This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

To the Editor:

Data from the program director survey of the National Resident Matching Program offer key insights into the 2021 dermatology application process.^1,2 Examination of data from the 2020 (N=12) and 2021 (N=17) program director survey regarding interviewing applicants revealed that specialty-specific letters of recommendation (LORs), personal prior knowledge of an applicant, and personal statement increased in importance by 17%, 7.4%, and 17%, respectively, whereas away rotations within the department decreased in importance by 44.9% (Table).^1,2 Interestingly, for ranking applicants, programs decreased their emphasis on specialty-specific LORs by 25.8% and away rotations within the department by 22.7% and increased emphasis on personal statements by 14.7% and personal prior knowledge of an applicant by 0.8% from 2020 to 2021 (Table).^1,2 These findings align with the prior recommendation to limit away rotations; data are contradictory—when comparing factors for interviewing as compared to ranking applicants—for specialty-specific LORs.

We further compared data from the otolaryngology cycle, which implemented preference signaling by which an applicant can signal their interest in a particular residency program in the 2021 Match, to data from dermatology with no preference signaling. A 90% probability of matching is estimated to require approximately 8 or 9 interviews for dermatology or 12 interviews for otolaryngology for MD senior students in 2020.⁴ In prior dermatology application cycles, the most highly qualified candidates constituted 7% to 21% of all applicants but were estimated to receive half of all interviews, causing a maldistribution of interviews.^5,6

For the 2021 otolaryngology match, the Society of University Otolaryngologists implemented a novel preference signaling system that allowed candidates to show interest in programs by sending 5 preferences, or tokens.⁷ Recent data reports from the otolaryngology cycle demonstrated at least a 2-fold increase in the rate of receiving an interview invitation for signaled programs compared to the closest nonsignaled program if applicants were provided an additional token.⁷ Regarding overall applicant competitiveness (ie, dividing participants into quartiles based on their competitiveness), the highest increase in the overall rate of interview invitations (3.5 [total invitations/total applications]) was demonstrated for fourth-quartile (ie, “lowest quartile”) applicants compared with the increase in the overall rate of interview invitations seen in other quartiles (first quartile, an increase of 2.3; second quartile, an increase of 2.6; and third quartile, an increase of 2.4).⁷ We look forward to seeing the impact of preference signaling on the results of the 2022 dermatology cycle.

Despite changes in the interviewing process to accommodate COVID-19 pandemic safety recommendations, the overall dermatology postgraduate year (PGY) 2 fill rate remained unchanged from 2018 (98.6%) to 2021 (98.7%). Zero PGY-1 positions and 5 PGY-2 positions were unfilled in the 2021 Main Residency Match compared to 1 unfilled PGY-1 position and 4 unfilled PGY-2 positions in 2018.⁸ The coordinated interview invitation release, holistic review of applications, increased number of rankings, and virtual interviews might have helped offset potential obstacles imparted by inability to complete away rotations, inability to obtain LORs, and conducting interviews virtually.⁵

A limitation of our analysis is the low response rate of program directors to National Resident Matching Program surveys.

These strategies—holistic application review and coordinated interview release—may be considered in future cycles given their convenience and negligible impact on the dermatology match rate. For example, virtual interviews relieve the financial and time burdens of in-person interviews—approximately $10,000 for each US senior applicant—thus potentially allowing for a more equitable matching process.³ Inversely, in-person interviews allow participants to effectively network and form more meaningful connections while obtaining a better understanding of facilities and surrounding locales. As such, the medical community should continue to come to a consensus on the optimal format to host interviews.

To the Editor:

Data from the program director survey of the National Resident Matching Program offer key insights into the 2021 dermatology application process.^1,2 Examination of data from the 2020 (N=12) and 2021 (N=17) program director survey regarding interviewing applicants revealed that specialty-specific letters of recommendation (LORs), personal prior knowledge of an applicant, and personal statement increased in importance by 17%, 7.4%, and 17%, respectively, whereas away rotations within the department decreased in importance by 44.9% (Table).^1,2 Interestingly, for ranking applicants, programs decreased their emphasis on specialty-specific LORs by 25.8% and away rotations within the department by 22.7% and increased emphasis on personal statements by 14.7% and personal prior knowledge of an applicant by 0.8% from 2020 to 2021 (Table).^1,2 These findings align with the prior recommendation to limit away rotations; data are contradictory—when comparing factors for interviewing as compared to ranking applicants—for specialty-specific LORs.

We further compared data from the otolaryngology cycle, which implemented preference signaling by which an applicant can signal their interest in a particular residency program in the 2021 Match, to data from dermatology with no preference signaling. A 90% probability of matching is estimated to require approximately 8 or 9 interviews for dermatology or 12 interviews for otolaryngology for MD senior students in 2020.⁴ In prior dermatology application cycles, the most highly qualified candidates constituted 7% to 21% of all applicants but were estimated to receive half of all interviews, causing a maldistribution of interviews.^5,6

For the 2021 otolaryngology match, the Society of University Otolaryngologists implemented a novel preference signaling system that allowed candidates to show interest in programs by sending 5 preferences, or tokens.⁷ Recent data reports from the otolaryngology cycle demonstrated at least a 2-fold increase in the rate of receiving an interview invitation for signaled programs compared to the closest nonsignaled program if applicants were provided an additional token.⁷ Regarding overall applicant competitiveness (ie, dividing participants into quartiles based on their competitiveness), the highest increase in the overall rate of interview invitations (3.5 [total invitations/total applications]) was demonstrated for fourth-quartile (ie, “lowest quartile”) applicants compared with the increase in the overall rate of interview invitations seen in other quartiles (first quartile, an increase of 2.3; second quartile, an increase of 2.6; and third quartile, an increase of 2.4).⁷ We look forward to seeing the impact of preference signaling on the results of the 2022 dermatology cycle.

Despite changes in the interviewing process to accommodate COVID-19 pandemic safety recommendations, the overall dermatology postgraduate year (PGY) 2 fill rate remained unchanged from 2018 (98.6%) to 2021 (98.7%). Zero PGY-1 positions and 5 PGY-2 positions were unfilled in the 2021 Main Residency Match compared to 1 unfilled PGY-1 position and 4 unfilled PGY-2 positions in 2018.⁸ The coordinated interview invitation release, holistic review of applications, increased number of rankings, and virtual interviews might have helped offset potential obstacles imparted by inability to complete away rotations, inability to obtain LORs, and conducting interviews virtually.⁵

A limitation of our analysis is the low response rate of program directors to National Resident Matching Program surveys.

These strategies—holistic application review and coordinated interview release—may be considered in future cycles given their convenience and negligible impact on the dermatology match rate. For example, virtual interviews relieve the financial and time burdens of in-person interviews—approximately $10,000 for each US senior applicant—thus potentially allowing for a more equitable matching process.³ Inversely, in-person interviews allow participants to effectively network and form more meaningful connections while obtaining a better understanding of facilities and surrounding locales. As such, the medical community should continue to come to a consensus on the optimal format to host interviews.

To the Editor:

Data from the program director survey of the National Resident Matching Program offer key insights into the 2021 dermatology application process.^1,2 Examination of data from the 2020 (N=12) and 2021 (N=17) program director survey regarding interviewing applicants revealed that specialty-specific letters of recommendation (LORs), personal prior knowledge of an applicant, and personal statement increased in importance by 17%, 7.4%, and 17%, respectively, whereas away rotations within the department decreased in importance by 44.9% (Table).^1,2 Interestingly, for ranking applicants, programs decreased their emphasis on specialty-specific LORs by 25.8% and away rotations within the department by 22.7% and increased emphasis on personal statements by 14.7% and personal prior knowledge of an applicant by 0.8% from 2020 to 2021 (Table).^1,2 These findings align with the prior recommendation to limit away rotations; data are contradictory—when comparing factors for interviewing as compared to ranking applicants—for specialty-specific LORs.

We further compared data from the otolaryngology cycle, which implemented preference signaling by which an applicant can signal their interest in a particular residency program in the 2021 Match, to data from dermatology with no preference signaling. A 90% probability of matching is estimated to require approximately 8 or 9 interviews for dermatology or 12 interviews for otolaryngology for MD senior students in 2020.⁴ In prior dermatology application cycles, the most highly qualified candidates constituted 7% to 21% of all applicants but were estimated to receive half of all interviews, causing a maldistribution of interviews.^5,6

For the 2021 otolaryngology match, the Society of University Otolaryngologists implemented a novel preference signaling system that allowed candidates to show interest in programs by sending 5 preferences, or tokens.⁷ Recent data reports from the otolaryngology cycle demonstrated at least a 2-fold increase in the rate of receiving an interview invitation for signaled programs compared to the closest nonsignaled program if applicants were provided an additional token.⁷ Regarding overall applicant competitiveness (ie, dividing participants into quartiles based on their competitiveness), the highest increase in the overall rate of interview invitations (3.5 [total invitations/total applications]) was demonstrated for fourth-quartile (ie, “lowest quartile”) applicants compared with the increase in the overall rate of interview invitations seen in other quartiles (first quartile, an increase of 2.3; second quartile, an increase of 2.6; and third quartile, an increase of 2.4).⁷ We look forward to seeing the impact of preference signaling on the results of the 2022 dermatology cycle.

Despite changes in the interviewing process to accommodate COVID-19 pandemic safety recommendations, the overall dermatology postgraduate year (PGY) 2 fill rate remained unchanged from 2018 (98.6%) to 2021 (98.7%). Zero PGY-1 positions and 5 PGY-2 positions were unfilled in the 2021 Main Residency Match compared to 1 unfilled PGY-1 position and 4 unfilled PGY-2 positions in 2018.⁸ The coordinated interview invitation release, holistic review of applications, increased number of rankings, and virtual interviews might have helped offset potential obstacles imparted by inability to complete away rotations, inability to obtain LORs, and conducting interviews virtually.⁵

A limitation of our analysis is the low response rate of program directors to National Resident Matching Program surveys.

These strategies—holistic application review and coordinated interview release—may be considered in future cycles given their convenience and negligible impact on the dermatology match rate. For example, virtual interviews relieve the financial and time burdens of in-person interviews—approximately $10,000 for each US senior applicant—thus potentially allowing for a more equitable matching process.³ Inversely, in-person interviews allow participants to effectively network and form more meaningful connections while obtaining a better understanding of facilities and surrounding locales. As such, the medical community should continue to come to a consensus on the optimal format to host interviews.

Introduction

The field of cancer immunotherapy has exploded in recent years, with new therapies showing promising results for effective treatment of various cancer types. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) work by blocking checkpoint proteins that prevent breakdown of tumor cells by T-lymphocytes. Checkpoint proteins exist to prevent autoimmunity and destruction of healthy cells, but may allow tumor cells to grow unchallenged. Three checkpoint proteins – cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein–4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell-death protein–1 (PD-1), and programmed cell-death protein ligand–1 (PDL-1) – are therapeutic targets for current ICIs.¹

ICIs are used to treat various cancer types (e.g., lung, renal-cell, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma). Immune-related adverse events (irAE) are frequently seen with ICI use, ranging from 15% to 90%, and can occur at any point during, or even after, treatment.²Although ICIs are known to cause multisystem adverse reactions, this review will discuss the spectrum of these reactions in the gastrointestinal and hepatopancreaticobiliary realms.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor–related gastrointestinal adverse reactions

GI adverse reactions are the second most common irAE, occurring in about 35%-50% of all reported irAEs.³ Anti-CTLA-4 medications have the highest association with GI irAE. The most common GI symptoms are diarrhea, abdominal pain, urgency, and nausea/vomiting. GI involvement can occur along the entirety of the GI tract – from the oral cavity to the colorectum. These are usually seen within 6-8 weeks of starting treatment, but can occur as early as 1 week after initiation or as late as 12 months after the last dose.² Although colitis is the most common area of luminal inflammation, aphthous ulcers, esophagitis, gastritis, and enteritis can be seen. Anti-CTLA-4 antibodies have the highest associated rate of diarrhea (33%-50%) and colitis (7%-22%) of all ICIs.⁴ Computed tomography (CT) may show colonic wall thickening or fat stranding, indicating inflammation. Endoscopically, the colon can appear grossly normal or demonstrate erythema, erosions, ulcerations, and/or loss of vascular pattern.⁵ Inflammation can be patchy or continuous. Typical histology shows increased lamina propria cellularity, neutrophilic infiltration (intraepithelial or crypt abscesses), and increased crypt apoptosis.⁶

The liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and biliary tract can also be affected by irAE. The liver is most commonly involved (i.e. 5% of irAE), manifesting as asymptomatic liver chemistry elevation, particularly aminotransferases. This can progress to acute symptomatic hepatitis with jaundice, fever, or malaise, and rarely to fulminant hepatitis. ICI-associated hepatitis appears histologically similar to autoimmune hepatitis, with pan-lobular hepatitis and infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes seen on liver biopsy.⁷ Less commonly, pancreatic toxicity can occur (<2% of irAE), seen with anti-CTLA-4 therapy.⁸ While this typically results in asymptomatic lipase or amylase elevations (2.7%), acute pancreatitis (AP) can occur(1.9%). ICI-associated AP presents with classic symptoms and imaging changes, but can also manifest with exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency. An increase in rates of acute acalculous cholecystitis has been reported in patients receiving ICIs compared to patients receiving non-ICI chemotherapy.⁹ There are also rare reports of ICI-associated secondary sclerosing cholangitis.
 

Management

Evaluation and management of GI irAEs are guided by severity, based on the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading classification (Table 1).¹⁰

A thorough history of GI and systemic symptoms should be obtained and compared to baseline bowel habits. Patients with mild symptoms should undergo studies to assess alternate etiologies for their symptoms. Bacterial stool cultures and testing for C. difficile should be performed. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, fecal lactoferrin, and calprotectin can help assess the degree of intestinal inflammation and can be used to risk-stratify or assess treatment response. CT scans can assess for colitis and associated complications, including abdominal abscess, toxic megacolon, and bowel perforation.

Patients unresponsive to initial treatment for grade I irAE, with hematochezia, or with at least grade 2 diarrhea, should undergo GI consultation and endoscopic evaluation. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is the test of choice, as 95% of patients will have left-sided colonic inflammation.¹¹ Patients with at least grade 3 diarrhea should be hospitalized for treatment. In cases of failed methylprednisolone and when infliximab is ineffective or contraindicated, vedolizumab is suggested, although evidence is limited.¹²

Patients responsive to systemic corticosteroids (complete resolution or improvement to grade 1) can continue a tapered regimen over 4-6 weeks. There is conflicting evidence on the effect that corticosteroids have on ICI-related antitumor response rates. While some studies report no change in antitumor response rates or survival, others report reduced overall survival.¹³ Regardless, given its unfavorable side-effect profile, steroids should be used only for short periods of time.

PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies can be restarted after symptoms have resolved or improved to grade 1, having finished the corticosteroid taper. CTLA-4 antibodies should be discontinued permanently in the setting of grade 3 toxicity. All ICIs should be discontinued permanently in grade 4 toxicity.

Conclusions

Therapy with ICI is a rapidly expanding and changing field. Side effects of ICIs can affect nearly every organ system, and thus management should involve a multidisciplinary team of oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and other specialists. Given that GI adverse effects are the second most commonly affected system, all gastroenterologists and hepatologists should be knowledgeable about the spectrum of GI adverse events, as well as with the respective clinical presentations, diagnostics, and management of these events.

Dr. Kwon is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California Irvine, Orange. Dr. Kröner is with the division of advanced endoscopy, Riverside Health System, Newport News, Va. The authors certify that they have no financial arrangements (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent-licensing arrangements, research support, honoraria, etc.) with a company whose product figures prominently in this manuscript or with a company making a competing product. Funding: None.

References

1. Webster RM. The immune checkpoint inhibitors: where are we now? Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery. 2014;13(12):883.

2. Thompson JA et al. NCCN guidelines insights: Management of immunotherapy-related toxicities, version 1.2020: Featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(3):230-41.

3. Bertrand A et al. Immune related adverse events associated with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2015 Sep 4;13:211.

4. Gupta A et al. Systematic review: Colitis associated with anti‐CTLA‐4 therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;42(4):406-17.

5. Verschuren EC et al. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic characteristics of ipilimumab-associated colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(6):836-42.

6. Foppen MHG et al. Immune checkpoint inhibition–related colitis: Symptoms, endoscopic features, histology and response to management. ESMO Open. 2018;3(1):e000278.

7. Sanjeevaiah A et al. Approach and management of checkpoint inhibitor–related immune hepatitis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;9(1):220.

8. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced pancreatic injury. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Feb 6;7(1):31.

9. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Case series of cancer patients who developed cholecystitis related to immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 May 3;7(1):118.

10. Thompson JA et al. Management of immunotherapy-related toxicities, version 1.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(3):255-89.

11. Marthey L et al. Cancer immunotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies induces an inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(4):395-401.

12. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Outcomes of vedolizumab therapy in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced colitis: A multicenter study. J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Dec 5;6(1):142.

13. Das S and Johnson DB. Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Nov 15;7(1):306.

14. Reddy HG et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated colitis and hepatitis. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2018 Sep 19;9(9):180.

15. Reynolds K et al. Diagnosis and management of hepatitis in patients on checkpoint blockade. Oncologist. 2018;23(9):991-7.

Introduction

The field of cancer immunotherapy has exploded in recent years, with new therapies showing promising results for effective treatment of various cancer types. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) work by blocking checkpoint proteins that prevent breakdown of tumor cells by T-lymphocytes. Checkpoint proteins exist to prevent autoimmunity and destruction of healthy cells, but may allow tumor cells to grow unchallenged. Three checkpoint proteins – cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein–4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell-death protein–1 (PD-1), and programmed cell-death protein ligand–1 (PDL-1) – are therapeutic targets for current ICIs.¹

ICIs are used to treat various cancer types (e.g., lung, renal-cell, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma). Immune-related adverse events (irAE) are frequently seen with ICI use, ranging from 15% to 90%, and can occur at any point during, or even after, treatment.²Although ICIs are known to cause multisystem adverse reactions, this review will discuss the spectrum of these reactions in the gastrointestinal and hepatopancreaticobiliary realms.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor–related gastrointestinal adverse reactions

GI adverse reactions are the second most common irAE, occurring in about 35%-50% of all reported irAEs.³ Anti-CTLA-4 medications have the highest association with GI irAE. The most common GI symptoms are diarrhea, abdominal pain, urgency, and nausea/vomiting. GI involvement can occur along the entirety of the GI tract – from the oral cavity to the colorectum. These are usually seen within 6-8 weeks of starting treatment, but can occur as early as 1 week after initiation or as late as 12 months after the last dose.² Although colitis is the most common area of luminal inflammation, aphthous ulcers, esophagitis, gastritis, and enteritis can be seen. Anti-CTLA-4 antibodies have the highest associated rate of diarrhea (33%-50%) and colitis (7%-22%) of all ICIs.⁴ Computed tomography (CT) may show colonic wall thickening or fat stranding, indicating inflammation. Endoscopically, the colon can appear grossly normal or demonstrate erythema, erosions, ulcerations, and/or loss of vascular pattern.⁵ Inflammation can be patchy or continuous. Typical histology shows increased lamina propria cellularity, neutrophilic infiltration (intraepithelial or crypt abscesses), and increased crypt apoptosis.⁶

The liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and biliary tract can also be affected by irAE. The liver is most commonly involved (i.e. 5% of irAE), manifesting as asymptomatic liver chemistry elevation, particularly aminotransferases. This can progress to acute symptomatic hepatitis with jaundice, fever, or malaise, and rarely to fulminant hepatitis. ICI-associated hepatitis appears histologically similar to autoimmune hepatitis, with pan-lobular hepatitis and infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes seen on liver biopsy.⁷ Less commonly, pancreatic toxicity can occur (<2% of irAE), seen with anti-CTLA-4 therapy.⁸ While this typically results in asymptomatic lipase or amylase elevations (2.7%), acute pancreatitis (AP) can occur(1.9%). ICI-associated AP presents with classic symptoms and imaging changes, but can also manifest with exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency. An increase in rates of acute acalculous cholecystitis has been reported in patients receiving ICIs compared to patients receiving non-ICI chemotherapy.⁹ There are also rare reports of ICI-associated secondary sclerosing cholangitis.
 

Management

Evaluation and management of GI irAEs are guided by severity, based on the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading classification (Table 1).¹⁰

A thorough history of GI and systemic symptoms should be obtained and compared to baseline bowel habits. Patients with mild symptoms should undergo studies to assess alternate etiologies for their symptoms. Bacterial stool cultures and testing for C. difficile should be performed. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, fecal lactoferrin, and calprotectin can help assess the degree of intestinal inflammation and can be used to risk-stratify or assess treatment response. CT scans can assess for colitis and associated complications, including abdominal abscess, toxic megacolon, and bowel perforation.

Patients unresponsive to initial treatment for grade I irAE, with hematochezia, or with at least grade 2 diarrhea, should undergo GI consultation and endoscopic evaluation. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is the test of choice, as 95% of patients will have left-sided colonic inflammation.¹¹ Patients with at least grade 3 diarrhea should be hospitalized for treatment. In cases of failed methylprednisolone and when infliximab is ineffective or contraindicated, vedolizumab is suggested, although evidence is limited.¹²

Patients responsive to systemic corticosteroids (complete resolution or improvement to grade 1) can continue a tapered regimen over 4-6 weeks. There is conflicting evidence on the effect that corticosteroids have on ICI-related antitumor response rates. While some studies report no change in antitumor response rates or survival, others report reduced overall survival.¹³ Regardless, given its unfavorable side-effect profile, steroids should be used only for short periods of time.

PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies can be restarted after symptoms have resolved or improved to grade 1, having finished the corticosteroid taper. CTLA-4 antibodies should be discontinued permanently in the setting of grade 3 toxicity. All ICIs should be discontinued permanently in grade 4 toxicity.

Conclusions

Therapy with ICI is a rapidly expanding and changing field. Side effects of ICIs can affect nearly every organ system, and thus management should involve a multidisciplinary team of oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and other specialists. Given that GI adverse effects are the second most commonly affected system, all gastroenterologists and hepatologists should be knowledgeable about the spectrum of GI adverse events, as well as with the respective clinical presentations, diagnostics, and management of these events.

Dr. Kwon is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California Irvine, Orange. Dr. Kröner is with the division of advanced endoscopy, Riverside Health System, Newport News, Va. The authors certify that they have no financial arrangements (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent-licensing arrangements, research support, honoraria, etc.) with a company whose product figures prominently in this manuscript or with a company making a competing product. Funding: None.

References

1. Webster RM. The immune checkpoint inhibitors: where are we now? Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery. 2014;13(12):883.

2. Thompson JA et al. NCCN guidelines insights: Management of immunotherapy-related toxicities, version 1.2020: Featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(3):230-41.

3. Bertrand A et al. Immune related adverse events associated with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2015 Sep 4;13:211.

4. Gupta A et al. Systematic review: Colitis associated with anti‐CTLA‐4 therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;42(4):406-17.

5. Verschuren EC et al. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic characteristics of ipilimumab-associated colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(6):836-42.

6. Foppen MHG et al. Immune checkpoint inhibition–related colitis: Symptoms, endoscopic features, histology and response to management. ESMO Open. 2018;3(1):e000278.

7. Sanjeevaiah A et al. Approach and management of checkpoint inhibitor–related immune hepatitis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;9(1):220.

8. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced pancreatic injury. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Feb 6;7(1):31.

9. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Case series of cancer patients who developed cholecystitis related to immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 May 3;7(1):118.

10. Thompson JA et al. Management of immunotherapy-related toxicities, version 1.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(3):255-89.

11. Marthey L et al. Cancer immunotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies induces an inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(4):395-401.

12. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Outcomes of vedolizumab therapy in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced colitis: A multicenter study. J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Dec 5;6(1):142.

13. Das S and Johnson DB. Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Nov 15;7(1):306.

14. Reddy HG et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated colitis and hepatitis. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2018 Sep 19;9(9):180.

15. Reynolds K et al. Diagnosis and management of hepatitis in patients on checkpoint blockade. Oncologist. 2018;23(9):991-7.

Introduction

The field of cancer immunotherapy has exploded in recent years, with new therapies showing promising results for effective treatment of various cancer types. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) work by blocking checkpoint proteins that prevent breakdown of tumor cells by T-lymphocytes. Checkpoint proteins exist to prevent autoimmunity and destruction of healthy cells, but may allow tumor cells to grow unchallenged. Three checkpoint proteins – cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein–4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell-death protein–1 (PD-1), and programmed cell-death protein ligand–1 (PDL-1) – are therapeutic targets for current ICIs.¹

ICIs are used to treat various cancer types (e.g., lung, renal-cell, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma). Immune-related adverse events (irAE) are frequently seen with ICI use, ranging from 15% to 90%, and can occur at any point during, or even after, treatment.²Although ICIs are known to cause multisystem adverse reactions, this review will discuss the spectrum of these reactions in the gastrointestinal and hepatopancreaticobiliary realms.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor–related gastrointestinal adverse reactions

GI adverse reactions are the second most common irAE, occurring in about 35%-50% of all reported irAEs.³ Anti-CTLA-4 medications have the highest association with GI irAE. The most common GI symptoms are diarrhea, abdominal pain, urgency, and nausea/vomiting. GI involvement can occur along the entirety of the GI tract – from the oral cavity to the colorectum. These are usually seen within 6-8 weeks of starting treatment, but can occur as early as 1 week after initiation or as late as 12 months after the last dose.² Although colitis is the most common area of luminal inflammation, aphthous ulcers, esophagitis, gastritis, and enteritis can be seen. Anti-CTLA-4 antibodies have the highest associated rate of diarrhea (33%-50%) and colitis (7%-22%) of all ICIs.⁴ Computed tomography (CT) may show colonic wall thickening or fat stranding, indicating inflammation. Endoscopically, the colon can appear grossly normal or demonstrate erythema, erosions, ulcerations, and/or loss of vascular pattern.⁵ Inflammation can be patchy or continuous. Typical histology shows increased lamina propria cellularity, neutrophilic infiltration (intraepithelial or crypt abscesses), and increased crypt apoptosis.⁶

The liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and biliary tract can also be affected by irAE. The liver is most commonly involved (i.e. 5% of irAE), manifesting as asymptomatic liver chemistry elevation, particularly aminotransferases. This can progress to acute symptomatic hepatitis with jaundice, fever, or malaise, and rarely to fulminant hepatitis. ICI-associated hepatitis appears histologically similar to autoimmune hepatitis, with pan-lobular hepatitis and infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes seen on liver biopsy.⁷ Less commonly, pancreatic toxicity can occur (<2% of irAE), seen with anti-CTLA-4 therapy.⁸ While this typically results in asymptomatic lipase or amylase elevations (2.7%), acute pancreatitis (AP) can occur(1.9%). ICI-associated AP presents with classic symptoms and imaging changes, but can also manifest with exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency. An increase in rates of acute acalculous cholecystitis has been reported in patients receiving ICIs compared to patients receiving non-ICI chemotherapy.⁹ There are also rare reports of ICI-associated secondary sclerosing cholangitis.
 

Management

Evaluation and management of GI irAEs are guided by severity, based on the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading classification (Table 1).¹⁰

A thorough history of GI and systemic symptoms should be obtained and compared to baseline bowel habits. Patients with mild symptoms should undergo studies to assess alternate etiologies for their symptoms. Bacterial stool cultures and testing for C. difficile should be performed. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, fecal lactoferrin, and calprotectin can help assess the degree of intestinal inflammation and can be used to risk-stratify or assess treatment response. CT scans can assess for colitis and associated complications, including abdominal abscess, toxic megacolon, and bowel perforation.

Patients unresponsive to initial treatment for grade I irAE, with hematochezia, or with at least grade 2 diarrhea, should undergo GI consultation and endoscopic evaluation. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is the test of choice, as 95% of patients will have left-sided colonic inflammation.¹¹ Patients with at least grade 3 diarrhea should be hospitalized for treatment. In cases of failed methylprednisolone and when infliximab is ineffective or contraindicated, vedolizumab is suggested, although evidence is limited.¹²

Patients responsive to systemic corticosteroids (complete resolution or improvement to grade 1) can continue a tapered regimen over 4-6 weeks. There is conflicting evidence on the effect that corticosteroids have on ICI-related antitumor response rates. While some studies report no change in antitumor response rates or survival, others report reduced overall survival.¹³ Regardless, given its unfavorable side-effect profile, steroids should be used only for short periods of time.

PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies can be restarted after symptoms have resolved or improved to grade 1, having finished the corticosteroid taper. CTLA-4 antibodies should be discontinued permanently in the setting of grade 3 toxicity. All ICIs should be discontinued permanently in grade 4 toxicity.

Conclusions

Therapy with ICI is a rapidly expanding and changing field. Side effects of ICIs can affect nearly every organ system, and thus management should involve a multidisciplinary team of oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and other specialists. Given that GI adverse effects are the second most commonly affected system, all gastroenterologists and hepatologists should be knowledgeable about the spectrum of GI adverse events, as well as with the respective clinical presentations, diagnostics, and management of these events.

Dr. Kwon is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California Irvine, Orange. Dr. Kröner is with the division of advanced endoscopy, Riverside Health System, Newport News, Va. The authors certify that they have no financial arrangements (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent-licensing arrangements, research support, honoraria, etc.) with a company whose product figures prominently in this manuscript or with a company making a competing product. Funding: None.

References

1. Webster RM. The immune checkpoint inhibitors: where are we now? Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery. 2014;13(12):883.

2. Thompson JA et al. NCCN guidelines insights: Management of immunotherapy-related toxicities, version 1.2020: Featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(3):230-41.

3. Bertrand A et al. Immune related adverse events associated with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2015 Sep 4;13:211.

4. Gupta A et al. Systematic review: Colitis associated with anti‐CTLA‐4 therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;42(4):406-17.

5. Verschuren EC et al. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic characteristics of ipilimumab-associated colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(6):836-42.

6. Foppen MHG et al. Immune checkpoint inhibition–related colitis: Symptoms, endoscopic features, histology and response to management. ESMO Open. 2018;3(1):e000278.

7. Sanjeevaiah A et al. Approach and management of checkpoint inhibitor–related immune hepatitis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;9(1):220.

8. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced pancreatic injury. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Feb 6;7(1):31.

9. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Case series of cancer patients who developed cholecystitis related to immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 May 3;7(1):118.

10. Thompson JA et al. Management of immunotherapy-related toxicities, version 1.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(3):255-89.

11. Marthey L et al. Cancer immunotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies induces an inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(4):395-401.

12. Abu-Sbeih H et al. Outcomes of vedolizumab therapy in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced colitis: A multicenter study. J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Dec 5;6(1):142.

13. Das S and Johnson DB. Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Nov 15;7(1):306.

14. Reddy HG et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated colitis and hepatitis. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2018 Sep 19;9(9):180.

15. Reynolds K et al. Diagnosis and management of hepatitis in patients on checkpoint blockade. Oncologist. 2018;23(9):991-7.

Overall survival has improved in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but those with HIV infection can expect to live shorter lives than their uninfected counterparts, based on the first such analysis of the American College of Surgeons’ National Cancer Database.

One-year overall survival for all patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), 74.9% in 2004-2007, rose by 6.4 percentage points to 81.3% in 2016-2018, with the use of ART for HIV starting in 2008. Two-year survival was up by an even larger 8.3 percentage points: 68.0% to 76.3%, said Amar D. Desai of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Since HIV-infected patients represented a much lower 46.7% of the Kaposi’s population in 2016-2018 than in 2004-2007 (70.5%), “better outcomes for all KS patients likely reflects advancements in ART, preventing many HIV+ patients from progressing to AIDS, changes in clinical practice with earlier treatment start, and more off-label treatments,” they wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Overall survival rates for the 10,027 patients with KS with data available in the National Cancer Database were 77.9% at 1 year and 72.4% at 2 years. HIV status had a significant (P < .0074) effect over the entire study period: One-year survival rates were 88.9% for HIV-negative and 74.5% for HIV-positive patients, and 2-year rates were 83.0% (HIV-negative) and 69.3% (HIV-positive), the investigators reported in what they called “the largest analysis since the advent of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 2008.”

The improvement in overall survival, along with the continued differences in survival between HIV infected and noninfected patients, indicate that “dermatologists, as part of a multidisciplinary team including oncologists and infectious disease physicians, can play significant roles in early KS diagnosis,” Mr. Desai and Dr. Lipner said.

Mr. Desai had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, and BelleTorus Corporation.

Overall survival has improved in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but those with HIV infection can expect to live shorter lives than their uninfected counterparts, based on the first such analysis of the American College of Surgeons’ National Cancer Database.

One-year overall survival for all patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), 74.9% in 2004-2007, rose by 6.4 percentage points to 81.3% in 2016-2018, with the use of ART for HIV starting in 2008. Two-year survival was up by an even larger 8.3 percentage points: 68.0% to 76.3%, said Amar D. Desai of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Since HIV-infected patients represented a much lower 46.7% of the Kaposi’s population in 2016-2018 than in 2004-2007 (70.5%), “better outcomes for all KS patients likely reflects advancements in ART, preventing many HIV+ patients from progressing to AIDS, changes in clinical practice with earlier treatment start, and more off-label treatments,” they wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Overall survival rates for the 10,027 patients with KS with data available in the National Cancer Database were 77.9% at 1 year and 72.4% at 2 years. HIV status had a significant (P < .0074) effect over the entire study period: One-year survival rates were 88.9% for HIV-negative and 74.5% for HIV-positive patients, and 2-year rates were 83.0% (HIV-negative) and 69.3% (HIV-positive), the investigators reported in what they called “the largest analysis since the advent of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 2008.”

The improvement in overall survival, along with the continued differences in survival between HIV infected and noninfected patients, indicate that “dermatologists, as part of a multidisciplinary team including oncologists and infectious disease physicians, can play significant roles in early KS diagnosis,” Mr. Desai and Dr. Lipner said.

Mr. Desai had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, and BelleTorus Corporation.

Overall survival has improved in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but those with HIV infection can expect to live shorter lives than their uninfected counterparts, based on the first such analysis of the American College of Surgeons’ National Cancer Database.

One-year overall survival for all patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), 74.9% in 2004-2007, rose by 6.4 percentage points to 81.3% in 2016-2018, with the use of ART for HIV starting in 2008. Two-year survival was up by an even larger 8.3 percentage points: 68.0% to 76.3%, said Amar D. Desai of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Since HIV-infected patients represented a much lower 46.7% of the Kaposi’s population in 2016-2018 than in 2004-2007 (70.5%), “better outcomes for all KS patients likely reflects advancements in ART, preventing many HIV+ patients from progressing to AIDS, changes in clinical practice with earlier treatment start, and more off-label treatments,” they wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Overall survival rates for the 10,027 patients with KS with data available in the National Cancer Database were 77.9% at 1 year and 72.4% at 2 years. HIV status had a significant (P < .0074) effect over the entire study period: One-year survival rates were 88.9% for HIV-negative and 74.5% for HIV-positive patients, and 2-year rates were 83.0% (HIV-negative) and 69.3% (HIV-positive), the investigators reported in what they called “the largest analysis since the advent of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 2008.”

The improvement in overall survival, along with the continued differences in survival between HIV infected and noninfected patients, indicate that “dermatologists, as part of a multidisciplinary team including oncologists and infectious disease physicians, can play significant roles in early KS diagnosis,” Mr. Desai and Dr. Lipner said.

Mr. Desai had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, and BelleTorus Corporation.

High levels of triglyceride molecules in LDL cholesterol are “robustly” linked with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, according to a study that used two different methods in two separate cohorts from a large European population study plus a meta-analysis to verify the results.

“There have been some studies in the past, as you can see from our meta-analysis, that found a similar association, but I don’t think most people are convinced that there is really this relationship, and certainly I was not convinced,” lead investigator Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor at the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study enrolled 68,290 patients from the Copenhagen General Population study; 38,081 were assigned to direct automated assay to measure their LDL triglycerides and 30,208 had nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Median follow-up was 3 and 9.2 years for the respective cohorts.

LDL triglycerides carry higher ASCVD risk

In the automated assay group, each 0.1-mmol/L (9 mg/dL)–higher direct LDL triglycerides carried a 22%-38% higher risk for the following outcomes: ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.35); ischemic heart disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39); myocardial infarction (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48); ischemic stroke (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38); and peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58).

In the group that had NMR spectroscopy to measure LDL triglycerides, risks were similar, ranging from HRs of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.23) for ischemic stroke to 1.41 (95% CI, 1.31-1.52) for myocardial infarction. The investigators noted that apolipoprotein B levels didn’t entirely explain these results.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies that evaluated varying cardiovascular disease outcomes. It compared random-effects risk ratios for the highest quartile vs. the lowest quartile of LDL triglycerides. They were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.35-1.66) for ASCVD (four studies, 71,526 individuals, 8,576 events); 1.62 (95% CI, 1.37-1.93) for ischemic heart disease (six studies, 107,538 individuals, 9,734 events); 1.30 (95% CI, 1.13-1.49) for ischemic stroke (four studies, 78,026 individuals, 4,273 events); and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.29-1.81) for peripheral artery disease (four studies, 107,511 individuals, 1,848 events). The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results confirm hypothesis the study sought to disprove

The purpose of the study was to actually disprove the hypothesis that the study ended up confirming, Dr. Nordestgaard said. “When we started this study, my idea was that we wanted to show that LDL triglyceride was not related to these diseases, because that didn’t make sense to me,” he said. “I’m so used to the thinking that the cholesterol content of these particles drive atherosclerosis and therefore atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

He noted that LDL can carry both cholesterol and triglycerides, and that larger remnant lipoproteins can carry a substantial amount of triglycerides and a lesser amount of cholesterol. “Those remnants actually transfer into LDL, so they somewhat bring the triglycerides molecules into LDL,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

The direct automated assay test used in the study to measure LDL triglycerides is not approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, according to Denka, the manufacturer of the test.

The use of the Copenhagen General Population Study cohorts is a strength of the study because it has 100% follow-up with all patients, Dr. Nordestgaard said. The meta-analysis is another strength. “So we can show real clearly, not only in our two prospective studies, but also added to the former ones in the literature: All say exactly the same thing: High LDL triglycerides carry a high risk for ASCVD and its components.”

A limitation Dr. Nordestgaard acknowledged: The study doesn’t explain the causal relationship between high LDL triglycerides and ASCVD. But the study provides “very sound evidence that there’s a relationship,” he added. The study population was also a White, Danish population that lacked ethnic and racial diversity.

Next step is finding a treatment

The Danish study essentially confirms what the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community Study (ARIC) found with regard to LDL triglycerides, said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and an ARIC investigator. 

This study is the “first step” to coming up with a test to identify risk, he said. “These data are pretty convincing, when you throw in the data in this study plus all the meta-analyses data, that LDL triglycerides, when they’re elevated, identify individuals at increased risk for an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event.”

The next step, he said, is coming up with a treatment for people with elevated HDL triglyceride. “That’s where we don’t have as much data because this test hasn’t been used. I’m pretty sure that statins are going to work fine for these people, because they lower LDL cholesterol and they also lower triglycerides, and some of the data have shown already that they reduce the LDL remnant,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

The Danish study provides enough of a basis for pursuing future studies to better understand the effect of statins on LDL triglyceride levels, Dr. Ballantyne added.

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation, along with institutional support. Dr. Nordestgaard has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed receiving research support from Denka.

High levels of triglyceride molecules in LDL cholesterol are “robustly” linked with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, according to a study that used two different methods in two separate cohorts from a large European population study plus a meta-analysis to verify the results.

“There have been some studies in the past, as you can see from our meta-analysis, that found a similar association, but I don’t think most people are convinced that there is really this relationship, and certainly I was not convinced,” lead investigator Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor at the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study enrolled 68,290 patients from the Copenhagen General Population study; 38,081 were assigned to direct automated assay to measure their LDL triglycerides and 30,208 had nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Median follow-up was 3 and 9.2 years for the respective cohorts.

LDL triglycerides carry higher ASCVD risk

In the automated assay group, each 0.1-mmol/L (9 mg/dL)–higher direct LDL triglycerides carried a 22%-38% higher risk for the following outcomes: ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.35); ischemic heart disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39); myocardial infarction (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48); ischemic stroke (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38); and peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58).

In the group that had NMR spectroscopy to measure LDL triglycerides, risks were similar, ranging from HRs of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.23) for ischemic stroke to 1.41 (95% CI, 1.31-1.52) for myocardial infarction. The investigators noted that apolipoprotein B levels didn’t entirely explain these results.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies that evaluated varying cardiovascular disease outcomes. It compared random-effects risk ratios for the highest quartile vs. the lowest quartile of LDL triglycerides. They were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.35-1.66) for ASCVD (four studies, 71,526 individuals, 8,576 events); 1.62 (95% CI, 1.37-1.93) for ischemic heart disease (six studies, 107,538 individuals, 9,734 events); 1.30 (95% CI, 1.13-1.49) for ischemic stroke (four studies, 78,026 individuals, 4,273 events); and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.29-1.81) for peripheral artery disease (four studies, 107,511 individuals, 1,848 events). The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results confirm hypothesis the study sought to disprove

The purpose of the study was to actually disprove the hypothesis that the study ended up confirming, Dr. Nordestgaard said. “When we started this study, my idea was that we wanted to show that LDL triglyceride was not related to these diseases, because that didn’t make sense to me,” he said. “I’m so used to the thinking that the cholesterol content of these particles drive atherosclerosis and therefore atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

He noted that LDL can carry both cholesterol and triglycerides, and that larger remnant lipoproteins can carry a substantial amount of triglycerides and a lesser amount of cholesterol. “Those remnants actually transfer into LDL, so they somewhat bring the triglycerides molecules into LDL,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

The direct automated assay test used in the study to measure LDL triglycerides is not approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, according to Denka, the manufacturer of the test.

The use of the Copenhagen General Population Study cohorts is a strength of the study because it has 100% follow-up with all patients, Dr. Nordestgaard said. The meta-analysis is another strength. “So we can show real clearly, not only in our two prospective studies, but also added to the former ones in the literature: All say exactly the same thing: High LDL triglycerides carry a high risk for ASCVD and its components.”

A limitation Dr. Nordestgaard acknowledged: The study doesn’t explain the causal relationship between high LDL triglycerides and ASCVD. But the study provides “very sound evidence that there’s a relationship,” he added. The study population was also a White, Danish population that lacked ethnic and racial diversity.

Next step is finding a treatment

The Danish study essentially confirms what the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community Study (ARIC) found with regard to LDL triglycerides, said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and an ARIC investigator. 

This study is the “first step” to coming up with a test to identify risk, he said. “These data are pretty convincing, when you throw in the data in this study plus all the meta-analyses data, that LDL triglycerides, when they’re elevated, identify individuals at increased risk for an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event.”

The next step, he said, is coming up with a treatment for people with elevated HDL triglyceride. “That’s where we don’t have as much data because this test hasn’t been used. I’m pretty sure that statins are going to work fine for these people, because they lower LDL cholesterol and they also lower triglycerides, and some of the data have shown already that they reduce the LDL remnant,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

The Danish study provides enough of a basis for pursuing future studies to better understand the effect of statins on LDL triglyceride levels, Dr. Ballantyne added.

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation, along with institutional support. Dr. Nordestgaard has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed receiving research support from Denka.

High levels of triglyceride molecules in LDL cholesterol are “robustly” linked with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, according to a study that used two different methods in two separate cohorts from a large European population study plus a meta-analysis to verify the results.

“There have been some studies in the past, as you can see from our meta-analysis, that found a similar association, but I don’t think most people are convinced that there is really this relationship, and certainly I was not convinced,” lead investigator Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor at the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study enrolled 68,290 patients from the Copenhagen General Population study; 38,081 were assigned to direct automated assay to measure their LDL triglycerides and 30,208 had nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Median follow-up was 3 and 9.2 years for the respective cohorts.

LDL triglycerides carry higher ASCVD risk

In the automated assay group, each 0.1-mmol/L (9 mg/dL)–higher direct LDL triglycerides carried a 22%-38% higher risk for the following outcomes: ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.35); ischemic heart disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39); myocardial infarction (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48); ischemic stroke (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38); and peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58).

In the group that had NMR spectroscopy to measure LDL triglycerides, risks were similar, ranging from HRs of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.23) for ischemic stroke to 1.41 (95% CI, 1.31-1.52) for myocardial infarction. The investigators noted that apolipoprotein B levels didn’t entirely explain these results.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies that evaluated varying cardiovascular disease outcomes. It compared random-effects risk ratios for the highest quartile vs. the lowest quartile of LDL triglycerides. They were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.35-1.66) for ASCVD (four studies, 71,526 individuals, 8,576 events); 1.62 (95% CI, 1.37-1.93) for ischemic heart disease (six studies, 107,538 individuals, 9,734 events); 1.30 (95% CI, 1.13-1.49) for ischemic stroke (four studies, 78,026 individuals, 4,273 events); and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.29-1.81) for peripheral artery disease (four studies, 107,511 individuals, 1,848 events). The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results confirm hypothesis the study sought to disprove

The purpose of the study was to actually disprove the hypothesis that the study ended up confirming, Dr. Nordestgaard said. “When we started this study, my idea was that we wanted to show that LDL triglyceride was not related to these diseases, because that didn’t make sense to me,” he said. “I’m so used to the thinking that the cholesterol content of these particles drive atherosclerosis and therefore atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

He noted that LDL can carry both cholesterol and triglycerides, and that larger remnant lipoproteins can carry a substantial amount of triglycerides and a lesser amount of cholesterol. “Those remnants actually transfer into LDL, so they somewhat bring the triglycerides molecules into LDL,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

The direct automated assay test used in the study to measure LDL triglycerides is not approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, according to Denka, the manufacturer of the test.

The use of the Copenhagen General Population Study cohorts is a strength of the study because it has 100% follow-up with all patients, Dr. Nordestgaard said. The meta-analysis is another strength. “So we can show real clearly, not only in our two prospective studies, but also added to the former ones in the literature: All say exactly the same thing: High LDL triglycerides carry a high risk for ASCVD and its components.”

A limitation Dr. Nordestgaard acknowledged: The study doesn’t explain the causal relationship between high LDL triglycerides and ASCVD. But the study provides “very sound evidence that there’s a relationship,” he added. The study population was also a White, Danish population that lacked ethnic and racial diversity.

Next step is finding a treatment

The Danish study essentially confirms what the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community Study (ARIC) found with regard to LDL triglycerides, said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and an ARIC investigator. 

This study is the “first step” to coming up with a test to identify risk, he said. “These data are pretty convincing, when you throw in the data in this study plus all the meta-analyses data, that LDL triglycerides, when they’re elevated, identify individuals at increased risk for an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event.”

The next step, he said, is coming up with a treatment for people with elevated HDL triglyceride. “That’s where we don’t have as much data because this test hasn’t been used. I’m pretty sure that statins are going to work fine for these people, because they lower LDL cholesterol and they also lower triglycerides, and some of the data have shown already that they reduce the LDL remnant,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

The Danish study provides enough of a basis for pursuing future studies to better understand the effect of statins on LDL triglyceride levels, Dr. Ballantyne added.

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation, along with institutional support. Dr. Nordestgaard has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed receiving research support from Denka.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

It’s pretty clear at this point that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is a complication, albeit a very rare one, of the mRNA COVID vaccines. The big question, of course, is why?

To date, it has been a mystery, like “Glass Onion.” And in the spirit of all the great mysteries, to get to the bottom of this, we’ll need to round up the usual suspects.

Appearing in Circulation, a new study does a great job of systematically evaluating multiple hypotheses linking vaccination to myocarditis, and eliminating them, Poirot-style, one by one until only one remains. We’ll get there.

But first, let’s review the suspects. Why do the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis in a small subset of people?

There are a few leading candidates.

Number one: antibody responses. There are two flavors here. The quantitative hypothesis suggests that some people simply generate too many antibodies to the vaccine, leading to increased inflammation and heart damage.

The qualitative hypothesis suggests that maybe it’s the nature of the antibodies generated rather than the amount; they might cross-react with some protein on the surface of heart cells for instance.

Or maybe it is driven by T-cell responses, which, of course, are independent of antibody levels.

There’s the idea that myocarditis is due to excessive cytokine release – sort of like what we see in the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Or it could be due to the viral antigens themselves – the spike protein the mRNA codes for that is generated after vaccination.

Dr. F. Perry Wlson

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Of course, all good detectives need to wrap up the case with a good story: How was it all done?

And here’s where we could use Agatha Christie’s help. How could this all work? The vaccine gets injected; mRNA is taken up into cells, where spike protein is generated and released, generating antibody and T-cell responses all the while. Those responses rapidly clear that spike protein from the system – this has been demonstrated in multiple studies – in adults, at least. But in some small number of people, apparently, spike protein is not cleared. Why? It makes no damn sense. Compels me, though. Some have suggested that inadvertent intravenous injection of vaccine, compared with the appropriate intramuscular route, might distribute the vaccine to sites with less immune surveillance. But that is definitely not proven yet.

We are on the path for sure, but this is, as Benoit Blanc would say, a twisted web – and we are not finished untangling it. Not yet.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available for preorder now. He reports no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

It’s pretty clear at this point that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is a complication, albeit a very rare one, of the mRNA COVID vaccines. The big question, of course, is why?

To date, it has been a mystery, like “Glass Onion.” And in the spirit of all the great mysteries, to get to the bottom of this, we’ll need to round up the usual suspects.

Appearing in Circulation, a new study does a great job of systematically evaluating multiple hypotheses linking vaccination to myocarditis, and eliminating them, Poirot-style, one by one until only one remains. We’ll get there.

But first, let’s review the suspects. Why do the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis in a small subset of people?

There are a few leading candidates.

Number one: antibody responses. There are two flavors here. The quantitative hypothesis suggests that some people simply generate too many antibodies to the vaccine, leading to increased inflammation and heart damage.

The qualitative hypothesis suggests that maybe it’s the nature of the antibodies generated rather than the amount; they might cross-react with some protein on the surface of heart cells for instance.

Or maybe it is driven by T-cell responses, which, of course, are independent of antibody levels.

There’s the idea that myocarditis is due to excessive cytokine release – sort of like what we see in the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Or it could be due to the viral antigens themselves – the spike protein the mRNA codes for that is generated after vaccination.

Dr. F. Perry Wlson

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Of course, all good detectives need to wrap up the case with a good story: How was it all done?

And here’s where we could use Agatha Christie’s help. How could this all work? The vaccine gets injected; mRNA is taken up into cells, where spike protein is generated and released, generating antibody and T-cell responses all the while. Those responses rapidly clear that spike protein from the system – this has been demonstrated in multiple studies – in adults, at least. But in some small number of people, apparently, spike protein is not cleared. Why? It makes no damn sense. Compels me, though. Some have suggested that inadvertent intravenous injection of vaccine, compared with the appropriate intramuscular route, might distribute the vaccine to sites with less immune surveillance. But that is definitely not proven yet.

We are on the path for sure, but this is, as Benoit Blanc would say, a twisted web – and we are not finished untangling it. Not yet.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available for preorder now. He reports no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

It’s pretty clear at this point that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is a complication, albeit a very rare one, of the mRNA COVID vaccines. The big question, of course, is why?

To date, it has been a mystery, like “Glass Onion.” And in the spirit of all the great mysteries, to get to the bottom of this, we’ll need to round up the usual suspects.

Appearing in Circulation, a new study does a great job of systematically evaluating multiple hypotheses linking vaccination to myocarditis, and eliminating them, Poirot-style, one by one until only one remains. We’ll get there.

But first, let’s review the suspects. Why do the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis in a small subset of people?

There are a few leading candidates.

Number one: antibody responses. There are two flavors here. The quantitative hypothesis suggests that some people simply generate too many antibodies to the vaccine, leading to increased inflammation and heart damage.

The qualitative hypothesis suggests that maybe it’s the nature of the antibodies generated rather than the amount; they might cross-react with some protein on the surface of heart cells for instance.

Or maybe it is driven by T-cell responses, which, of course, are independent of antibody levels.

There’s the idea that myocarditis is due to excessive cytokine release – sort of like what we see in the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Or it could be due to the viral antigens themselves – the spike protein the mRNA codes for that is generated after vaccination.

Dr. F. Perry Wlson

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Of course, all good detectives need to wrap up the case with a good story: How was it all done?

And here’s where we could use Agatha Christie’s help. How could this all work? The vaccine gets injected; mRNA is taken up into cells, where spike protein is generated and released, generating antibody and T-cell responses all the while. Those responses rapidly clear that spike protein from the system – this has been demonstrated in multiple studies – in adults, at least. But in some small number of people, apparently, spike protein is not cleared. Why? It makes no damn sense. Compels me, though. Some have suggested that inadvertent intravenous injection of vaccine, compared with the appropriate intramuscular route, might distribute the vaccine to sites with less immune surveillance. But that is definitely not proven yet.

We are on the path for sure, but this is, as Benoit Blanc would say, a twisted web – and we are not finished untangling it. Not yet.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available for preorder now. He reports no conflicts of interest.
 

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

I received a call late one night from a colleague in the emergency department of the children’s hospital. “This 2-year-old has a fever, cough, red eyes, and an impressive rash. I’ve personally never seen a case of measles, but I’m worried given that this child has never received the MMR vaccine.”

By the end of the call, I was worried too. Measles is a febrile respiratory illness classically accompanied by cough, coryza, conjunctivitis, and a characteristic maculopapular rash that begins on the face and spreads to the trunk and limbs. It is also highly contagious: 90% percent of susceptible, exposed individuals become infected.

Admittedly, measles is rare. Just 118 cases were reported in the United States in 2022, but 83 of those were in Columbus just 3 hours from where my colleague and I live and work. According to City of Columbus officials, the outbreak occurred almost exclusively in unimmunized children, the majority of whom were 5 years and younger. An unexpectedly high number of children were hospitalized. Typically, one in five people with measles will require hospitalization. In this outbreak, 33 children have been hospitalized as of Jan. 10.

Public health experts warn that 2023 could be much worse unless we increase measles immunization rates in the United States and globally. Immunization of around 95% of eligible people with two doses of measles-containing vaccine is associated with herd immunity. Globally, we’re falling short. Only 81% of the world’s children have received their first measle vaccine dose and only 71% have received the second dose. These are the lowest coverage rates for measles vaccine since 2008.

A 2022 joint press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization noted that “measles anywhere is a threat everywhere, as the virus can quickly spread to multiple communities and across international borders.” Some prior measles outbreaks in the United States have started with a case in an international traveler or a U.S. resident who contracted measles during travel abroad.

In the United States, the number of children immunized with multiple routine vaccines has fallen in the last couple of years, in part because of pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery. Increasing vaccine hesitancy, fueled by debates over the COVID-19 vaccine, may be slowing catch-up immunization in kids who fell behind.

Investigators from Emory University, Atlanta, and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute recently estimated that 9,145,026 U.S. children are susceptible to measles. If pandemic-level immunization rates continue without effective catch-up immunization, that number could rise to more than 15 million.

School vaccination requirements support efforts to ensure that kids are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases, but some data suggest that opposition to requiring MMR vaccine to attend public school is growing. According to a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation Vaccine Monitor survey, 28% of U.S. adults – and 35% of parents of children under 18 – now say that parents should be able to decide to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and rubella. That’s up from 16% of adults and 23% of parents in a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

Public confidence in the benefits of MMR has also dropped modestly. About 85% of adults surveyed said that the benefits of MMR vaccine outweigh the risk, down from 88% in 2019. Among adults not vaccinated against COVID-19, only 70% said that benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks.

While the WHO ramps up efforts to improve measles vaccination globally, pediatric clinicians can take steps now to mitigate the risk of measles outbreaks in their own communities. Query health records to understand how many eligible children in your practice have not yet received MMR vaccine. Notify families that vaccination is strongly recommended and make scheduling an appointment to receive vaccine easy. Some practices may have the bandwidth to offer evening and weekend hours for vaccine catch-up visits.

Curious about immunization rates in your state? The American Academy of Pediatrics has an interactive map that reports immunization coverage levels by state and provides comparisons to national rates and goals.

Prompt recognition and isolation of individuals with measles, along with prophylaxis of susceptible contacts, can limit community transmission. Measles can resemble other illnesses associated with fever and rash. Washington state has developed a screening tool to assist with recognition of measles. The CDC also has a measles outbreak toolkit that includes resources that outline clinical features and diagnoses, as well as strategies for talking to parents about vaccines.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected].

I received a call late one night from a colleague in the emergency department of the children’s hospital. “This 2-year-old has a fever, cough, red eyes, and an impressive rash. I’ve personally never seen a case of measles, but I’m worried given that this child has never received the MMR vaccine.”

By the end of the call, I was worried too. Measles is a febrile respiratory illness classically accompanied by cough, coryza, conjunctivitis, and a characteristic maculopapular rash that begins on the face and spreads to the trunk and limbs. It is also highly contagious: 90% percent of susceptible, exposed individuals become infected.

Admittedly, measles is rare. Just 118 cases were reported in the United States in 2022, but 83 of those were in Columbus just 3 hours from where my colleague and I live and work. According to City of Columbus officials, the outbreak occurred almost exclusively in unimmunized children, the majority of whom were 5 years and younger. An unexpectedly high number of children were hospitalized. Typically, one in five people with measles will require hospitalization. In this outbreak, 33 children have been hospitalized as of Jan. 10.

Public health experts warn that 2023 could be much worse unless we increase measles immunization rates in the United States and globally. Immunization of around 95% of eligible people with two doses of measles-containing vaccine is associated with herd immunity. Globally, we’re falling short. Only 81% of the world’s children have received their first measle vaccine dose and only 71% have received the second dose. These are the lowest coverage rates for measles vaccine since 2008.

A 2022 joint press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization noted that “measles anywhere is a threat everywhere, as the virus can quickly spread to multiple communities and across international borders.” Some prior measles outbreaks in the United States have started with a case in an international traveler or a U.S. resident who contracted measles during travel abroad.

In the United States, the number of children immunized with multiple routine vaccines has fallen in the last couple of years, in part because of pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery. Increasing vaccine hesitancy, fueled by debates over the COVID-19 vaccine, may be slowing catch-up immunization in kids who fell behind.

Investigators from Emory University, Atlanta, and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute recently estimated that 9,145,026 U.S. children are susceptible to measles. If pandemic-level immunization rates continue without effective catch-up immunization, that number could rise to more than 15 million.

School vaccination requirements support efforts to ensure that kids are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases, but some data suggest that opposition to requiring MMR vaccine to attend public school is growing. According to a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation Vaccine Monitor survey, 28% of U.S. adults – and 35% of parents of children under 18 – now say that parents should be able to decide to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and rubella. That’s up from 16% of adults and 23% of parents in a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

Public confidence in the benefits of MMR has also dropped modestly. About 85% of adults surveyed said that the benefits of MMR vaccine outweigh the risk, down from 88% in 2019. Among adults not vaccinated against COVID-19, only 70% said that benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks.

While the WHO ramps up efforts to improve measles vaccination globally, pediatric clinicians can take steps now to mitigate the risk of measles outbreaks in their own communities. Query health records to understand how many eligible children in your practice have not yet received MMR vaccine. Notify families that vaccination is strongly recommended and make scheduling an appointment to receive vaccine easy. Some practices may have the bandwidth to offer evening and weekend hours for vaccine catch-up visits.

Curious about immunization rates in your state? The American Academy of Pediatrics has an interactive map that reports immunization coverage levels by state and provides comparisons to national rates and goals.

Prompt recognition and isolation of individuals with measles, along with prophylaxis of susceptible contacts, can limit community transmission. Measles can resemble other illnesses associated with fever and rash. Washington state has developed a screening tool to assist with recognition of measles. The CDC also has a measles outbreak toolkit that includes resources that outline clinical features and diagnoses, as well as strategies for talking to parents about vaccines.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected].

I received a call late one night from a colleague in the emergency department of the children’s hospital. “This 2-year-old has a fever, cough, red eyes, and an impressive rash. I’ve personally never seen a case of measles, but I’m worried given that this child has never received the MMR vaccine.”

By the end of the call, I was worried too. Measles is a febrile respiratory illness classically accompanied by cough, coryza, conjunctivitis, and a characteristic maculopapular rash that begins on the face and spreads to the trunk and limbs. It is also highly contagious: 90% percent of susceptible, exposed individuals become infected.

Admittedly, measles is rare. Just 118 cases were reported in the United States in 2022, but 83 of those were in Columbus just 3 hours from where my colleague and I live and work. According to City of Columbus officials, the outbreak occurred almost exclusively in unimmunized children, the majority of whom were 5 years and younger. An unexpectedly high number of children were hospitalized. Typically, one in five people with measles will require hospitalization. In this outbreak, 33 children have been hospitalized as of Jan. 10.

Public health experts warn that 2023 could be much worse unless we increase measles immunization rates in the United States and globally. Immunization of around 95% of eligible people with two doses of measles-containing vaccine is associated with herd immunity. Globally, we’re falling short. Only 81% of the world’s children have received their first measle vaccine dose and only 71% have received the second dose. These are the lowest coverage rates for measles vaccine since 2008.

A 2022 joint press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization noted that “measles anywhere is a threat everywhere, as the virus can quickly spread to multiple communities and across international borders.” Some prior measles outbreaks in the United States have started with a case in an international traveler or a U.S. resident who contracted measles during travel abroad.

In the United States, the number of children immunized with multiple routine vaccines has fallen in the last couple of years, in part because of pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery. Increasing vaccine hesitancy, fueled by debates over the COVID-19 vaccine, may be slowing catch-up immunization in kids who fell behind.

Investigators from Emory University, Atlanta, and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute recently estimated that 9,145,026 U.S. children are susceptible to measles. If pandemic-level immunization rates continue without effective catch-up immunization, that number could rise to more than 15 million.

School vaccination requirements support efforts to ensure that kids are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases, but some data suggest that opposition to requiring MMR vaccine to attend public school is growing. According to a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation Vaccine Monitor survey, 28% of U.S. adults – and 35% of parents of children under 18 – now say that parents should be able to decide to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and rubella. That’s up from 16% of adults and 23% of parents in a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

Public confidence in the benefits of MMR has also dropped modestly. About 85% of adults surveyed said that the benefits of MMR vaccine outweigh the risk, down from 88% in 2019. Among adults not vaccinated against COVID-19, only 70% said that benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks.

While the WHO ramps up efforts to improve measles vaccination globally, pediatric clinicians can take steps now to mitigate the risk of measles outbreaks in their own communities. Query health records to understand how many eligible children in your practice have not yet received MMR vaccine. Notify families that vaccination is strongly recommended and make scheduling an appointment to receive vaccine easy. Some practices may have the bandwidth to offer evening and weekend hours for vaccine catch-up visits.

Curious about immunization rates in your state? The American Academy of Pediatrics has an interactive map that reports immunization coverage levels by state and provides comparisons to national rates and goals.

Prompt recognition and isolation of individuals with measles, along with prophylaxis of susceptible contacts, can limit community transmission. Measles can resemble other illnesses associated with fever and rash. Washington state has developed a screening tool to assist with recognition of measles. The CDC also has a measles outbreak toolkit that includes resources that outline clinical features and diagnoses, as well as strategies for talking to parents about vaccines.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected].

Among children and adolescents with melanomas, primary tumor ulceration, head/neck location, and a Breslow thickness of > 4 mm predicted worse survival, results from a retrospective study demonstrated.

“Cutaneous melanomas are rare in children and much less common in adolescents than in later life,” researchers led by Mary-Ann El Sharouni, PhD, wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Management of these young patients currently follows guidelines developed for adults. Better understanding of melanoma occurring in the first 2 decades of life is, therefore, warranted.”

copyright Dlumen/Thinkstock

Drawing from two datasets – one from the Netherlands and the other from Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) at the University of Sydney – Dr. El Sharouni of the MIA and of the department of dermatology at University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and colleagues, evaluated all patients younger than 20 years of age who were diagnosed with invasive melanoma between January 2000 and December 2014. The pooled cohort included 397 Dutch and 117 Australian individuals. Of these, 62 were children and 452 were adolescents. To determine melanoma subtypes, the researchers reevaluated pathology reports and used multivariate Cox models to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

The median Breslow thickness was 2.7 mm in children and 1.0 mm in adolescents. Most patients (83%) had conventional melanoma, which consisted of superficial spreading, nodular, desmoplastic, and acral lentiginous forms, while 78 had spitzoid melanoma and 8 had melanoma associated with a congenital nevus. The 10-year RFS was 91.5% in children and 86.4% in adolescents (P =.32), while the 10-year OS was 100% in children and 92.7% in adolescents (P = .09).

On multivariable analysis, which was possible only for the adolescent cohort because of the small number of children, ulceration status and anatomic site were associated with RFS and OS, whereas age, sex, mitotic index, sentinel node status, and melanoma subtype were not. Breslow thickness > 4 mm was associated with worse RFS. As for affected anatomic site, those with melanomas located on the upper and lower limbs had a better overall RFS and OS compared with those who had head or neck melanomas.

The authors acknowledged certain limitation of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the small number of children. “Our data suggest that adolescent melanomas are often similar to adult-type melanomas, whilst those which occur in young children frequently occur via different molecular mechanisms,” they concluded. “In the future it is likely that further understanding of these molecular mechanisms and ability to classify melanomas based on their molecular characteristics will assist in further refining prognostic estimates and possible guiding treatment for young patients with melanoma.”

Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, assistant program director of the division of dermatology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the analysis “greatly contributes to dermatology, as we are still learning the differences between melanoma in children and adolescents versus adults.

This study found that adolescents with melanoma had worse survival if mitosis were present and/or located on head/neck, which could aid in aggressiveness of treatment.”

Among children and adolescents with melanomas, primary tumor ulceration, head/neck location, and a Breslow thickness of > 4 mm predicted worse survival, results from a retrospective study demonstrated.

“Cutaneous melanomas are rare in children and much less common in adolescents than in later life,” researchers led by Mary-Ann El Sharouni, PhD, wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Management of these young patients currently follows guidelines developed for adults. Better understanding of melanoma occurring in the first 2 decades of life is, therefore, warranted.”

copyright Dlumen/Thinkstock

Drawing from two datasets – one from the Netherlands and the other from Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) at the University of Sydney – Dr. El Sharouni of the MIA and of the department of dermatology at University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and colleagues, evaluated all patients younger than 20 years of age who were diagnosed with invasive melanoma between January 2000 and December 2014. The pooled cohort included 397 Dutch and 117 Australian individuals. Of these, 62 were children and 452 were adolescents. To determine melanoma subtypes, the researchers reevaluated pathology reports and used multivariate Cox models to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

The median Breslow thickness was 2.7 mm in children and 1.0 mm in adolescents. Most patients (83%) had conventional melanoma, which consisted of superficial spreading, nodular, desmoplastic, and acral lentiginous forms, while 78 had spitzoid melanoma and 8 had melanoma associated with a congenital nevus. The 10-year RFS was 91.5% in children and 86.4% in adolescents (P =.32), while the 10-year OS was 100% in children and 92.7% in adolescents (P = .09).

On multivariable analysis, which was possible only for the adolescent cohort because of the small number of children, ulceration status and anatomic site were associated with RFS and OS, whereas age, sex, mitotic index, sentinel node status, and melanoma subtype were not. Breslow thickness > 4 mm was associated with worse RFS. As for affected anatomic site, those with melanomas located on the upper and lower limbs had a better overall RFS and OS compared with those who had head or neck melanomas.

The authors acknowledged certain limitation of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the small number of children. “Our data suggest that adolescent melanomas are often similar to adult-type melanomas, whilst those which occur in young children frequently occur via different molecular mechanisms,” they concluded. “In the future it is likely that further understanding of these molecular mechanisms and ability to classify melanomas based on their molecular characteristics will assist in further refining prognostic estimates and possible guiding treatment for young patients with melanoma.”

Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, assistant program director of the division of dermatology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the analysis “greatly contributes to dermatology, as we are still learning the differences between melanoma in children and adolescents versus adults.

This study found that adolescents with melanoma had worse survival if mitosis were present and/or located on head/neck, which could aid in aggressiveness of treatment.”

Among children and adolescents with melanomas, primary tumor ulceration, head/neck location, and a Breslow thickness of > 4 mm predicted worse survival, results from a retrospective study demonstrated.

“Cutaneous melanomas are rare in children and much less common in adolescents than in later life,” researchers led by Mary-Ann El Sharouni, PhD, wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Management of these young patients currently follows guidelines developed for adults. Better understanding of melanoma occurring in the first 2 decades of life is, therefore, warranted.”

copyright Dlumen/Thinkstock

Drawing from two datasets – one from the Netherlands and the other from Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) at the University of Sydney – Dr. El Sharouni of the MIA and of the department of dermatology at University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and colleagues, evaluated all patients younger than 20 years of age who were diagnosed with invasive melanoma between January 2000 and December 2014. The pooled cohort included 397 Dutch and 117 Australian individuals. Of these, 62 were children and 452 were adolescents. To determine melanoma subtypes, the researchers reevaluated pathology reports and used multivariate Cox models to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

The median Breslow thickness was 2.7 mm in children and 1.0 mm in adolescents. Most patients (83%) had conventional melanoma, which consisted of superficial spreading, nodular, desmoplastic, and acral lentiginous forms, while 78 had spitzoid melanoma and 8 had melanoma associated with a congenital nevus. The 10-year RFS was 91.5% in children and 86.4% in adolescents (P =.32), while the 10-year OS was 100% in children and 92.7% in adolescents (P = .09).

On multivariable analysis, which was possible only for the adolescent cohort because of the small number of children, ulceration status and anatomic site were associated with RFS and OS, whereas age, sex, mitotic index, sentinel node status, and melanoma subtype were not. Breslow thickness > 4 mm was associated with worse RFS. As for affected anatomic site, those with melanomas located on the upper and lower limbs had a better overall RFS and OS compared with those who had head or neck melanomas.

The authors acknowledged certain limitation of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the small number of children. “Our data suggest that adolescent melanomas are often similar to adult-type melanomas, whilst those which occur in young children frequently occur via different molecular mechanisms,” they concluded. “In the future it is likely that further understanding of these molecular mechanisms and ability to classify melanomas based on their molecular characteristics will assist in further refining prognostic estimates and possible guiding treatment for young patients with melanoma.”

Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, assistant program director of the division of dermatology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the analysis “greatly contributes to dermatology, as we are still learning the differences between melanoma in children and adolescents versus adults.

This study found that adolescents with melanoma had worse survival if mitosis were present and/or located on head/neck, which could aid in aggressiveness of treatment.”