article about this study, the British researcher recommends that employers who are interested in improving their worker’s mental health should turn their attention to “core organizational practices” meaning pay scales, work schedules, and performance reviews.

Not surprisingly, this study has raised some controversy. There are a lot of people invested emotionally and in some cases financially in programs similar to the ones that appeared to be ineffective in this study. Critics argue the study was too short, or too small, or failed to select programs with a proven track record.

Even given these potential flaws, physicians, particularly those who of us who feel they approaching burnout, should take this investigator’s message seriously. Certainly some of us could be doing a better job of building resilience into our lifestyles and may be helped by the kind of well-being programs tested in this study. However, the biggest contribution to the burnout phenomenon is coming from the work environments that are asking too much of even the most resilient among us. This study makes it clear that if healthcare system administrators truly want to help us address burnout, they must make serious and substantive changes in their “core organizational practices” including work schedules, time-gobbling electronic systems, and short staffing. Trotting out a few feel-good mindfulness programs is not going to do the job.

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].

Since very few of us practice medicine without being either an employer or an employee, we should probably be paying more attention to research in industrial and employee relations, not an area most of us have studied. One of the hot topics for employers in these days of low unemployment is the question of whether to offer free wellness-enhancing programs companywide.

Almost by definition anything “free” has a good public relations aura surrounding it. Recent surveys have shown that a large chunk of the population is feeling stressed. If your boss is offering you a free opportunity to help you feel better about yourself, he/she must understand at least a bit of what you are going through.

From the employer’s standpoint these programs offer the potential for a double win. On one hand, offering a free well-being program is a perk the company can tout as it competes in the tight market for new employees. On the other hand, if the program is effective then the employees will be happier. And we all know that happy workers are more productive and less likely to leave and feed the expensive cycle of hiring and training new workers to replace the unhappy and disgruntled workers who have quit. Even if the employer’s total focus is on the company’s bottom line, offering a wellness program should pay a dividend.

Well ... this may be one of those situations where wishful thinking isn’t going to work. A recent study published in Industrial Relations Journal suggests that these well-being programs, which include employee mental services, may not be living up to their promise. In this large study of nearly 50,00 workers in the United Kingdom, the researcher discovered that workers who had been offered coaching and relaxation classes, internet-based apps, and courses in time management and financial health were “no better off” than their coworkers who had not participated in these programs. In fact, training programs in stress management and resilience appeared to possibly have had a negative effect.

In a New York Times article about this study, the British researcher recommends that employers who are interested in improving their worker’s mental health should turn their attention to “core organizational practices” meaning pay scales, work schedules, and performance reviews.

Not surprisingly, this study has raised some controversy. There are a lot of people invested emotionally and in some cases financially in programs similar to the ones that appeared to be ineffective in this study. Critics argue the study was too short, or too small, or failed to select programs with a proven track record.

Even given these potential flaws, physicians, particularly those who of us who feel they approaching burnout, should take this investigator’s message seriously. Certainly some of us could be doing a better job of building resilience into our lifestyles and may be helped by the kind of well-being programs tested in this study. However, the biggest contribution to the burnout phenomenon is coming from the work environments that are asking too much of even the most resilient among us. This study makes it clear that if healthcare system administrators truly want to help us address burnout, they must make serious and substantive changes in their “core organizational practices” including work schedules, time-gobbling electronic systems, and short staffing. Trotting out a few feel-good mindfulness programs is not going to do the job.

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].

Since very few of us practice medicine without being either an employer or an employee, we should probably be paying more attention to research in industrial and employee relations, not an area most of us have studied. One of the hot topics for employers in these days of low unemployment is the question of whether to offer free wellness-enhancing programs companywide.

Almost by definition anything “free” has a good public relations aura surrounding it. Recent surveys have shown that a large chunk of the population is feeling stressed. If your boss is offering you a free opportunity to help you feel better about yourself, he/she must understand at least a bit of what you are going through.

From the employer’s standpoint these programs offer the potential for a double win. On one hand, offering a free well-being program is a perk the company can tout as it competes in the tight market for new employees. On the other hand, if the program is effective then the employees will be happier. And we all know that happy workers are more productive and less likely to leave and feed the expensive cycle of hiring and training new workers to replace the unhappy and disgruntled workers who have quit. Even if the employer’s total focus is on the company’s bottom line, offering a wellness program should pay a dividend.

Well ... this may be one of those situations where wishful thinking isn’t going to work. A recent study published in Industrial Relations Journal suggests that these well-being programs, which include employee mental services, may not be living up to their promise. In this large study of nearly 50,00 workers in the United Kingdom, the researcher discovered that workers who had been offered coaching and relaxation classes, internet-based apps, and courses in time management and financial health were “no better off” than their coworkers who had not participated in these programs. In fact, training programs in stress management and resilience appeared to possibly have had a negative effect.

In a New York Times article about this study, the British researcher recommends that employers who are interested in improving their worker’s mental health should turn their attention to “core organizational practices” meaning pay scales, work schedules, and performance reviews.

Not surprisingly, this study has raised some controversy. There are a lot of people invested emotionally and in some cases financially in programs similar to the ones that appeared to be ineffective in this study. Critics argue the study was too short, or too small, or failed to select programs with a proven track record.

Even given these potential flaws, physicians, particularly those who of us who feel they approaching burnout, should take this investigator’s message seriously. Certainly some of us could be doing a better job of building resilience into our lifestyles and may be helped by the kind of well-being programs tested in this study. However, the biggest contribution to the burnout phenomenon is coming from the work environments that are asking too much of even the most resilient among us. This study makes it clear that if healthcare system administrators truly want to help us address burnout, they must make serious and substantive changes in their “core organizational practices” including work schedules, time-gobbling electronic systems, and short staffing. Trotting out a few feel-good mindfulness programs is not going to do the job.

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].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

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

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

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

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

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

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

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 X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

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 X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

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 X. Write to him at [email protected].

On a recent rainy afternoon I was speed skimming through the pile of publications sitting on the floor next to my Grampy’s chair. A bright patch of color jumped off the gray background of the printed page forcing me to pause and consider the content.

In the right upper corner was a photograph of an attractive Black woman nursing her baby. Her bare arms suggested she might be slightly overweight. She wore a simple off-white head wrap and smiled broadly as she played with her infant’s fingers. The image was a reproduction of a WIC poster encouraging women to take advantage of the program’s breastfeeding support services. The accompanying article from American Academy of Pediatrics offered ten strategies for achieving breastfeeding equity.

United States Department of Agriculture

I must admit that I tend to shy away from discussions of equity because I’ve seldom found them very informative. However, the engaging image of this Black woman breastfeeding led me to read beyond the title.

The first of the strategies listed was “Check you biases.” I will certainly admit to having biases. We all have biases and see and interpret the world through lenses ground and tinted by our experiences and the environment we have inhabited. In the case of breastfeeding, I wasn’t sure where my biases lay. Maybe one of mine is reflected in a hesitancy to actively promote exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months. I prefer a more nuanced approach adjusted to the unique needs and limitations of each family. But I decided to chase down the Implicit Association Test (IAT) suggested in the article. I couldn’t make that link work, but found a long list of subjects on the Harvard Implicit Association Test website. None dealt with breastfeeding, so I chose the one described as Black/White.

If, like me, you have never had your implicit biases assessed by taking an IAT, you might find it interesting. Probably took me about 15 minutes using my laptop. There are a lot of demographic questions then some rapid-fire exercises in which you must provide your first response to a barrage of photos of faces and words. At times I sensed that the test makers were trying to trick me into making associations that I didn’t want to make by the order in which the exercises were presented. At the end I was told that I was a little slow in associating Black faces with positive words.

I’m not sure what this means. After doing a little internet searching I learned that one of the criticisms of the IAT is that, while it may hint at a bias, it is really more important whether you cut with or across that bias. If I acknowledge that where and how I grew up may have left me with some implicit biases, it is more important that I make a strong and honest effort to act independently of those biases.

In full disclosure I must tell you that there was one Black girl in my high school of a thousand students. I have lived and practiced in Maine for 50 years. At less than 2%, we are sixth from the bottom in Black population among other states. However, in the last 5 or 6 years here in Brunswick we have welcomed a large infusion of asylum seekers who come predominantly from Black African countries.

Skimming through the rest of the article, I found it hard to argue with the remaining nine recommendations for promoting breastfeeding, although most of them we not terribly applicable to small community practices. The photo of the Black woman nursing her baby at the top of the page remains as the primary message. The fact that I was drawn to that image is a testament to several of my biases and another example of a picture being worth far more than a thousand words.

I suspect that I’m not alone in appreciating the uniqueness of that image. Until recently, the standard photos of a mother breastfeeding have used trim White women as their models. I suspect and hope this poster will be effective in encouraging Black women to nurse. I urge you all to hang it in your office as a reminder to you and your staff of your biases and assumptions. Don’t bother to take the Implicit Association Test unless you’re retired and have 15 minutes to burn on a rainy afternoon.

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].

On a recent rainy afternoon I was speed skimming through the pile of publications sitting on the floor next to my Grampy’s chair. A bright patch of color jumped off the gray background of the printed page forcing me to pause and consider the content.

In the right upper corner was a photograph of an attractive Black woman nursing her baby. Her bare arms suggested she might be slightly overweight. She wore a simple off-white head wrap and smiled broadly as she played with her infant’s fingers. The image was a reproduction of a WIC poster encouraging women to take advantage of the program’s breastfeeding support services. The accompanying article from American Academy of Pediatrics offered ten strategies for achieving breastfeeding equity.

United States Department of Agriculture

I must admit that I tend to shy away from discussions of equity because I’ve seldom found them very informative. However, the engaging image of this Black woman breastfeeding led me to read beyond the title.

The first of the strategies listed was “Check you biases.” I will certainly admit to having biases. We all have biases and see and interpret the world through lenses ground and tinted by our experiences and the environment we have inhabited. In the case of breastfeeding, I wasn’t sure where my biases lay. Maybe one of mine is reflected in a hesitancy to actively promote exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months. I prefer a more nuanced approach adjusted to the unique needs and limitations of each family. But I decided to chase down the Implicit Association Test (IAT) suggested in the article. I couldn’t make that link work, but found a long list of subjects on the Harvard Implicit Association Test website. None dealt with breastfeeding, so I chose the one described as Black/White.

If, like me, you have never had your implicit biases assessed by taking an IAT, you might find it interesting. Probably took me about 15 minutes using my laptop. There are a lot of demographic questions then some rapid-fire exercises in which you must provide your first response to a barrage of photos of faces and words. At times I sensed that the test makers were trying to trick me into making associations that I didn’t want to make by the order in which the exercises were presented. At the end I was told that I was a little slow in associating Black faces with positive words.

I’m not sure what this means. After doing a little internet searching I learned that one of the criticisms of the IAT is that, while it may hint at a bias, it is really more important whether you cut with or across that bias. If I acknowledge that where and how I grew up may have left me with some implicit biases, it is more important that I make a strong and honest effort to act independently of those biases.

In full disclosure I must tell you that there was one Black girl in my high school of a thousand students. I have lived and practiced in Maine for 50 years. At less than 2%, we are sixth from the bottom in Black population among other states. However, in the last 5 or 6 years here in Brunswick we have welcomed a large infusion of asylum seekers who come predominantly from Black African countries.

Skimming through the rest of the article, I found it hard to argue with the remaining nine recommendations for promoting breastfeeding, although most of them we not terribly applicable to small community practices. The photo of the Black woman nursing her baby at the top of the page remains as the primary message. The fact that I was drawn to that image is a testament to several of my biases and another example of a picture being worth far more than a thousand words.

I suspect that I’m not alone in appreciating the uniqueness of that image. Until recently, the standard photos of a mother breastfeeding have used trim White women as their models. I suspect and hope this poster will be effective in encouraging Black women to nurse. I urge you all to hang it in your office as a reminder to you and your staff of your biases and assumptions. Don’t bother to take the Implicit Association Test unless you’re retired and have 15 minutes to burn on a rainy afternoon.

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].

On a recent rainy afternoon I was speed skimming through the pile of publications sitting on the floor next to my Grampy’s chair. A bright patch of color jumped off the gray background of the printed page forcing me to pause and consider the content.

In the right upper corner was a photograph of an attractive Black woman nursing her baby. Her bare arms suggested she might be slightly overweight. She wore a simple off-white head wrap and smiled broadly as she played with her infant’s fingers. The image was a reproduction of a WIC poster encouraging women to take advantage of the program’s breastfeeding support services. The accompanying article from American Academy of Pediatrics offered ten strategies for achieving breastfeeding equity.

United States Department of Agriculture

I must admit that I tend to shy away from discussions of equity because I’ve seldom found them very informative. However, the engaging image of this Black woman breastfeeding led me to read beyond the title.

The first of the strategies listed was “Check you biases.” I will certainly admit to having biases. We all have biases and see and interpret the world through lenses ground and tinted by our experiences and the environment we have inhabited. In the case of breastfeeding, I wasn’t sure where my biases lay. Maybe one of mine is reflected in a hesitancy to actively promote exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months. I prefer a more nuanced approach adjusted to the unique needs and limitations of each family. But I decided to chase down the Implicit Association Test (IAT) suggested in the article. I couldn’t make that link work, but found a long list of subjects on the Harvard Implicit Association Test website. None dealt with breastfeeding, so I chose the one described as Black/White.

If, like me, you have never had your implicit biases assessed by taking an IAT, you might find it interesting. Probably took me about 15 minutes using my laptop. There are a lot of demographic questions then some rapid-fire exercises in which you must provide your first response to a barrage of photos of faces and words. At times I sensed that the test makers were trying to trick me into making associations that I didn’t want to make by the order in which the exercises were presented. At the end I was told that I was a little slow in associating Black faces with positive words.

I’m not sure what this means. After doing a little internet searching I learned that one of the criticisms of the IAT is that, while it may hint at a bias, it is really more important whether you cut with or across that bias. If I acknowledge that where and how I grew up may have left me with some implicit biases, it is more important that I make a strong and honest effort to act independently of those biases.

In full disclosure I must tell you that there was one Black girl in my high school of a thousand students. I have lived and practiced in Maine for 50 years. At less than 2%, we are sixth from the bottom in Black population among other states. However, in the last 5 or 6 years here in Brunswick we have welcomed a large infusion of asylum seekers who come predominantly from Black African countries.

Skimming through the rest of the article, I found it hard to argue with the remaining nine recommendations for promoting breastfeeding, although most of them we not terribly applicable to small community practices. The photo of the Black woman nursing her baby at the top of the page remains as the primary message. The fact that I was drawn to that image is a testament to several of my biases and another example of a picture being worth far more than a thousand words.

I suspect that I’m not alone in appreciating the uniqueness of that image. Until recently, the standard photos of a mother breastfeeding have used trim White women as their models. I suspect and hope this poster will be effective in encouraging Black women to nurse. I urge you all to hang it in your office as a reminder to you and your staff of your biases and assumptions. Don’t bother to take the Implicit Association Test unless you’re retired and have 15 minutes to burn on a rainy afternoon.

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].

A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.^1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.⁴ In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.⁵ Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.³ It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.^2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.⁷In part 1 of this update on rosemary, the focus will be on chemical constituents, wound healing, anticancer activity, and hair care potential.

Chemical Constituents

The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).¹⁰ Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.⁹ Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.¹⁰

Wound Healing

In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.¹¹

Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.

HUIZENG HU/Moment/Getty Images

The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.¹²

A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.¹³

Anticancer Activity

Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.¹⁴ Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.⁸

The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.¹⁵

Hair Health

Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.¹

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.¹⁶

A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.¹⁷

Conclusion

Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.

2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.

3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.

4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.

5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.

6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.

7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.

8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.

9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.

10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.

11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.

12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.

13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.

14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.

15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.

16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.

17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.

*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.

A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.^1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.⁴ In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.⁵ Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.³ It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.^2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.⁷In part 1 of this update on rosemary, the focus will be on chemical constituents, wound healing, anticancer activity, and hair care potential.

Chemical Constituents

The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).¹⁰ Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.⁹ Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.¹⁰

Wound Healing

In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.¹¹

Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.

HUIZENG HU/Moment/Getty Images

The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.¹²

A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.¹³

Anticancer Activity

Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.¹⁴ Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.⁸

The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.¹⁵

Hair Health

Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.¹

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.¹⁶

A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.¹⁷

Conclusion

Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.

2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.

3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.

4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.

5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.

6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.

7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.

8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.

9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.

10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.

11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.

12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.

13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.

14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.

15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.

16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.

17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.

*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.

A member of the Lamiaceae family, Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary),* an aromatic plant native to the Mediterranean region and now cultivated globally, has been used for centuries in cuisine and medicine, with several well-established biological activities.^1-3 Thought to contribute to preventing hair loss, rosemary oil was also used for hundreds of years in hair rinses in the Mediterranean area.⁴ In traditional Iranian medicine, rosemary essential oil has been topically applied as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-acne remedy.⁵ Rosemary is known to absorb UV light well and to impart antibacterial and antifungal activity, as well as help maintain skin homeostasis.³ It is also used and under further study for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-infective, and anticancer activity.^2,6-9 The health benefits of rosemary are typically ascribed to its constituent carnosol/carnosic and ursolic acids.⁷In part 1 of this update on rosemary, the focus will be on chemical constituents, wound healing, anticancer activity, and hair care potential.

Chemical Constituents

The key chemical components of S. rosmarinus include bitter principle, resin, tannic acid, flavonoids, and volatile oils (made up of borneol, bornyl acetate, camphene, cineol, pinene, and camphor).¹⁰ Other important constituents of rosemary oil, in particular, include p-Cymene, linalool, gamma-terpinene, thymol, beta-pinene, alpha-pinene, eucalyptol, and carnosic acid.⁹ Volatile oils of rosemary have been used in various oils and lotions to treat wounds and with the intention of stimulating hair growth.¹⁰

Wound Healing

In a 2022 study in 60 adult male rats, Bulhões and colleagues found that the use of rosemary leaf essential oil-based ointments on skin lesions spurred wound healing, decreased inflammation, and enhanced angiogenesis as well as collagen fiber density.¹¹

Three years earlier, Labib and colleagues studied the wound healing capacity of three chitosan-based topical formulations containing either tea tree essential oil, rosemary essential oil, or a mixture of both oils in an excision wound model in rats.

HUIZENG HU/Moment/Getty Images

The combination preparation was found to be the most effective in fostering various stages of wound healing, with significant increases in wound contraction percentage observed in the combination group compared with either group treated using individual essential oils or the untreated animals.¹²

A 2010 in vivo study by Abu-Al-Basal using BALB/c mice with diabetes revealed that the topical application of rosemary essential oil for three days reduced inflammation, enhanced wound contraction and re-epithelialization, and promoted angiogenesis, granulation tissue regeneration, and collagen deposition.¹³

Anticancer Activity

Using a 7,12-dimethlybenz(a)anthracene (DMBA)-initiated and croton oil-promoted model in 2006, Sancheti and Goyal determined that rosemary extract administered orally at a dose rate of 500 mg/kg body weight/mouse significantly inhibited two-stage skin tumorigenesis in mice.¹⁴ Nearly a decade later, Cattaneo and colleagues determined that a rosemary hydroalcoholic extract displayed antiproliferative effects on the human melanoma A375 cell line.⁸

The polyphenols carnosic acid and rosmarinic acid are most often cited as the sources of the reputed anticancer effects of rosemary.¹⁵

Hair Health

Early in 2023, Begum and colleagues developed a 1% hair lotion including a methanolic extract of the aerial part of S. rosmarinus that they assessed for potential hair growth activity in C57BL/6 mice. Using water as a control and 2% minoxidil hair lotion as standard, the investigators determined that their rosemary hair lotion demonstrated significant hair growth promotion, exceeding that seen in the mice treated with the drug standard.¹

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

In a randomized controlled study in C57BL/6NCrSlc mice a decade earlier, Murata and colleagues evaluated the anti-androgenic activity and hair growth potential imparted by topical rosemary oil compared with finasteride and minoxidil. Rosemary oil leaf extract, with 12-O-methylcarnosic acid as its most active component, robustly suppressed 5alpha-reductase and stimulated hair growth in vivo in both the androgenetic alopecia/testosterone-treated mouse model, as well as the hair growth activating mouse model as compared with minoxidil. Further, the inhibitory activity of rosemary was 82.4% and 94.6% at 200 mcg/mL and 500 mcg/mL, respectively, whereas finasteride demonstrated 81.9% at 250 nM.¹⁶

A human study two years later was even more encouraging. Panahi and colleagues conducted a randomized comparative trial with 100 patients to investigate the effects of rosemary oil as opposed to minoxidil 2% for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia over 6 months. By 6 months, significantly greater hair counts were observed in both groups compared with baseline and 3-month readings, but no significant variations between groups. No differences were found in the frequency of dryness, greasiness, or dandruff at any time point or between groups. Scalp itching was significantly greater at the 3- and 6-month points in both groups, particularly in the minoxidil group at both of those time points. The investigators concluded that rosemary oil compared well with minoxidil as androgenetic alopecia therapy.¹⁷

Conclusion

Rosemary has been used in traditional medicine for hundreds of years and it has been a common ingredient in cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations for more than 20 years. Recent findings suggest a broad array of applications in modern medicine, particularly dermatology. The next column will focus on the most recent studies pertaining to the antioxidant and anti-aging activity of this aromatic shrub.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Begum A et al. Adv Biomed Res. 2023 Mar 21;12:60.

2. de Oliveira JR et al. J Biomed Sci. 2019 Jan 9;26(1):5.

3. González-Minero FJ et al. Cosmetics. 2020 Oct 3;7(4):77.

4. Dinkins J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2023 Aug;62(8):980-5.

5. Akbari J et al. Pharm Biol. 2015;53(10):1442-7.

6. Allegra A et al. Nutrients. 2020 Jun 10;12(6):1739.

7. de Macedo LM et al. Plants (Basel). 2020 May 21;9(5):651.

8. Cattaneo L et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132439.

9. Borges RS et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Jan 30;229:29-45.

10. Begum A et al. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment. 2013 Jan-Mar;12(1):61-73.

11. Bulhões AAVC et al. Acta Cir Bras. 2022 Apr 8;37(1):e370104.

12. Labib RM et al. PLoS One. 2019 Sep 16;14(9):e0219561.

13. Abu-Al-Basal MA. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010 Sep 15;131(2):443-50.

14. Sancheti G and Goyal PK. Phytother Res. 2006 Nov;20(11):981-6.

15. Moore J et al. Nutrients. 2016 Nov 17;8(11):731.

16. Murata K et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Feb;27(2):212-7.

17. Panahi Y et al. Skinmed. 2015 Jan-Feb;13(1):15-21.

*Correction, 2/27: This column was updated with the more recent name for rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.

Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.

That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.

But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.

The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.

Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.

Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.

That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.

But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.

The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.

Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has published draft recommendations that 6-year-olds with obesity be lectured to about diet and exercise.

Never mind that there are no reproducible or scalable studies demonstrating durable and clinically meaningful benefits of this for adults let alone children. Never mind that children are not household decision-makers on matters of grocery shopping, cooking, or exercise. Never mind the corollary that many children so lectured who fail to see an impact on their weight will perceive that as their own personal failures. And of course, never mind that we’re privileged to be in an era with safe, effective, pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity. No. We must teach children it’s their fault if they’re fat. Because ultimately that’s what many of them will learn.

That’s not to say there’s no room for counseling. But with children as young as 6, that counseling should be delivered exclusively to their parents and caregivers. That counseling should focus as much if not more so on the impact of weight bias and the biological basis of obesity rather than diet and exercise, while explicitly teaching parents the means to discuss nutrition without risking their children feeling worse about themselves, increasing the risk for conflict over changes, or heightening their children’s chance of developing eating disorders or maladaptive relationships with food.

But back to the USPSTF’s actual recommendation for those 6 years old and up. They’re recommending “at least” 26 hours of lectures over a year-long interprofessional intervention. Putting aside the reality that this isn’t scalable time-wise or cost-wise to reach even a fraction of the roughly 15 million US children with obesity, there is also the issue of service provision. Because when it comes to obesity, if the intervention is purely educational, even if you want to believe there is a syllabus out there that would have a dramatic impact, its impact will vary wildly depending on the skill and approach of the service providers. This inconvenient truth is also the one that makes it impossible to meaningfully compare program outcomes even when they share the same content.

The USPSTF’s draft recommendations also explicitly avoid what the American Academy of Pediatrics has rightly embraced: the use where appropriate of medications or surgery. While opponents of the use of pharmacotherapy for childhood obesity tend to point to a lack of long-term data as rationale for its denial, something that the USPSTF has done, again, we have long-term data demonstrating a lack of scalable, clinically meaningful efficacy for service only based programs.

Childhood obesity is a flood and its ongoing current is relentless. Given its tremendous impact, especially at its extremes, on both physical and mental health, this is yet another example of systemic weight bias in action — it’s as if the USPSTF is recommending a swimming lesson–only approach while actively fearmongering, despite an absence of plausible mechanistic risk, about the long-term use of life jackets.

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.