Federal Practitioner

Suicidal behaviors are common in older adults – and especially older women, new research suggests.

In a meta-analysis that included 20 studies and more than 3 million total individuals living in long-term care (LTC), the prevalence rate for suicidal behavior was more than 6%. In addition, the most common of these behaviors was suicidal ideation.

The prevalence was much higher in women than in men.

These high rates underline the need for clinicians to exercise “extra caution” when assessing elderly people living in a long-term care facility, coinvestigator Syeda Beenish Bareeqa, MBBS, clinical researcher, Jinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan, and research observer, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Missed diagnoses or undertreatment in this population can lead to deleterious health outcomes,” Dr. Bareeqa said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Underdiagnosed, undertreated

In the United States, about 42% of adults 70 years and older will live in LTC, either in an assisted care facility or a nursing home, Dr. Bareeqa noted.

Although many LTC residents have a mood disorder, previous research shows that fewer than 25% of cases are diagnosed and treated, she said.

Dr. Bareeqa added that suicide – and its association with factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, depression, and cyberbullying – is a topic of increasing interest to researchers. She and her colleagues wanted to investigate suicidal behaviors in the setting of LTC.

The researchers conducted a literature search for studies of suicidal behavior among LTC residents over aged 60 years. They examined general suicidal behavior and the most common subtypes: suicide ideation, suicide attempts, completed suicide, self-destructive behavior, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

The analysis included 20 studies and 3 million individuals living in LTC. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 5) and Australia (n = 4).

Results showed an estimated suicidal behavior prevalence rate of 6.4% (.064; 95% confidence interval, .057 to .070), or 64 per 100,000 persons.

A rate this high is “alarming and unexpected,” said Dr. Bareeqa. She noted most of the studies included in the analysis were conducted in developed countries with advanced health care systems.

The World Health Organization reports the suicide rate per 100,000 older adults (aged 75 years and older) is 50 for men and 16 for women, but this is not stratified by living settings, Dr. Bareeqa noted.
 

Higher rates in women

In the current analysis, 5 of the 20 studies had low risk of bias, 14 had moderate risk, and 1 had high risk, Dr. Bareeqa reported.

In subgroup analyses, the researchers found much of the suicidal behavior was driven by studies out of Australia, where the prevalence of suicidal behaviors was 36.9% (95% CI, 9.2-64.7) vs. 1.4% in the U.S. (95% CI, 1.0-1.8).

Another surprising finding was the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among women (15.8%), which was much higher than among men (7.9%). “Male gender is a well-established risk factor for suicide in the medical literature but this is not the case in our study,” said Dr. Bareeqa.

In addition, the analysis showed suicidal ideation was the most common type of suicidal behavior. In a pooled population of around 2 million people in eight studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was 12%.

For psychiatric illnesses accompanying suicidal behavior, the prevalence of depression alone was 14.4%, which was much higher than the rate of 5.1% for multiple comorbidities – including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychotic disorder, history of previous suicide attempt, delusion, delirium, and hallucination.

Although depression and other psychiatric conditions may help explain suicidal behavior in older adults, Dr. Bareeqa said physical illness also plays a major role.

“Illnesses like cancer or end-stage organ failure, which are quite common with advancing age, are debilitating and in some instances incurable. These medical problems create a breeding ground for mental health problems and can eventually lead to devastating outcomes such as suicide,” she said.

She noted the importance of a “multipronged approach” to prevent suicide among older people in LTC facilities.

In addition, her research team aims to assess the quality of care provided by LTC facilities. “Maybe we can get to the root of this problem and devise strategies to improve it,” she said.
 

‘Not uncommon’

In an interview with this news organization Rajesh R. Tampi, MBBS, professor and chairman, department of psychiatry, Creighton University and Catholic Health Initiatives Health Behavioral Health Services, Omaha, Neb., said the results suggest that, despite the risk for bias among the included studies, “suicidal behaviors are not uncommon among older adults in LTC.”

The analysis describes only associations “but does not indicate causality,” said Dr. Tampi, past president of the AAGP. He was not involved with the research.

Additional subgroup analyses should yield information on possible risk factors for suicidal behaviors in LTC, such as depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, he added.

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

Suicidal behaviors are common in older adults – and especially older women, new research suggests.

In a meta-analysis that included 20 studies and more than 3 million total individuals living in long-term care (LTC), the prevalence rate for suicidal behavior was more than 6%. In addition, the most common of these behaviors was suicidal ideation.

The prevalence was much higher in women than in men.

These high rates underline the need for clinicians to exercise “extra caution” when assessing elderly people living in a long-term care facility, coinvestigator Syeda Beenish Bareeqa, MBBS, clinical researcher, Jinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan, and research observer, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Missed diagnoses or undertreatment in this population can lead to deleterious health outcomes,” Dr. Bareeqa said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Underdiagnosed, undertreated

In the United States, about 42% of adults 70 years and older will live in LTC, either in an assisted care facility or a nursing home, Dr. Bareeqa noted.

Although many LTC residents have a mood disorder, previous research shows that fewer than 25% of cases are diagnosed and treated, she said.

Dr. Bareeqa added that suicide – and its association with factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, depression, and cyberbullying – is a topic of increasing interest to researchers. She and her colleagues wanted to investigate suicidal behaviors in the setting of LTC.

The researchers conducted a literature search for studies of suicidal behavior among LTC residents over aged 60 years. They examined general suicidal behavior and the most common subtypes: suicide ideation, suicide attempts, completed suicide, self-destructive behavior, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

The analysis included 20 studies and 3 million individuals living in LTC. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 5) and Australia (n = 4).

Results showed an estimated suicidal behavior prevalence rate of 6.4% (.064; 95% confidence interval, .057 to .070), or 64 per 100,000 persons.

A rate this high is “alarming and unexpected,” said Dr. Bareeqa. She noted most of the studies included in the analysis were conducted in developed countries with advanced health care systems.

The World Health Organization reports the suicide rate per 100,000 older adults (aged 75 years and older) is 50 for men and 16 for women, but this is not stratified by living settings, Dr. Bareeqa noted.
 

Higher rates in women

In the current analysis, 5 of the 20 studies had low risk of bias, 14 had moderate risk, and 1 had high risk, Dr. Bareeqa reported.

In subgroup analyses, the researchers found much of the suicidal behavior was driven by studies out of Australia, where the prevalence of suicidal behaviors was 36.9% (95% CI, 9.2-64.7) vs. 1.4% in the U.S. (95% CI, 1.0-1.8).

Another surprising finding was the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among women (15.8%), which was much higher than among men (7.9%). “Male gender is a well-established risk factor for suicide in the medical literature but this is not the case in our study,” said Dr. Bareeqa.

In addition, the analysis showed suicidal ideation was the most common type of suicidal behavior. In a pooled population of around 2 million people in eight studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was 12%.

For psychiatric illnesses accompanying suicidal behavior, the prevalence of depression alone was 14.4%, which was much higher than the rate of 5.1% for multiple comorbidities – including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychotic disorder, history of previous suicide attempt, delusion, delirium, and hallucination.

Although depression and other psychiatric conditions may help explain suicidal behavior in older adults, Dr. Bareeqa said physical illness also plays a major role.

“Illnesses like cancer or end-stage organ failure, which are quite common with advancing age, are debilitating and in some instances incurable. These medical problems create a breeding ground for mental health problems and can eventually lead to devastating outcomes such as suicide,” she said.

She noted the importance of a “multipronged approach” to prevent suicide among older people in LTC facilities.

In addition, her research team aims to assess the quality of care provided by LTC facilities. “Maybe we can get to the root of this problem and devise strategies to improve it,” she said.
 

‘Not uncommon’

In an interview with this news organization Rajesh R. Tampi, MBBS, professor and chairman, department of psychiatry, Creighton University and Catholic Health Initiatives Health Behavioral Health Services, Omaha, Neb., said the results suggest that, despite the risk for bias among the included studies, “suicidal behaviors are not uncommon among older adults in LTC.”

The analysis describes only associations “but does not indicate causality,” said Dr. Tampi, past president of the AAGP. He was not involved with the research.

Additional subgroup analyses should yield information on possible risk factors for suicidal behaviors in LTC, such as depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, he added.

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

Suicidal behaviors are common in older adults – and especially older women, new research suggests.

In a meta-analysis that included 20 studies and more than 3 million total individuals living in long-term care (LTC), the prevalence rate for suicidal behavior was more than 6%. In addition, the most common of these behaviors was suicidal ideation.

The prevalence was much higher in women than in men.

These high rates underline the need for clinicians to exercise “extra caution” when assessing elderly people living in a long-term care facility, coinvestigator Syeda Beenish Bareeqa, MBBS, clinical researcher, Jinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan, and research observer, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Missed diagnoses or undertreatment in this population can lead to deleterious health outcomes,” Dr. Bareeqa said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Underdiagnosed, undertreated

In the United States, about 42% of adults 70 years and older will live in LTC, either in an assisted care facility or a nursing home, Dr. Bareeqa noted.

Although many LTC residents have a mood disorder, previous research shows that fewer than 25% of cases are diagnosed and treated, she said.

Dr. Bareeqa added that suicide – and its association with factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, depression, and cyberbullying – is a topic of increasing interest to researchers. She and her colleagues wanted to investigate suicidal behaviors in the setting of LTC.

The researchers conducted a literature search for studies of suicidal behavior among LTC residents over aged 60 years. They examined general suicidal behavior and the most common subtypes: suicide ideation, suicide attempts, completed suicide, self-destructive behavior, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

The analysis included 20 studies and 3 million individuals living in LTC. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 5) and Australia (n = 4).

Results showed an estimated suicidal behavior prevalence rate of 6.4% (.064; 95% confidence interval, .057 to .070), or 64 per 100,000 persons.

A rate this high is “alarming and unexpected,” said Dr. Bareeqa. She noted most of the studies included in the analysis were conducted in developed countries with advanced health care systems.

The World Health Organization reports the suicide rate per 100,000 older adults (aged 75 years and older) is 50 for men and 16 for women, but this is not stratified by living settings, Dr. Bareeqa noted.
 

Higher rates in women

In the current analysis, 5 of the 20 studies had low risk of bias, 14 had moderate risk, and 1 had high risk, Dr. Bareeqa reported.

In subgroup analyses, the researchers found much of the suicidal behavior was driven by studies out of Australia, where the prevalence of suicidal behaviors was 36.9% (95% CI, 9.2-64.7) vs. 1.4% in the U.S. (95% CI, 1.0-1.8).

Another surprising finding was the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among women (15.8%), which was much higher than among men (7.9%). “Male gender is a well-established risk factor for suicide in the medical literature but this is not the case in our study,” said Dr. Bareeqa.

In addition, the analysis showed suicidal ideation was the most common type of suicidal behavior. In a pooled population of around 2 million people in eight studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was 12%.

For psychiatric illnesses accompanying suicidal behavior, the prevalence of depression alone was 14.4%, which was much higher than the rate of 5.1% for multiple comorbidities – including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychotic disorder, history of previous suicide attempt, delusion, delirium, and hallucination.

Although depression and other psychiatric conditions may help explain suicidal behavior in older adults, Dr. Bareeqa said physical illness also plays a major role.

“Illnesses like cancer or end-stage organ failure, which are quite common with advancing age, are debilitating and in some instances incurable. These medical problems create a breeding ground for mental health problems and can eventually lead to devastating outcomes such as suicide,” she said.

She noted the importance of a “multipronged approach” to prevent suicide among older people in LTC facilities.

In addition, her research team aims to assess the quality of care provided by LTC facilities. “Maybe we can get to the root of this problem and devise strategies to improve it,” she said.
 

‘Not uncommon’

In an interview with this news organization Rajesh R. Tampi, MBBS, professor and chairman, department of psychiatry, Creighton University and Catholic Health Initiatives Health Behavioral Health Services, Omaha, Neb., said the results suggest that, despite the risk for bias among the included studies, “suicidal behaviors are not uncommon among older adults in LTC.”

The analysis describes only associations “but does not indicate causality,” said Dr. Tampi, past president of the AAGP. He was not involved with the research.

Additional subgroup analyses should yield information on possible risk factors for suicidal behaviors in LTC, such as depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, he added.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

The United States has never achieved a single high standard of medical care equity for all of its people, and the trend line does not appear favorable. The closest we have reached is basic Medicare (Parts A and B), military medicine, the Veterans Health Administration, and large nonprofit groups like Kaiser Permanente. It seems that the nature of we individualistic Americans is to always try to seek an advantage.

But even achieving equity in medical care would not ensure equity in health. The social determinants of health (income level, education, politics, government, geography, neighborhood, country of origin, language spoken, literacy, gender, and yes – race and ethnicity) have far more influence on health equity than does medical care.

Narratives can both reflect and influence culture. Considering the harmful effects of the current political divisiveness in the United States, the timing is ideal for our three leading medical and health education organizations – the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – to publish a definitive position paper called “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts.”
 

What’s in a word?

According to William Shakespeare, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet). Maybe. But if the word used were “thorn” or “thistle,” it just would not be the same.

Words comprise language and wield enormous power with human beings. Wars are fought over geographic boundaries often defined by the language spoken by the people: think 2022, Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Think Winston Churchill’s massive 1,500-page “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples.” Think about the political power of French in Quebec, Canada.

Thus, it should be no surprise that words, acronyms, and abbreviations become rallying cries for political activists of all stripes: PC, January 6, Woke, 1619, BLM, Critical Race Theory, 1776, Remember Pearl Harbor, Remember the Alamo, the Civil War or the War Between the States, the War for Southern Independence, the War of Northern Aggression, the War of the Rebellion, or simply “The Lost Cause.” How about Realpolitik?

Is “medical language” the language of the people or of the profession? Physicians must understand each other, and physicians also must communicate clearly with patients using words that convey neutral meanings and don’t interfere with objective understanding. Medical editors prefer the brevity of one or a few words to clearly convey meaning.

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

The United States has never achieved a single high standard of medical care equity for all of its people, and the trend line does not appear favorable. The closest we have reached is basic Medicare (Parts A and B), military medicine, the Veterans Health Administration, and large nonprofit groups like Kaiser Permanente. It seems that the nature of we individualistic Americans is to always try to seek an advantage.

But even achieving equity in medical care would not ensure equity in health. The social determinants of health (income level, education, politics, government, geography, neighborhood, country of origin, language spoken, literacy, gender, and yes – race and ethnicity) have far more influence on health equity than does medical care.

Narratives can both reflect and influence culture. Considering the harmful effects of the current political divisiveness in the United States, the timing is ideal for our three leading medical and health education organizations – the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – to publish a definitive position paper called “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts.”
 

What’s in a word?

According to William Shakespeare, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet). Maybe. But if the word used were “thorn” or “thistle,” it just would not be the same.

Words comprise language and wield enormous power with human beings. Wars are fought over geographic boundaries often defined by the language spoken by the people: think 2022, Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Think Winston Churchill’s massive 1,500-page “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples.” Think about the political power of French in Quebec, Canada.

Thus, it should be no surprise that words, acronyms, and abbreviations become rallying cries for political activists of all stripes: PC, January 6, Woke, 1619, BLM, Critical Race Theory, 1776, Remember Pearl Harbor, Remember the Alamo, the Civil War or the War Between the States, the War for Southern Independence, the War of Northern Aggression, the War of the Rebellion, or simply “The Lost Cause.” How about Realpolitik?

Is “medical language” the language of the people or of the profession? Physicians must understand each other, and physicians also must communicate clearly with patients using words that convey neutral meanings and don’t interfere with objective understanding. Medical editors prefer the brevity of one or a few words to clearly convey meaning.

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

The United States has never achieved a single high standard of medical care equity for all of its people, and the trend line does not appear favorable. The closest we have reached is basic Medicare (Parts A and B), military medicine, the Veterans Health Administration, and large nonprofit groups like Kaiser Permanente. It seems that the nature of we individualistic Americans is to always try to seek an advantage.

But even achieving equity in medical care would not ensure equity in health. The social determinants of health (income level, education, politics, government, geography, neighborhood, country of origin, language spoken, literacy, gender, and yes – race and ethnicity) have far more influence on health equity than does medical care.

Narratives can both reflect and influence culture. Considering the harmful effects of the current political divisiveness in the United States, the timing is ideal for our three leading medical and health education organizations – the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – to publish a definitive position paper called “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts.”
 

What’s in a word?

According to William Shakespeare, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet). Maybe. But if the word used were “thorn” or “thistle,” it just would not be the same.

Words comprise language and wield enormous power with human beings. Wars are fought over geographic boundaries often defined by the language spoken by the people: think 2022, Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Think Winston Churchill’s massive 1,500-page “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples.” Think about the political power of French in Quebec, Canada.

Thus, it should be no surprise that words, acronyms, and abbreviations become rallying cries for political activists of all stripes: PC, January 6, Woke, 1619, BLM, Critical Race Theory, 1776, Remember Pearl Harbor, Remember the Alamo, the Civil War or the War Between the States, the War for Southern Independence, the War of Northern Aggression, the War of the Rebellion, or simply “The Lost Cause.” How about Realpolitik?

Is “medical language” the language of the people or of the profession? Physicians must understand each other, and physicians also must communicate clearly with patients using words that convey neutral meanings and don’t interfere with objective understanding. Medical editors prefer the brevity of one or a few words to clearly convey meaning.

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

BOSTON – Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody, was an effective treatment for prurigo nodularis (PN), improving itching and skin lesions after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, in a phase 3 trial presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2022 Annual Meeting.

There are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved systemic therapies for PN. Although several treatments for the disease are used off label for the condition, such as ultraviolet light therapy and immunosuppressive agents, moderate to severe PN is usually difficult to control, noted Gil Yosipovitch, MD, director of the Miami Itch Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Florida. He led the research and presented the findings at the conference.

“Many dermatologists feel very uncomfortable dealing with these patients because they suffer from chronicity, they are miserable, and previously, the drugs didn’t work well,” Dr. Yosipovitch told this news organization. The results from this trial “are very promising,” he said. “It opens a new field of treatment for itchy conditions.”

The trial, named LIBERTY-PN PRIME2, enrolled patients aged 18-80 who had been living with PN for at least 3 months. Patients had at least 20 lesions at baseline as well as severe itch, defined as a score of 7 or greater on the Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS). The scale ranges from 0 (no itch) to 10 (worst itch imaginable). Participants also had a history of treatment failure with medium to super-potent topical corticosteroids (TCSs), or treatment with TCSs was not medically advisable for them.

The randomized, double-blinded study enrolled 160 adults with PN. Of those, 78 were assigned to the treatment arm and received a 600-mg loading dose of dupilumab, administered subcutaneously, followed by 300-mg doses every 2 weeks for 24 weeks; 82 patients were allocated to receive placebo.

During the study, 25 patients in the placebo arm discontinued treatment. In the treatment arm, one patient was not treated and two discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy.

The primary endpoint of the study was a reduction of at least 4 points on the WI-NRS at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included at least a 4-point WI-NRS reduction at 24 weeks and clear to nearly clear skin, defined as having a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment PN-Stage (IGN PN-S). The scale ranges from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe).

At 12 weeks, 37.2% of patients given dupilumab reported a reduction of at least 4 points in WI-NRS, compared with 22.0% of patients given placebo (P = .0216). By 24 weeks, 57.7% of adults who received dupilumab achieved a greater than or equal to 4-point reduction in WI-NRS, compared with 19.5% of those who received placebo (P < .0001). Additionally, 44.9% of participants in the treatment arm achieved a score of 0 or 1 on the IGA PN-S, compared with 15.9% of those in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Forty-four participants who received dupilumab (57.1%) and 42 participants who received placebo (51.2%) reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the study, though none of these events were serious. The most common TEAE in the study was headache, occurring in five patients taking placebo and four patients receiving dupilumab. In the dupilumab group, there were five cases of herpes virus infection, four non-herpes skin infections, and three cases of conjunctivitis. In the placebo group, seven non-herpes skin infections were reported.

Sanofi and Regeneron, who jointly developed dupilumab, plan to file for regulatory approval for dupilumab for PN “around the world” in the first half of this year, according to a press release.

“It’s great news and a step in the right direction,” Sarina Elmariah, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

“We’re finally starting to shed light on this condition and its pathogenesis,” she said. She noted that other potential therapeutics for PN are also in development. “It’s reflective of the fact that we are making strides in this area.”

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals sponsored the LIBERTY-PN PRIME2 trial. Dr. Yosipovitch has reported financial relationships with Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics. Dr. Elmariah is on the advisory boards of Sanofi, Galderma, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

BOSTON – Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody, was an effective treatment for prurigo nodularis (PN), improving itching and skin lesions after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, in a phase 3 trial presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2022 Annual Meeting.

There are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved systemic therapies for PN. Although several treatments for the disease are used off label for the condition, such as ultraviolet light therapy and immunosuppressive agents, moderate to severe PN is usually difficult to control, noted Gil Yosipovitch, MD, director of the Miami Itch Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Florida. He led the research and presented the findings at the conference.

“Many dermatologists feel very uncomfortable dealing with these patients because they suffer from chronicity, they are miserable, and previously, the drugs didn’t work well,” Dr. Yosipovitch told this news organization. The results from this trial “are very promising,” he said. “It opens a new field of treatment for itchy conditions.”

The trial, named LIBERTY-PN PRIME2, enrolled patients aged 18-80 who had been living with PN for at least 3 months. Patients had at least 20 lesions at baseline as well as severe itch, defined as a score of 7 or greater on the Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS). The scale ranges from 0 (no itch) to 10 (worst itch imaginable). Participants also had a history of treatment failure with medium to super-potent topical corticosteroids (TCSs), or treatment with TCSs was not medically advisable for them.

The randomized, double-blinded study enrolled 160 adults with PN. Of those, 78 were assigned to the treatment arm and received a 600-mg loading dose of dupilumab, administered subcutaneously, followed by 300-mg doses every 2 weeks for 24 weeks; 82 patients were allocated to receive placebo.

During the study, 25 patients in the placebo arm discontinued treatment. In the treatment arm, one patient was not treated and two discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy.

The primary endpoint of the study was a reduction of at least 4 points on the WI-NRS at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included at least a 4-point WI-NRS reduction at 24 weeks and clear to nearly clear skin, defined as having a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment PN-Stage (IGN PN-S). The scale ranges from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe).

At 12 weeks, 37.2% of patients given dupilumab reported a reduction of at least 4 points in WI-NRS, compared with 22.0% of patients given placebo (P = .0216). By 24 weeks, 57.7% of adults who received dupilumab achieved a greater than or equal to 4-point reduction in WI-NRS, compared with 19.5% of those who received placebo (P < .0001). Additionally, 44.9% of participants in the treatment arm achieved a score of 0 or 1 on the IGA PN-S, compared with 15.9% of those in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Forty-four participants who received dupilumab (57.1%) and 42 participants who received placebo (51.2%) reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the study, though none of these events were serious. The most common TEAE in the study was headache, occurring in five patients taking placebo and four patients receiving dupilumab. In the dupilumab group, there were five cases of herpes virus infection, four non-herpes skin infections, and three cases of conjunctivitis. In the placebo group, seven non-herpes skin infections were reported.

Sanofi and Regeneron, who jointly developed dupilumab, plan to file for regulatory approval for dupilumab for PN “around the world” in the first half of this year, according to a press release.

“It’s great news and a step in the right direction,” Sarina Elmariah, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

“We’re finally starting to shed light on this condition and its pathogenesis,” she said. She noted that other potential therapeutics for PN are also in development. “It’s reflective of the fact that we are making strides in this area.”

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals sponsored the LIBERTY-PN PRIME2 trial. Dr. Yosipovitch has reported financial relationships with Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics. Dr. Elmariah is on the advisory boards of Sanofi, Galderma, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

BOSTON – Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody, was an effective treatment for prurigo nodularis (PN), improving itching and skin lesions after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, in a phase 3 trial presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2022 Annual Meeting.

There are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved systemic therapies for PN. Although several treatments for the disease are used off label for the condition, such as ultraviolet light therapy and immunosuppressive agents, moderate to severe PN is usually difficult to control, noted Gil Yosipovitch, MD, director of the Miami Itch Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Florida. He led the research and presented the findings at the conference.

“Many dermatologists feel very uncomfortable dealing with these patients because they suffer from chronicity, they are miserable, and previously, the drugs didn’t work well,” Dr. Yosipovitch told this news organization. The results from this trial “are very promising,” he said. “It opens a new field of treatment for itchy conditions.”

The trial, named LIBERTY-PN PRIME2, enrolled patients aged 18-80 who had been living with PN for at least 3 months. Patients had at least 20 lesions at baseline as well as severe itch, defined as a score of 7 or greater on the Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS). The scale ranges from 0 (no itch) to 10 (worst itch imaginable). Participants also had a history of treatment failure with medium to super-potent topical corticosteroids (TCSs), or treatment with TCSs was not medically advisable for them.

The randomized, double-blinded study enrolled 160 adults with PN. Of those, 78 were assigned to the treatment arm and received a 600-mg loading dose of dupilumab, administered subcutaneously, followed by 300-mg doses every 2 weeks for 24 weeks; 82 patients were allocated to receive placebo.

During the study, 25 patients in the placebo arm discontinued treatment. In the treatment arm, one patient was not treated and two discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy.

The primary endpoint of the study was a reduction of at least 4 points on the WI-NRS at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included at least a 4-point WI-NRS reduction at 24 weeks and clear to nearly clear skin, defined as having a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment PN-Stage (IGN PN-S). The scale ranges from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe).

At 12 weeks, 37.2% of patients given dupilumab reported a reduction of at least 4 points in WI-NRS, compared with 22.0% of patients given placebo (P = .0216). By 24 weeks, 57.7% of adults who received dupilumab achieved a greater than or equal to 4-point reduction in WI-NRS, compared with 19.5% of those who received placebo (P < .0001). Additionally, 44.9% of participants in the treatment arm achieved a score of 0 or 1 on the IGA PN-S, compared with 15.9% of those in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Forty-four participants who received dupilumab (57.1%) and 42 participants who received placebo (51.2%) reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the study, though none of these events were serious. The most common TEAE in the study was headache, occurring in five patients taking placebo and four patients receiving dupilumab. In the dupilumab group, there were five cases of herpes virus infection, four non-herpes skin infections, and three cases of conjunctivitis. In the placebo group, seven non-herpes skin infections were reported.

Sanofi and Regeneron, who jointly developed dupilumab, plan to file for regulatory approval for dupilumab for PN “around the world” in the first half of this year, according to a press release.

“It’s great news and a step in the right direction,” Sarina Elmariah, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

“We’re finally starting to shed light on this condition and its pathogenesis,” she said. She noted that other potential therapeutics for PN are also in development. “It’s reflective of the fact that we are making strides in this area.”

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals sponsored the LIBERTY-PN PRIME2 trial. Dr. Yosipovitch has reported financial relationships with Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics. Dr. Elmariah is on the advisory boards of Sanofi, Galderma, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When an individual develops a terminal illness, those closest to them often start to grieve long before the person dies. Although a common syndrome, it often goes unrecognized and unaddressed.

A new review proposes a way of defining this specific type of grief in the hope that better, more precise descriptive categories will inform therapeutic interventions to help those facing a life-changing loss.

It is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, inasmuch as numerous studies show that it can result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder, lead author Jonathan Singer, PhD, visiting assistant professor of clinical psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization.

Texas Tech University

‘Typical’ versus ‘impairing’ grief

“Most deaths worldwide are attributed to a chronic or life-limiting Illness,” the authors write. The experience of grief before the loss of a family member “has been studied frequently, but there have been conceptualization issues, which is problematic, as it hinders the potential advancement of the field in differentiating typical grief from more impairing grief before the death,” Dr. Singer said. “Further complicating the picture is the sheer number of terms used to describe grief before death.”

Dr. Singer said that when he started conducting research in this field, he “realized someone had to combine the articles that have been published in order to create definitions that will advance the field, so risk and protective factors could be identified and interventions could be tested.”

For the current study, the investigators searched six databases to find research that “evaluated family members’ or friends’ grief related to an individual currently living with a life-limiting illness.” They excluded studies that evaluated grief after death.

Of 9,568 records reviewed, the researchers selected 134 full-text articles that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (57.46%) were quantitative; 23.88% were qualitative, and 17.91% used mixed methods. Most studies were retrospective, although 14.93% were prospective, and 3% included both prospective and retrospective analyses.

Most participants reported that the family member/friend was diagnosed either with “late-stage dementia” or “advanced cancer.” The majority (58%) were adult children of the individual with the illness, followed by spouses/partners (28.1%) and other relatives/friends (13.9%) in studies that reported the relationship to the participant and the person with the illness.

Various scales were used in the studies to measure grief, particularly the Marwit-Meuser-Caregiver Grief Inventory (n = 28), the Anticipatory Grief Scale (n = 18), and the Prolonged Grief–12 (n = 13).
 

A new name

Owing to the large number of articles included in the review, the researchers limited the analysis to those in which a given term was used in ≥ 1 articles.

The researchers found 18 different terms used by family members/friends of individuals with life-limiting illness to describe grief, including AG (used in the most studies, n = 54); pre-death grief (n = 18), grief (n = 12), pre-loss grief (n = 6), caregiver grief (n = 5), and anticipatory mourning (n = 4). These 18 terms were associated with greater than or equal to 30 different definitions across all of the various studies.

“Definitions of these terms differed drastically,” and many studies used the term AG without defining it.

Nineteen studies used multiple terms within a single article, and the terms were “used interchangeably, with the same definition applied,” the researchers report.

For example, one study defined AG as “the process associated with grieving the eventual loss of a family member in advance of their inevitable death,” while another defined AG as “a series of losses based on a loved one’s progression of cognitive and physical decline.”

On the basis of this analysis, the researchers chose the term “pre-death grief,” which encompasses IRG and AG.

Dr. Singer explained that IRG is “present-oriented” and involves the “longing and yearning for the family member to be as they were before the illness.” AG is “future oriented” and is defined as “family members’ grief experience while the person with the life-limiting illness is alive but that is focused on feared or anticipated losses that will occur after the person’s death.”

The study was intended “to advance the field and provide the knowledge and definitions in order to create and test an evidence-based intervention,” Dr. Singer said.

He pointed to interventions (for example: behavioral activation, meaning-centered grief therapy) that could be tested to reduce pre-death grief or specific interventions that focus on addressing IRG or AG. “For example, cognitive behavior therapy might be used to challenge worry about life without the person, which would be classified as AG.”

Dr. Singer feels it is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, insofar as numerous studies have shown that high rates of pre-death grief “result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder.”
 

‘Paradoxical reality’

Francesca Falzarano, PhD, a postdoctoral associate in medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the article a “timely piece drawing much-needed attention to an all-too-often overlooked experience lived by those affected by terminal illnesses.”

Dr. Falzarano, who was not involved in the review, said that “from her own experience” as both a caregiver and behavioral scientist conducting research in this area, the concept of pre-death grief is a paradoxical reality – “how do we grieve someone we haven’t lost yet?”

The experience of pre-death grief is “quite distinct from grief after bereavement” because there is no end date. Rather, the person “cycles back and forth between preparing themselves for an impending death while also attending to whatever is happening in the current moment.” It’s also “unique in that both patients and caregivers individually and collectively grieve losses over the course of the illness,” she noted.

“We as researchers absolutely need to focus our attention on achieving consensus on an appropriate definition for pre-death grief that adequately encompasses its complexity and multidimensionality,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Falzarano report no relevant financial relationships.

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

When an individual develops a terminal illness, those closest to them often start to grieve long before the person dies. Although a common syndrome, it often goes unrecognized and unaddressed.

A new review proposes a way of defining this specific type of grief in the hope that better, more precise descriptive categories will inform therapeutic interventions to help those facing a life-changing loss.

It is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, inasmuch as numerous studies show that it can result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder, lead author Jonathan Singer, PhD, visiting assistant professor of clinical psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization.

Texas Tech University

‘Typical’ versus ‘impairing’ grief

“Most deaths worldwide are attributed to a chronic or life-limiting Illness,” the authors write. The experience of grief before the loss of a family member “has been studied frequently, but there have been conceptualization issues, which is problematic, as it hinders the potential advancement of the field in differentiating typical grief from more impairing grief before the death,” Dr. Singer said. “Further complicating the picture is the sheer number of terms used to describe grief before death.”

Dr. Singer said that when he started conducting research in this field, he “realized someone had to combine the articles that have been published in order to create definitions that will advance the field, so risk and protective factors could be identified and interventions could be tested.”

For the current study, the investigators searched six databases to find research that “evaluated family members’ or friends’ grief related to an individual currently living with a life-limiting illness.” They excluded studies that evaluated grief after death.

Of 9,568 records reviewed, the researchers selected 134 full-text articles that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (57.46%) were quantitative; 23.88% were qualitative, and 17.91% used mixed methods. Most studies were retrospective, although 14.93% were prospective, and 3% included both prospective and retrospective analyses.

Most participants reported that the family member/friend was diagnosed either with “late-stage dementia” or “advanced cancer.” The majority (58%) were adult children of the individual with the illness, followed by spouses/partners (28.1%) and other relatives/friends (13.9%) in studies that reported the relationship to the participant and the person with the illness.

Various scales were used in the studies to measure grief, particularly the Marwit-Meuser-Caregiver Grief Inventory (n = 28), the Anticipatory Grief Scale (n = 18), and the Prolonged Grief–12 (n = 13).
 

A new name

Owing to the large number of articles included in the review, the researchers limited the analysis to those in which a given term was used in ≥ 1 articles.

The researchers found 18 different terms used by family members/friends of individuals with life-limiting illness to describe grief, including AG (used in the most studies, n = 54); pre-death grief (n = 18), grief (n = 12), pre-loss grief (n = 6), caregiver grief (n = 5), and anticipatory mourning (n = 4). These 18 terms were associated with greater than or equal to 30 different definitions across all of the various studies.

“Definitions of these terms differed drastically,” and many studies used the term AG without defining it.

Nineteen studies used multiple terms within a single article, and the terms were “used interchangeably, with the same definition applied,” the researchers report.

For example, one study defined AG as “the process associated with grieving the eventual loss of a family member in advance of their inevitable death,” while another defined AG as “a series of losses based on a loved one’s progression of cognitive and physical decline.”

On the basis of this analysis, the researchers chose the term “pre-death grief,” which encompasses IRG and AG.

Dr. Singer explained that IRG is “present-oriented” and involves the “longing and yearning for the family member to be as they were before the illness.” AG is “future oriented” and is defined as “family members’ grief experience while the person with the life-limiting illness is alive but that is focused on feared or anticipated losses that will occur after the person’s death.”

The study was intended “to advance the field and provide the knowledge and definitions in order to create and test an evidence-based intervention,” Dr. Singer said.

He pointed to interventions (for example: behavioral activation, meaning-centered grief therapy) that could be tested to reduce pre-death grief or specific interventions that focus on addressing IRG or AG. “For example, cognitive behavior therapy might be used to challenge worry about life without the person, which would be classified as AG.”

Dr. Singer feels it is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, insofar as numerous studies have shown that high rates of pre-death grief “result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder.”
 

‘Paradoxical reality’

Francesca Falzarano, PhD, a postdoctoral associate in medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the article a “timely piece drawing much-needed attention to an all-too-often overlooked experience lived by those affected by terminal illnesses.”

Dr. Falzarano, who was not involved in the review, said that “from her own experience” as both a caregiver and behavioral scientist conducting research in this area, the concept of pre-death grief is a paradoxical reality – “how do we grieve someone we haven’t lost yet?”

The experience of pre-death grief is “quite distinct from grief after bereavement” because there is no end date. Rather, the person “cycles back and forth between preparing themselves for an impending death while also attending to whatever is happening in the current moment.” It’s also “unique in that both patients and caregivers individually and collectively grieve losses over the course of the illness,” she noted.

“We as researchers absolutely need to focus our attention on achieving consensus on an appropriate definition for pre-death grief that adequately encompasses its complexity and multidimensionality,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Falzarano report no relevant financial relationships.

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

When an individual develops a terminal illness, those closest to them often start to grieve long before the person dies. Although a common syndrome, it often goes unrecognized and unaddressed.

A new review proposes a way of defining this specific type of grief in the hope that better, more precise descriptive categories will inform therapeutic interventions to help those facing a life-changing loss.

It is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, inasmuch as numerous studies show that it can result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder, lead author Jonathan Singer, PhD, visiting assistant professor of clinical psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, told this news organization.

Texas Tech University

‘Typical’ versus ‘impairing’ grief

“Most deaths worldwide are attributed to a chronic or life-limiting Illness,” the authors write. The experience of grief before the loss of a family member “has been studied frequently, but there have been conceptualization issues, which is problematic, as it hinders the potential advancement of the field in differentiating typical grief from more impairing grief before the death,” Dr. Singer said. “Further complicating the picture is the sheer number of terms used to describe grief before death.”

Dr. Singer said that when he started conducting research in this field, he “realized someone had to combine the articles that have been published in order to create definitions that will advance the field, so risk and protective factors could be identified and interventions could be tested.”

For the current study, the investigators searched six databases to find research that “evaluated family members’ or friends’ grief related to an individual currently living with a life-limiting illness.” They excluded studies that evaluated grief after death.

Of 9,568 records reviewed, the researchers selected 134 full-text articles that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (57.46%) were quantitative; 23.88% were qualitative, and 17.91% used mixed methods. Most studies were retrospective, although 14.93% were prospective, and 3% included both prospective and retrospective analyses.

Most participants reported that the family member/friend was diagnosed either with “late-stage dementia” or “advanced cancer.” The majority (58%) were adult children of the individual with the illness, followed by spouses/partners (28.1%) and other relatives/friends (13.9%) in studies that reported the relationship to the participant and the person with the illness.

Various scales were used in the studies to measure grief, particularly the Marwit-Meuser-Caregiver Grief Inventory (n = 28), the Anticipatory Grief Scale (n = 18), and the Prolonged Grief–12 (n = 13).
 

A new name

Owing to the large number of articles included in the review, the researchers limited the analysis to those in which a given term was used in ≥ 1 articles.

The researchers found 18 different terms used by family members/friends of individuals with life-limiting illness to describe grief, including AG (used in the most studies, n = 54); pre-death grief (n = 18), grief (n = 12), pre-loss grief (n = 6), caregiver grief (n = 5), and anticipatory mourning (n = 4). These 18 terms were associated with greater than or equal to 30 different definitions across all of the various studies.

“Definitions of these terms differed drastically,” and many studies used the term AG without defining it.

Nineteen studies used multiple terms within a single article, and the terms were “used interchangeably, with the same definition applied,” the researchers report.

For example, one study defined AG as “the process associated with grieving the eventual loss of a family member in advance of their inevitable death,” while another defined AG as “a series of losses based on a loved one’s progression of cognitive and physical decline.”

On the basis of this analysis, the researchers chose the term “pre-death grief,” which encompasses IRG and AG.

Dr. Singer explained that IRG is “present-oriented” and involves the “longing and yearning for the family member to be as they were before the illness.” AG is “future oriented” and is defined as “family members’ grief experience while the person with the life-limiting illness is alive but that is focused on feared or anticipated losses that will occur after the person’s death.”

The study was intended “to advance the field and provide the knowledge and definitions in order to create and test an evidence-based intervention,” Dr. Singer said.

He pointed to interventions (for example: behavioral activation, meaning-centered grief therapy) that could be tested to reduce pre-death grief or specific interventions that focus on addressing IRG or AG. “For example, cognitive behavior therapy might be used to challenge worry about life without the person, which would be classified as AG.”

Dr. Singer feels it is “vital” to reduce pre-death grief, insofar as numerous studies have shown that high rates of pre-death grief “result in higher rates of prolonged grief disorder.”
 

‘Paradoxical reality’

Francesca Falzarano, PhD, a postdoctoral associate in medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the article a “timely piece drawing much-needed attention to an all-too-often overlooked experience lived by those affected by terminal illnesses.”

Dr. Falzarano, who was not involved in the review, said that “from her own experience” as both a caregiver and behavioral scientist conducting research in this area, the concept of pre-death grief is a paradoxical reality – “how do we grieve someone we haven’t lost yet?”

The experience of pre-death grief is “quite distinct from grief after bereavement” because there is no end date. Rather, the person “cycles back and forth between preparing themselves for an impending death while also attending to whatever is happening in the current moment.” It’s also “unique in that both patients and caregivers individually and collectively grieve losses over the course of the illness,” she noted.

“We as researchers absolutely need to focus our attention on achieving consensus on an appropriate definition for pre-death grief that adequately encompasses its complexity and multidimensionality,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Falzarano report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California has revoked a psychiatrist’s license because it found that he sexually assaulted two patients after giving them ketamine and that he had an affair with the sister of another patient.

In its decision, the board stated that the psychiatrist, Cuyler Burns Goodwin, DO, committed gross negligence, violated ethical standards, departed from the standard of care, and was guilty of sexual misconduct.

“Even if one were to believe respondent’s denial of sexual assaults on Patient B and Patient C, his overall course of conduct in committing multiple other ethical violations and violations of the Medical Practice Act in connection with Patient A’s Sister, Patient B, and Patient C; his attitude toward and lack of insight into his offenses; and his lack of candor at hearing demonstrate that revocation of respondent’s license is required for protection of the public,” the board wrote in its March 8 order.

The board seeks to recover almost $65,000 in costs for the investigation, including for legal fees and expert testimony. The psychiatrist is not currently facing any criminal charges.
 

Family-run business

Dr. Goodwin received his medical license in 2013 and opened Sequoia Mind Health, a practice in Santa Rosa, Calif., soon after completing his residency at the University of California San Francisco, according to the board.

The allegations leading to the revocation of his license occurred at the Sequoia Mind Health practice, a family-run business that employed Dr. Goodwin’s mother as the office manager, his wife as the sole registered nurse, and his sister who worked reception for a time. Dr. Goodwin closed the practice in October 2019.

Until 2020, he worked as an emergency services psychiatrist for Sonoma County Behavioral Health. Other positions included stints at John George Psychiatric Pavilion in San Leandro, at Mendocino County Jail from 2018 to 2021, and at Lake County Jail from 2020 to 2021.

Since closing his practice, he also worked as a psychiatrist for Redwood Quality Management Company in Ukiah, Calif.

The board notified Dr. Goodwin in November 2020 that it was opening an investigation into his conduct.
 

Affair with patient’s sister

Patient A came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 as an uninsured, homebound, 24-year-old with schizophrenia. He had not received previous mental health treatment and was entirely dependent on his family because of the severity of his symptoms.

Dr. Goodwin agreed to make home visits to provide medication management and psychotherapy and was paid in cash by the patient’s sister, who was a point of contact for the family.

The sister and Dr. Goodwin developed a friendship and, after commiserating about their troubled marriages, began a sexual relationship in 2018 and decided they would divorce their spouses and marry each other.

However, in November 2018, the sister became pregnant and, at her request, Dr. Goodwin prescribed misoprostol to induce an abortion. The affair and the abortion were later discovered by the sister’s family, who agreed to not file a complaint with the medical board in exchange for Dr. Goodwin’s agreeing to cease communications with the sister.

Nevertheless, the two continued the affair and in February 2019 the patient’s father and mother each separately complained to the medical board. The sister also sent a letter to the board urging against disciplinary action – but later acknowledged that the letter was prepared by Dr. Goodwin.

The family removed Patient A from Dr. Goodwin’s care in 2019. The sister’s relationship with Patient A and her family was damaged; she subsequently divorced her husband and moved out of state. She later told the board she regretted the relationship and knew it was wrong.

When Dr. Goodwin was initially interviewed in 2019 by the medical board, he refused to discuss the relationship or the misoprostol prescription. Then, at a later hearing, he said he did not see anything wrong with the relationship and did not believe it affected the care of Patient A.

The medical board’s expert witness said Dr. Goodwin’s behavior “showed he either had no knowledge of ethical boundaries or chose to ignore them, showing poor judgment and ‘cluelessness’ about the potential adverse effects of having a sexual relationship with Sister, which had the significant potential to compromise Patient A’s treatment.”
 

Sexual assault

Patient B came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 to help taper her anxiety and depression medications. She informed him she had experienced multiple sexual assaults. He helped her taper off the drugs within a month and then hired her to work part-time at the practice’s reception desk.

After her symptoms worsened again after a traumatic event, Dr. Goodwin recommended the use of ketamine. Patient B received five ketamine treatments in a month with only Dr. Goodwin present in the room.

During one of those treatments he asked her questions about her sex life.  Another night in the office he asked her to have a glass of wine with him and then allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Patient B soon quit the job via text, telling him his behavior was inappropriate. She told Dr. Goodwin she would not say anything about the assault but asked for a letter of recommendation for another job. Dr. Goodwin texted back that she was “100% right,” and he would give her a great recommendation, which he later did.

A year later, in 2019, Pamela Albro, PhD, a psychologist who provided therapy at Sequoia Mind Health, contacted Patient B to ask why she quit.

When Patient B told her about the assault, the therapist asked to share her name with Patient C, who had a similar experience. Patient B agreed and then submitted a police report and a complaint to the medical board in March 2019.

Dr. Goodwin denied Patient B’s allegations and “offered evasive and non-credible testimony” about Patient B’s text messages, the board said.
 

Another patient-employee

Patient C attended Dr. Goodwin’s clinic in May 2017 after a suicide attempt that required hospitalization. She told Dr. Goodwin she had experienced sexual trauma and assault in the past. Dr. Goodwin referred Patient C to Dr. Albro for therapy, managed her medications himself, and hired her to work at the clinic’s reception desk, even though she was still a patient.

Patient C worked 32 hours a week and took on other duties that included assisting in the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation to clinic patients.

In late 2017, Dr. Goodwin recommended ketamine for Patient C and she received seven treatments from December 2017 through April 2019. There were no records of vital signs monitoring during the treatments, and Dr. Goodwin’s wife was present for only two sessions.

During the first treatment, where Patient C said she was feeling “out of it,” Dr. Goodwin allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Because of the ketamine, she told the medical board she was unable to speak or yell but said, “I screamed in my head.” After Dr. Goodwin left the room, she said she felt afraid, ashamed, and wanted to go home. Dr. Goodwin walked her to the lobby where her husband was waiting.

The patient did not tell her husband about the assault because she said she felt ashamed, and said she did not report Dr. Goodwin because it was not safe.
 

Disciplinary hearing

Patient C continued to work for Dr. Goodwin, calling it a confusing time in her life. She later learned about the affair with Patient A’s sister and about Patient B’s experience and resigned from the clinic in July 2019.

She still did not discuss the assault until early 2021 when the board contacted her again. She confided to her primary care physician, who noted that her PTSD symptoms had worsened.

Dr. Goodwin said in the disciplinary hearing that hiring Patient B and Patient C was “boundary crossing,” but he denied allegations of asking inappropriate questions or of sexual assault. The board, however, characterized the testimony of Patient B and Patient C as credible.

All of Dr. Goodwin’s other employers said at his disciplinary hearing that they believed he was a good psychiatrist and that they had never seen any unprofessional behavior.

The revocation of Dr. Goodwin’s license will be effective as of April 7. Dr. Goodwin’s attorney, Marvin H. Firestone, MD, JD, told this news organization he had “no comment” on the medical board’s decision or about his client.

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

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California has revoked a psychiatrist’s license because it found that he sexually assaulted two patients after giving them ketamine and that he had an affair with the sister of another patient.

In its decision, the board stated that the psychiatrist, Cuyler Burns Goodwin, DO, committed gross negligence, violated ethical standards, departed from the standard of care, and was guilty of sexual misconduct.

“Even if one were to believe respondent’s denial of sexual assaults on Patient B and Patient C, his overall course of conduct in committing multiple other ethical violations and violations of the Medical Practice Act in connection with Patient A’s Sister, Patient B, and Patient C; his attitude toward and lack of insight into his offenses; and his lack of candor at hearing demonstrate that revocation of respondent’s license is required for protection of the public,” the board wrote in its March 8 order.

The board seeks to recover almost $65,000 in costs for the investigation, including for legal fees and expert testimony. The psychiatrist is not currently facing any criminal charges.
 

Family-run business

Dr. Goodwin received his medical license in 2013 and opened Sequoia Mind Health, a practice in Santa Rosa, Calif., soon after completing his residency at the University of California San Francisco, according to the board.

The allegations leading to the revocation of his license occurred at the Sequoia Mind Health practice, a family-run business that employed Dr. Goodwin’s mother as the office manager, his wife as the sole registered nurse, and his sister who worked reception for a time. Dr. Goodwin closed the practice in October 2019.

Until 2020, he worked as an emergency services psychiatrist for Sonoma County Behavioral Health. Other positions included stints at John George Psychiatric Pavilion in San Leandro, at Mendocino County Jail from 2018 to 2021, and at Lake County Jail from 2020 to 2021.

Since closing his practice, he also worked as a psychiatrist for Redwood Quality Management Company in Ukiah, Calif.

The board notified Dr. Goodwin in November 2020 that it was opening an investigation into his conduct.
 

Affair with patient’s sister

Patient A came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 as an uninsured, homebound, 24-year-old with schizophrenia. He had not received previous mental health treatment and was entirely dependent on his family because of the severity of his symptoms.

Dr. Goodwin agreed to make home visits to provide medication management and psychotherapy and was paid in cash by the patient’s sister, who was a point of contact for the family.

The sister and Dr. Goodwin developed a friendship and, after commiserating about their troubled marriages, began a sexual relationship in 2018 and decided they would divorce their spouses and marry each other.

However, in November 2018, the sister became pregnant and, at her request, Dr. Goodwin prescribed misoprostol to induce an abortion. The affair and the abortion were later discovered by the sister’s family, who agreed to not file a complaint with the medical board in exchange for Dr. Goodwin’s agreeing to cease communications with the sister.

Nevertheless, the two continued the affair and in February 2019 the patient’s father and mother each separately complained to the medical board. The sister also sent a letter to the board urging against disciplinary action – but later acknowledged that the letter was prepared by Dr. Goodwin.

The family removed Patient A from Dr. Goodwin’s care in 2019. The sister’s relationship with Patient A and her family was damaged; she subsequently divorced her husband and moved out of state. She later told the board she regretted the relationship and knew it was wrong.

When Dr. Goodwin was initially interviewed in 2019 by the medical board, he refused to discuss the relationship or the misoprostol prescription. Then, at a later hearing, he said he did not see anything wrong with the relationship and did not believe it affected the care of Patient A.

The medical board’s expert witness said Dr. Goodwin’s behavior “showed he either had no knowledge of ethical boundaries or chose to ignore them, showing poor judgment and ‘cluelessness’ about the potential adverse effects of having a sexual relationship with Sister, which had the significant potential to compromise Patient A’s treatment.”
 

Sexual assault

Patient B came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 to help taper her anxiety and depression medications. She informed him she had experienced multiple sexual assaults. He helped her taper off the drugs within a month and then hired her to work part-time at the practice’s reception desk.

After her symptoms worsened again after a traumatic event, Dr. Goodwin recommended the use of ketamine. Patient B received five ketamine treatments in a month with only Dr. Goodwin present in the room.

During one of those treatments he asked her questions about her sex life.  Another night in the office he asked her to have a glass of wine with him and then allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Patient B soon quit the job via text, telling him his behavior was inappropriate. She told Dr. Goodwin she would not say anything about the assault but asked for a letter of recommendation for another job. Dr. Goodwin texted back that she was “100% right,” and he would give her a great recommendation, which he later did.

A year later, in 2019, Pamela Albro, PhD, a psychologist who provided therapy at Sequoia Mind Health, contacted Patient B to ask why she quit.

When Patient B told her about the assault, the therapist asked to share her name with Patient C, who had a similar experience. Patient B agreed and then submitted a police report and a complaint to the medical board in March 2019.

Dr. Goodwin denied Patient B’s allegations and “offered evasive and non-credible testimony” about Patient B’s text messages, the board said.
 

Another patient-employee

Patient C attended Dr. Goodwin’s clinic in May 2017 after a suicide attempt that required hospitalization. She told Dr. Goodwin she had experienced sexual trauma and assault in the past. Dr. Goodwin referred Patient C to Dr. Albro for therapy, managed her medications himself, and hired her to work at the clinic’s reception desk, even though she was still a patient.

Patient C worked 32 hours a week and took on other duties that included assisting in the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation to clinic patients.

In late 2017, Dr. Goodwin recommended ketamine for Patient C and she received seven treatments from December 2017 through April 2019. There were no records of vital signs monitoring during the treatments, and Dr. Goodwin’s wife was present for only two sessions.

During the first treatment, where Patient C said she was feeling “out of it,” Dr. Goodwin allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Because of the ketamine, she told the medical board she was unable to speak or yell but said, “I screamed in my head.” After Dr. Goodwin left the room, she said she felt afraid, ashamed, and wanted to go home. Dr. Goodwin walked her to the lobby where her husband was waiting.

The patient did not tell her husband about the assault because she said she felt ashamed, and said she did not report Dr. Goodwin because it was not safe.
 

Disciplinary hearing

Patient C continued to work for Dr. Goodwin, calling it a confusing time in her life. She later learned about the affair with Patient A’s sister and about Patient B’s experience and resigned from the clinic in July 2019.

She still did not discuss the assault until early 2021 when the board contacted her again. She confided to her primary care physician, who noted that her PTSD symptoms had worsened.

Dr. Goodwin said in the disciplinary hearing that hiring Patient B and Patient C was “boundary crossing,” but he denied allegations of asking inappropriate questions or of sexual assault. The board, however, characterized the testimony of Patient B and Patient C as credible.

All of Dr. Goodwin’s other employers said at his disciplinary hearing that they believed he was a good psychiatrist and that they had never seen any unprofessional behavior.

The revocation of Dr. Goodwin’s license will be effective as of April 7. Dr. Goodwin’s attorney, Marvin H. Firestone, MD, JD, told this news organization he had “no comment” on the medical board’s decision or about his client.

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

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California has revoked a psychiatrist’s license because it found that he sexually assaulted two patients after giving them ketamine and that he had an affair with the sister of another patient.

In its decision, the board stated that the psychiatrist, Cuyler Burns Goodwin, DO, committed gross negligence, violated ethical standards, departed from the standard of care, and was guilty of sexual misconduct.

“Even if one were to believe respondent’s denial of sexual assaults on Patient B and Patient C, his overall course of conduct in committing multiple other ethical violations and violations of the Medical Practice Act in connection with Patient A’s Sister, Patient B, and Patient C; his attitude toward and lack of insight into his offenses; and his lack of candor at hearing demonstrate that revocation of respondent’s license is required for protection of the public,” the board wrote in its March 8 order.

The board seeks to recover almost $65,000 in costs for the investigation, including for legal fees and expert testimony. The psychiatrist is not currently facing any criminal charges.
 

Family-run business

Dr. Goodwin received his medical license in 2013 and opened Sequoia Mind Health, a practice in Santa Rosa, Calif., soon after completing his residency at the University of California San Francisco, according to the board.

The allegations leading to the revocation of his license occurred at the Sequoia Mind Health practice, a family-run business that employed Dr. Goodwin’s mother as the office manager, his wife as the sole registered nurse, and his sister who worked reception for a time. Dr. Goodwin closed the practice in October 2019.

Until 2020, he worked as an emergency services psychiatrist for Sonoma County Behavioral Health. Other positions included stints at John George Psychiatric Pavilion in San Leandro, at Mendocino County Jail from 2018 to 2021, and at Lake County Jail from 2020 to 2021.

Since closing his practice, he also worked as a psychiatrist for Redwood Quality Management Company in Ukiah, Calif.

The board notified Dr. Goodwin in November 2020 that it was opening an investigation into his conduct.
 

Affair with patient’s sister

Patient A came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 as an uninsured, homebound, 24-year-old with schizophrenia. He had not received previous mental health treatment and was entirely dependent on his family because of the severity of his symptoms.

Dr. Goodwin agreed to make home visits to provide medication management and psychotherapy and was paid in cash by the patient’s sister, who was a point of contact for the family.

The sister and Dr. Goodwin developed a friendship and, after commiserating about their troubled marriages, began a sexual relationship in 2018 and decided they would divorce their spouses and marry each other.

However, in November 2018, the sister became pregnant and, at her request, Dr. Goodwin prescribed misoprostol to induce an abortion. The affair and the abortion were later discovered by the sister’s family, who agreed to not file a complaint with the medical board in exchange for Dr. Goodwin’s agreeing to cease communications with the sister.

Nevertheless, the two continued the affair and in February 2019 the patient’s father and mother each separately complained to the medical board. The sister also sent a letter to the board urging against disciplinary action – but later acknowledged that the letter was prepared by Dr. Goodwin.

The family removed Patient A from Dr. Goodwin’s care in 2019. The sister’s relationship with Patient A and her family was damaged; she subsequently divorced her husband and moved out of state. She later told the board she regretted the relationship and knew it was wrong.

When Dr. Goodwin was initially interviewed in 2019 by the medical board, he refused to discuss the relationship or the misoprostol prescription. Then, at a later hearing, he said he did not see anything wrong with the relationship and did not believe it affected the care of Patient A.

The medical board’s expert witness said Dr. Goodwin’s behavior “showed he either had no knowledge of ethical boundaries or chose to ignore them, showing poor judgment and ‘cluelessness’ about the potential adverse effects of having a sexual relationship with Sister, which had the significant potential to compromise Patient A’s treatment.”
 

Sexual assault

Patient B came to Dr. Goodwin in 2017 to help taper her anxiety and depression medications. She informed him she had experienced multiple sexual assaults. He helped her taper off the drugs within a month and then hired her to work part-time at the practice’s reception desk.

After her symptoms worsened again after a traumatic event, Dr. Goodwin recommended the use of ketamine. Patient B received five ketamine treatments in a month with only Dr. Goodwin present in the room.

During one of those treatments he asked her questions about her sex life.  Another night in the office he asked her to have a glass of wine with him and then allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Patient B soon quit the job via text, telling him his behavior was inappropriate. She told Dr. Goodwin she would not say anything about the assault but asked for a letter of recommendation for another job. Dr. Goodwin texted back that she was “100% right,” and he would give her a great recommendation, which he later did.

A year later, in 2019, Pamela Albro, PhD, a psychologist who provided therapy at Sequoia Mind Health, contacted Patient B to ask why she quit.

When Patient B told her about the assault, the therapist asked to share her name with Patient C, who had a similar experience. Patient B agreed and then submitted a police report and a complaint to the medical board in March 2019.

Dr. Goodwin denied Patient B’s allegations and “offered evasive and non-credible testimony” about Patient B’s text messages, the board said.
 

Another patient-employee

Patient C attended Dr. Goodwin’s clinic in May 2017 after a suicide attempt that required hospitalization. She told Dr. Goodwin she had experienced sexual trauma and assault in the past. Dr. Goodwin referred Patient C to Dr. Albro for therapy, managed her medications himself, and hired her to work at the clinic’s reception desk, even though she was still a patient.

Patient C worked 32 hours a week and took on other duties that included assisting in the administration of transcranial magnetic stimulation to clinic patients.

In late 2017, Dr. Goodwin recommended ketamine for Patient C and she received seven treatments from December 2017 through April 2019. There were no records of vital signs monitoring during the treatments, and Dr. Goodwin’s wife was present for only two sessions.

During the first treatment, where Patient C said she was feeling “out of it,” Dr. Goodwin allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Because of the ketamine, she told the medical board she was unable to speak or yell but said, “I screamed in my head.” After Dr. Goodwin left the room, she said she felt afraid, ashamed, and wanted to go home. Dr. Goodwin walked her to the lobby where her husband was waiting.

The patient did not tell her husband about the assault because she said she felt ashamed, and said she did not report Dr. Goodwin because it was not safe.
 

Disciplinary hearing

Patient C continued to work for Dr. Goodwin, calling it a confusing time in her life. She later learned about the affair with Patient A’s sister and about Patient B’s experience and resigned from the clinic in July 2019.

She still did not discuss the assault until early 2021 when the board contacted her again. She confided to her primary care physician, who noted that her PTSD symptoms had worsened.

Dr. Goodwin said in the disciplinary hearing that hiring Patient B and Patient C was “boundary crossing,” but he denied allegations of asking inappropriate questions or of sexual assault. The board, however, characterized the testimony of Patient B and Patient C as credible.

All of Dr. Goodwin’s other employers said at his disciplinary hearing that they believed he was a good psychiatrist and that they had never seen any unprofessional behavior.

The revocation of Dr. Goodwin’s license will be effective as of April 7. Dr. Goodwin’s attorney, Marvin H. Firestone, MD, JD, told this news organization he had “no comment” on the medical board’s decision or about his client.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

The link between obesity and cancer has increasingly been emphasized in public health messages, but is the current message correct?

“Being overweight or having obesity increases your risk of getting cancer,” warns the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It warns that overweight/obesity is “linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer ... [which] make up 40% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.”

But that message, which is also promulgated by many cancer organizations, is based on data from observational studies, which have many limitations.

A new study based on Mendelian randomization studies has come to a slightly different conclusion and has found a potential causal association with just six cancers.

In addition, it found an inverse relationship for breast cancer, in which early-life obesity was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, and the relationship with obesity was “complicated” for lung and prostate cancer.

The study, headed by Zhe Fang, MBBS, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

“For a seemingly straightforward question of whether excessive body fatness causes cancer, the answer may not be straightforward after all,” writes Song Yao, PhD, professor of oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., in an accompanying editorial

“How to craft a simple public health message to convey the complexity and nuances of the relationships may be a challenge to be grappled with going forward,” he added.

In an interview, Dr. Yao said that it “really depends on what kind of message you want to get out.”

“If you want to talk about cancer overall, as one disease, we all know that a clear association with obesity does not exist,” he said. “It’s not that simple.”

“You really cannot say that obesity increases cancer risk overall,” he said.

For some cancers included in the study, Dr. Yao continued, it was “very clear that obesity increased the risk ... but for some other cancer types, we either don’t have enough data yet or the association is not as consistent.”

This, he said, is especially the case for prostate and lung cancer.

All of this indicates that there is a complex relationship between obesity and cancer risk, he maintains.

“We always think obesity is bad, not only for cancer but also for more common conditions, like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Yao noted. This points to the link between obesity and chronic inflammation, he added.

However, there are also other hypotheses, including synthesis of estrogen in adipose tissue, which may explain the link between obesity and breast cancer risk in older women.

However, in younger women, obesity protects against breast cancer, and “we really don’t know why,” Dr. Yao said.

The new study used Mendelian randomization to examine these relationships. This is a “new tool that we have developed over the past 20 years or so, largely because there is so much data coming from genome-wide association studies,” Dr. Yao explained.

It has “advantages” over other methods, including observational studies. One of its strengths is that it is “not impacted by reverse causality,” because genetic risk does not change over time.

However, he said, it is “quite straightforward to think that the genetics do not change, but at the same time, the environment we live in throughout our life course changes,” and the impact of genetic variants may be “washed out.”

How genetics influences cancer risk may therefore change over time, and it is a “dynamic process,” Dr. Yao commented.

In addition, this approach has its own limitations, he said, because it depends on how much of the variation in a given measure can be attributed to genetic factors.
 

New conclusions

In their study, Dr. Fang and colleagues reviewed 204 meta-analyses of 2,179 individual estimates from 507 cohort or case-control studies. They found “strong evidence” that supports the association between obesity and 11 cancers.

These are esophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney.

They note, however, that the associations “may be causal for some malignancies” but that the co-occurrence of obesity with various cancer risk factors means that others may be “susceptible to potential confounding bias.”

To overcome some of these limitations, the team looked to Mendelian randomization studies that examined the association between genetic variants linked to body mass index (BMI), indicating lifetime risk of high BMI, and cancer risk for a range of cancer types.

These Mendelian randomization studies were then compared with the results of large-scale conventional observational studies, as well as with evidence in reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund–American Institute of Cancer Research, which also include experimental studies.

The researchers say that, overall, the Mendelian randomization studies “further establish the causality of obesity” with six cancer types: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, kidney, and pancreatic cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In addition, these studies further establish the inverse relationship of early-life obesity with breast cancer.

However, the approach could not confirm a positive association between obesity and gallbladder and gastric cardia cancer, as well as multiple myeloma.

“This could be due to low power,” the team suggests, “and larger studies are required.”

With respect to lung cancer, the Mendelian randomization identified a positive association with obesity that supports the inverse association identified in observational studies, that is, that obesity may reduce the risk for lung cancer.

The researchers suggest this may reflect reverse causality related to the loss of lean body mass before diagnosis, as well as confounding by smoking.

For prostate cancer, the evidence was “conflicting” and “implies a complicated role of obesity,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues comment.

The link between obesity and lower prostate-specific antigen levels, they suggest, may result in a detection bias by masking the presence of prostate cancer, or it “could be biological” in origin, owing to reduced androgen levels.

For six cancer types for which a causal relationship with obesity could be established, the effect estimates from the Mendelian randomization studies were stronger than those seen in conventional studies, with the magnitude of risk ranging from 1.14-fold for early-life obesity and breast cancer to 1.37-fold for adult obesity and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

In another editorial accompanying the new study, Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH, from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, underlined that childhood and adolescent obesity and their contribution to cancer risk need further attention.

“To reap the reward from past research, we must act to implement effective strategies to reduce childhood and adolescent adiposity, reduce excess weight gain in adult years, and maintain a healthy weight,” he writes.

“This will require us to change the way we live, but COVID-19 has shown we can make changes to how we live and work. Let us keep the changes we have already made, or take on new ones, that will cut our collective cancer toll,” he implores.

No funding for the study was described. Dr. Colditz is supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No other relevant financial relationships were described.

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