To the Editor:

A 72-year-old man presented with symptomatic anemia and nonpalpable purpura of the legs, abdomen, and arms of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). There were no associated perifollicular papules. Physical examination of the hair and gingiva were normal.

The patient’s medical history was notable for a poorly differentiated pancreatic adenocarcinoma (pT3N1M0) resected 7 months prior using a Whipple operation (pancreaticoduodenectomy). Adjuvant therapy consisted of 5 cycles of intravenous gemcitabine and paclitaxel. Treatment was discontinued 1 month prior due to progressive weight loss and the presence of new liver metastases on computed tomography. There was no recent history of corticosteroid, antiplatelet, or anticoagulant use. The patient had no known history of trauma at the affected sites.

The patient’s laboratory workup revealed the following results: hemoglobin, 5.5 g/dL (reference range, 13–18 g/dL); platelets, 128×10⁹/L (reference range, 150–400×10⁹/L); total white blood cell count (24.0×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.0–11.0×10⁹/L]), consisting of neutrophils (2.4×10⁹/L [reference range, 2.0–7.5×10⁹/L]), lymphocytes (3.1×10⁹/L [reference range, 1.5–4.0×10⁹/L]), and monocytes (18.5×10⁹/L [reference range, 0.2–0.8×10⁹/L]). Fibrinogen, activated partial thromboplastin time, and prothrombin time were within reference range. Results of a bone marrow biopsy showed 64% blasts. The lactate dehydrogenase level was 286 U/L (reference range, 135–220 U/L) and CA-19-9 antigen was 238 U/mL (reference range, 0–39 U/mL).

Results from a skin punch biopsy from the right leg showed a normal epidermis and papillary dermis. The reticular dermis was expanded by a diffuse cellular infiltrate with dermal edema and separation of collagen bundles (Figure 2), which consisted of small cells with irregular, cleaved, and notched nuclei, containing a variable amount of eosinophilic cytoplasm. Mitotic figures were present (Figure 3). There was no evidence of vasculitis, and Congo red stain for amyloid was negative. These atypical cells were positive for the leukocyte common antigen, favoring a hematopoietic infiltrate (Figure 4). Other positive markers included CD4 (associated with helper T cells, and mature and immature monocytes), CD68 (a monocyte/macrophage marker), and CD56 (associated with natural killer cells, myeloma, acute myeloid leukemia [AML], and neuroendocrine tumors). The cells were negative for CD3 (T-cell lineage–specific antigen), CD5 (marker of T cells and a subset of IgM-secreting B cells), CD34 (early hematopoietic marker), and CD20 (B-cell marker). Other negative myeloid markers included myeloperoxidase, CD117, and CD138. These findings suggested leukemic cell recruitment at the site of a reactive infiltrate. The patient completed 2 cycles of intravenous azacitidine with little response and subsequently opted for palliative measures.

Nonpalpable purpura has a broad differential diagnosis including primary and secondary thrombocytopenia; coagulopathies, including vitamin K deficiency, specific clotting factor deficiencies, and amyloid-related purpura; genetic or acquired collagen disorders, including vitamin C deficiency; and eruptions induced by drugs and herbal remedies.

Leukemia cutis is a relatively rare cause of purpura and is defined as cutaneous infiltration by neoplastic leucocytes.¹ It most commonly is associated with AML and complicates approximately 5% to 15%of all adult cases.² Cutaneous involvement occurs predominantly in monocytic variants; acute myelomonocytic leukemia and acute monocytic leukemia may arise in up to 50% of these cases.³ The clinical presentation may vary from papules, nodules, and plaques to rarer manifestations including purpura. A leukemic infiltrate often is associated with sites of inflammation, such as infection or ulceration,⁴ though there was no reported history of any known triggering events in our patient. Lesions usually involve the legs, followed by the arms, back, chest, scalp, and face.⁴ One-third of cases coincide with systemic symptoms, and approximately 10% precede bone marrow or peripheral blood involvement, referred to as aleukemic leukemia. The remainder of cases arise following an established diagnosis of systemic leukemia.⁵ Leukemia cutis is considered a marker of poor prognosis in AML,^4,6 requiring treatment for the underlying systemic disease. Our case also was complicated by a concurrent pancreatic malignancy and relatively advanced age, which limited the feasibility of further treatment.

To the Editor:

A 72-year-old man presented with symptomatic anemia and nonpalpable purpura of the legs, abdomen, and arms of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). There were no associated perifollicular papules. Physical examination of the hair and gingiva were normal.

The patient’s medical history was notable for a poorly differentiated pancreatic adenocarcinoma (pT3N1M0) resected 7 months prior using a Whipple operation (pancreaticoduodenectomy). Adjuvant therapy consisted of 5 cycles of intravenous gemcitabine and paclitaxel. Treatment was discontinued 1 month prior due to progressive weight loss and the presence of new liver metastases on computed tomography. There was no recent history of corticosteroid, antiplatelet, or anticoagulant use. The patient had no known history of trauma at the affected sites.

The patient’s laboratory workup revealed the following results: hemoglobin, 5.5 g/dL (reference range, 13–18 g/dL); platelets, 128×10⁹/L (reference range, 150–400×10⁹/L); total white blood cell count (24.0×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.0–11.0×10⁹/L]), consisting of neutrophils (2.4×10⁹/L [reference range, 2.0–7.5×10⁹/L]), lymphocytes (3.1×10⁹/L [reference range, 1.5–4.0×10⁹/L]), and monocytes (18.5×10⁹/L [reference range, 0.2–0.8×10⁹/L]). Fibrinogen, activated partial thromboplastin time, and prothrombin time were within reference range. Results of a bone marrow biopsy showed 64% blasts. The lactate dehydrogenase level was 286 U/L (reference range, 135–220 U/L) and CA-19-9 antigen was 238 U/mL (reference range, 0–39 U/mL).

Results from a skin punch biopsy from the right leg showed a normal epidermis and papillary dermis. The reticular dermis was expanded by a diffuse cellular infiltrate with dermal edema and separation of collagen bundles (Figure 2), which consisted of small cells with irregular, cleaved, and notched nuclei, containing a variable amount of eosinophilic cytoplasm. Mitotic figures were present (Figure 3). There was no evidence of vasculitis, and Congo red stain for amyloid was negative. These atypical cells were positive for the leukocyte common antigen, favoring a hematopoietic infiltrate (Figure 4). Other positive markers included CD4 (associated with helper T cells, and mature and immature monocytes), CD68 (a monocyte/macrophage marker), and CD56 (associated with natural killer cells, myeloma, acute myeloid leukemia [AML], and neuroendocrine tumors). The cells were negative for CD3 (T-cell lineage–specific antigen), CD5 (marker of T cells and a subset of IgM-secreting B cells), CD34 (early hematopoietic marker), and CD20 (B-cell marker). Other negative myeloid markers included myeloperoxidase, CD117, and CD138. These findings suggested leukemic cell recruitment at the site of a reactive infiltrate. The patient completed 2 cycles of intravenous azacitidine with little response and subsequently opted for palliative measures.

Nonpalpable purpura has a broad differential diagnosis including primary and secondary thrombocytopenia; coagulopathies, including vitamin K deficiency, specific clotting factor deficiencies, and amyloid-related purpura; genetic or acquired collagen disorders, including vitamin C deficiency; and eruptions induced by drugs and herbal remedies.

Leukemia cutis is a relatively rare cause of purpura and is defined as cutaneous infiltration by neoplastic leucocytes.¹ It most commonly is associated with AML and complicates approximately 5% to 15%of all adult cases.² Cutaneous involvement occurs predominantly in monocytic variants; acute myelomonocytic leukemia and acute monocytic leukemia may arise in up to 50% of these cases.³ The clinical presentation may vary from papules, nodules, and plaques to rarer manifestations including purpura. A leukemic infiltrate often is associated with sites of inflammation, such as infection or ulceration,⁴ though there was no reported history of any known triggering events in our patient. Lesions usually involve the legs, followed by the arms, back, chest, scalp, and face.⁴ One-third of cases coincide with systemic symptoms, and approximately 10% precede bone marrow or peripheral blood involvement, referred to as aleukemic leukemia. The remainder of cases arise following an established diagnosis of systemic leukemia.⁵ Leukemia cutis is considered a marker of poor prognosis in AML,^4,6 requiring treatment for the underlying systemic disease. Our case also was complicated by a concurrent pancreatic malignancy and relatively advanced age, which limited the feasibility of further treatment.

To the Editor:

A 72-year-old man presented with symptomatic anemia and nonpalpable purpura of the legs, abdomen, and arms of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). There were no associated perifollicular papules. Physical examination of the hair and gingiva were normal.

The patient’s medical history was notable for a poorly differentiated pancreatic adenocarcinoma (pT3N1M0) resected 7 months prior using a Whipple operation (pancreaticoduodenectomy). Adjuvant therapy consisted of 5 cycles of intravenous gemcitabine and paclitaxel. Treatment was discontinued 1 month prior due to progressive weight loss and the presence of new liver metastases on computed tomography. There was no recent history of corticosteroid, antiplatelet, or anticoagulant use. The patient had no known history of trauma at the affected sites.

The patient’s laboratory workup revealed the following results: hemoglobin, 5.5 g/dL (reference range, 13–18 g/dL); platelets, 128×10⁹/L (reference range, 150–400×10⁹/L); total white blood cell count (24.0×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.0–11.0×10⁹/L]), consisting of neutrophils (2.4×10⁹/L [reference range, 2.0–7.5×10⁹/L]), lymphocytes (3.1×10⁹/L [reference range, 1.5–4.0×10⁹/L]), and monocytes (18.5×10⁹/L [reference range, 0.2–0.8×10⁹/L]). Fibrinogen, activated partial thromboplastin time, and prothrombin time were within reference range. Results of a bone marrow biopsy showed 64% blasts. The lactate dehydrogenase level was 286 U/L (reference range, 135–220 U/L) and CA-19-9 antigen was 238 U/mL (reference range, 0–39 U/mL).

Results from a skin punch biopsy from the right leg showed a normal epidermis and papillary dermis. The reticular dermis was expanded by a diffuse cellular infiltrate with dermal edema and separation of collagen bundles (Figure 2), which consisted of small cells with irregular, cleaved, and notched nuclei, containing a variable amount of eosinophilic cytoplasm. Mitotic figures were present (Figure 3). There was no evidence of vasculitis, and Congo red stain for amyloid was negative. These atypical cells were positive for the leukocyte common antigen, favoring a hematopoietic infiltrate (Figure 4). Other positive markers included CD4 (associated with helper T cells, and mature and immature monocytes), CD68 (a monocyte/macrophage marker), and CD56 (associated with natural killer cells, myeloma, acute myeloid leukemia [AML], and neuroendocrine tumors). The cells were negative for CD3 (T-cell lineage–specific antigen), CD5 (marker of T cells and a subset of IgM-secreting B cells), CD34 (early hematopoietic marker), and CD20 (B-cell marker). Other negative myeloid markers included myeloperoxidase, CD117, and CD138. These findings suggested leukemic cell recruitment at the site of a reactive infiltrate. The patient completed 2 cycles of intravenous azacitidine with little response and subsequently opted for palliative measures.

Nonpalpable purpura has a broad differential diagnosis including primary and secondary thrombocytopenia; coagulopathies, including vitamin K deficiency, specific clotting factor deficiencies, and amyloid-related purpura; genetic or acquired collagen disorders, including vitamin C deficiency; and eruptions induced by drugs and herbal remedies.

Leukemia cutis is a relatively rare cause of purpura and is defined as cutaneous infiltration by neoplastic leucocytes.¹ It most commonly is associated with AML and complicates approximately 5% to 15%of all adult cases.² Cutaneous involvement occurs predominantly in monocytic variants; acute myelomonocytic leukemia and acute monocytic leukemia may arise in up to 50% of these cases.³ The clinical presentation may vary from papules, nodules, and plaques to rarer manifestations including purpura. A leukemic infiltrate often is associated with sites of inflammation, such as infection or ulceration,⁴ though there was no reported history of any known triggering events in our patient. Lesions usually involve the legs, followed by the arms, back, chest, scalp, and face.⁴ One-third of cases coincide with systemic symptoms, and approximately 10% precede bone marrow or peripheral blood involvement, referred to as aleukemic leukemia. The remainder of cases arise following an established diagnosis of systemic leukemia.⁵ Leukemia cutis is considered a marker of poor prognosis in AML,^4,6 requiring treatment for the underlying systemic disease. Our case also was complicated by a concurrent pancreatic malignancy and relatively advanced age, which limited the feasibility of further treatment.

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Hemodynamic instability is rewarded with a sojourn in the intensive care unit (ICU). When the intensivists see it, they’re going to throw fluids at it. Most likely a crystalloid of some type. This has been true for decades, centuries even. When I was a medical student, which was decades but not centuries ago, I used crystalloids every day on the surgical wards, in the operating room, in the emergency department, or on the medicine wards. Medicine docs preferred normal saline (NS) and surgeons used lactated Ringer’s solution (LR). I never gave this a second thought.

During medical school, I was drawn to internal medicine by the heavy emphasis on evidence-based medicine in the field. Prior to 2015 though, there wasn’t much data to support using one crystalloid formulation over another. Pre-2010, we had an American Thoracic Society (ATS) consensus statement on using crystalloid vs. colloid, making recommendations largely drawn from the SAFE trial. The ATS statement also suggested starches may be harmful, a view that was confirmed in a series of articles published in 2012 and 2013. There was less discussion about what type of crystalloid was best.

In 2014, I finally read a paper that compared crystalloid formulations. It was a network meta-analysis, which is “statistician speak” for combining disparate trials to make indirect comparisons. In the absence of large, randomized trials, this approach was a welcome addition to the data we had at the time. The authors concluded that “balanced” (typically LR or Plasma-Lyte) are superior to “unbalanced” (another term for NS) crystalloids. Balanced fluids typically have acetate or lactate and have a higher pH and lower chloride than NS. I found the signal for balanced fluids interesting at the time but promptly forgot about it.

Since 2015, the critical care community has rallied to produce a bevy of large trials comparing balanced vs. unbalanced crystalloids. The first was the SPLIT trial, which showed equivalence. Then came the SMART trial in 2018, which showed balanced fluids were better. Of note, another trial with an identical design (SALT-ED) was published in the same issue of The New England Journal of Medicine as SMART. SALT-ED enrolled patients in the emergency department, not the ICU, but also found benefit to using balanced fluids, albeit not for their primary outcome. I admit, after SMART and SALT-ED were published, I made the switch to LR. A secondary analysis of patients with sepsis pushed me further toward LR, while others withheld judgment.

Then we saw publication of the BaSICs trial, another large, randomized study evaluating crystalloid composition. I was hoping this one might put the issue to rest. That nephrologist who perseverated on every patient’s chloride during morning report would be vindicated. NS would prove to be too unbalanced and would finally be retired. No such luck. This is critical care medicine, where the initial signal is rarely confirmed in the follow-up trials. BaSICs found no difference between crystalloids for most important outcomes. The study did find balanced fluids may worsen outcomes for patients with head injuries.

Finally, there’s the PLUS trial, a large, multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing Plasma-Lyte vs. NS in the ICU. I could make the argument that this trial was the best of the bunch, and it was negative. The researchers did an excellent job of showing that serum pH and chloride levels did vary by fluid composition, but despite this, mortality and renal outcomes did not differ. Case closed? Crystalloid composition doesn’t matter, right?

An editorial that accompanies the BaSICs trial does an outstanding job of reviewing SPLIT, SMART, and BaSICs. The authors discuss design and population differences that may have led to differing results, and there are many. They conclude for most patients in the ICU, there’s no compelling reason to choose one crystalloid over another. Perhaps they’re right.

An updated meta-analysis that included all the studies I’ve mentioned concluded there was an 89% probability that balanced fluid reduces mortality for ICU patients. How could the meta-analysis authors reach this conclusion given all the negative trials? It has to do with their statistical methods – they performed both standard, frequentist (if statistical significance isn’t reached the study, is considered negative) and Bayesian analyses (posterior probability of benefit is calculated, regardless of P value). The frequentist approach was negative, but the posterior probability for benefit remained high.

Personally, I see no reason not to favor LR when resuscitating ICU patients without head injuries. In particular, it seems that medical patients (who made up almost 80% of those in the SMART trial) and those with sepsis may benefit. The critical care community has again outdone itself by performing large, well-designed trials to address important questions. Despite not having a definitive answer on crystalloid resuscitation, we know a lot more than we did when I was a medical student.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He reported receiving research grant from: Fisher-Paykel and receiving income from the American College of Chest Physicians. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hemodynamic instability is rewarded with a sojourn in the intensive care unit (ICU). When the intensivists see it, they’re going to throw fluids at it. Most likely a crystalloid of some type. This has been true for decades, centuries even. When I was a medical student, which was decades but not centuries ago, I used crystalloids every day on the surgical wards, in the operating room, in the emergency department, or on the medicine wards. Medicine docs preferred normal saline (NS) and surgeons used lactated Ringer’s solution (LR). I never gave this a second thought.

During medical school, I was drawn to internal medicine by the heavy emphasis on evidence-based medicine in the field. Prior to 2015 though, there wasn’t much data to support using one crystalloid formulation over another. Pre-2010, we had an American Thoracic Society (ATS) consensus statement on using crystalloid vs. colloid, making recommendations largely drawn from the SAFE trial. The ATS statement also suggested starches may be harmful, a view that was confirmed in a series of articles published in 2012 and 2013. There was less discussion about what type of crystalloid was best.

In 2014, I finally read a paper that compared crystalloid formulations. It was a network meta-analysis, which is “statistician speak” for combining disparate trials to make indirect comparisons. In the absence of large, randomized trials, this approach was a welcome addition to the data we had at the time. The authors concluded that “balanced” (typically LR or Plasma-Lyte) are superior to “unbalanced” (another term for NS) crystalloids. Balanced fluids typically have acetate or lactate and have a higher pH and lower chloride than NS. I found the signal for balanced fluids interesting at the time but promptly forgot about it.

Since 2015, the critical care community has rallied to produce a bevy of large trials comparing balanced vs. unbalanced crystalloids. The first was the SPLIT trial, which showed equivalence. Then came the SMART trial in 2018, which showed balanced fluids were better. Of note, another trial with an identical design (SALT-ED) was published in the same issue of The New England Journal of Medicine as SMART. SALT-ED enrolled patients in the emergency department, not the ICU, but also found benefit to using balanced fluids, albeit not for their primary outcome. I admit, after SMART and SALT-ED were published, I made the switch to LR. A secondary analysis of patients with sepsis pushed me further toward LR, while others withheld judgment.

Then we saw publication of the BaSICs trial, another large, randomized study evaluating crystalloid composition. I was hoping this one might put the issue to rest. That nephrologist who perseverated on every patient’s chloride during morning report would be vindicated. NS would prove to be too unbalanced and would finally be retired. No such luck. This is critical care medicine, where the initial signal is rarely confirmed in the follow-up trials. BaSICs found no difference between crystalloids for most important outcomes. The study did find balanced fluids may worsen outcomes for patients with head injuries.

Finally, there’s the PLUS trial, a large, multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing Plasma-Lyte vs. NS in the ICU. I could make the argument that this trial was the best of the bunch, and it was negative. The researchers did an excellent job of showing that serum pH and chloride levels did vary by fluid composition, but despite this, mortality and renal outcomes did not differ. Case closed? Crystalloid composition doesn’t matter, right?

An editorial that accompanies the BaSICs trial does an outstanding job of reviewing SPLIT, SMART, and BaSICs. The authors discuss design and population differences that may have led to differing results, and there are many. They conclude for most patients in the ICU, there’s no compelling reason to choose one crystalloid over another. Perhaps they’re right.

An updated meta-analysis that included all the studies I’ve mentioned concluded there was an 89% probability that balanced fluid reduces mortality for ICU patients. How could the meta-analysis authors reach this conclusion given all the negative trials? It has to do with their statistical methods – they performed both standard, frequentist (if statistical significance isn’t reached the study, is considered negative) and Bayesian analyses (posterior probability of benefit is calculated, regardless of P value). The frequentist approach was negative, but the posterior probability for benefit remained high.

Personally, I see no reason not to favor LR when resuscitating ICU patients without head injuries. In particular, it seems that medical patients (who made up almost 80% of those in the SMART trial) and those with sepsis may benefit. The critical care community has again outdone itself by performing large, well-designed trials to address important questions. Despite not having a definitive answer on crystalloid resuscitation, we know a lot more than we did when I was a medical student.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He reported receiving research grant from: Fisher-Paykel and receiving income from the American College of Chest Physicians. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hemodynamic instability is rewarded with a sojourn in the intensive care unit (ICU). When the intensivists see it, they’re going to throw fluids at it. Most likely a crystalloid of some type. This has been true for decades, centuries even. When I was a medical student, which was decades but not centuries ago, I used crystalloids every day on the surgical wards, in the operating room, in the emergency department, or on the medicine wards. Medicine docs preferred normal saline (NS) and surgeons used lactated Ringer’s solution (LR). I never gave this a second thought.

During medical school, I was drawn to internal medicine by the heavy emphasis on evidence-based medicine in the field. Prior to 2015 though, there wasn’t much data to support using one crystalloid formulation over another. Pre-2010, we had an American Thoracic Society (ATS) consensus statement on using crystalloid vs. colloid, making recommendations largely drawn from the SAFE trial. The ATS statement also suggested starches may be harmful, a view that was confirmed in a series of articles published in 2012 and 2013. There was less discussion about what type of crystalloid was best.

In 2014, I finally read a paper that compared crystalloid formulations. It was a network meta-analysis, which is “statistician speak” for combining disparate trials to make indirect comparisons. In the absence of large, randomized trials, this approach was a welcome addition to the data we had at the time. The authors concluded that “balanced” (typically LR or Plasma-Lyte) are superior to “unbalanced” (another term for NS) crystalloids. Balanced fluids typically have acetate or lactate and have a higher pH and lower chloride than NS. I found the signal for balanced fluids interesting at the time but promptly forgot about it.

Since 2015, the critical care community has rallied to produce a bevy of large trials comparing balanced vs. unbalanced crystalloids. The first was the SPLIT trial, which showed equivalence. Then came the SMART trial in 2018, which showed balanced fluids were better. Of note, another trial with an identical design (SALT-ED) was published in the same issue of The New England Journal of Medicine as SMART. SALT-ED enrolled patients in the emergency department, not the ICU, but also found benefit to using balanced fluids, albeit not for their primary outcome. I admit, after SMART and SALT-ED were published, I made the switch to LR. A secondary analysis of patients with sepsis pushed me further toward LR, while others withheld judgment.

Then we saw publication of the BaSICs trial, another large, randomized study evaluating crystalloid composition. I was hoping this one might put the issue to rest. That nephrologist who perseverated on every patient’s chloride during morning report would be vindicated. NS would prove to be too unbalanced and would finally be retired. No such luck. This is critical care medicine, where the initial signal is rarely confirmed in the follow-up trials. BaSICs found no difference between crystalloids for most important outcomes. The study did find balanced fluids may worsen outcomes for patients with head injuries.

Finally, there’s the PLUS trial, a large, multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing Plasma-Lyte vs. NS in the ICU. I could make the argument that this trial was the best of the bunch, and it was negative. The researchers did an excellent job of showing that serum pH and chloride levels did vary by fluid composition, but despite this, mortality and renal outcomes did not differ. Case closed? Crystalloid composition doesn’t matter, right?

An editorial that accompanies the BaSICs trial does an outstanding job of reviewing SPLIT, SMART, and BaSICs. The authors discuss design and population differences that may have led to differing results, and there are many. They conclude for most patients in the ICU, there’s no compelling reason to choose one crystalloid over another. Perhaps they’re right.

An updated meta-analysis that included all the studies I’ve mentioned concluded there was an 89% probability that balanced fluid reduces mortality for ICU patients. How could the meta-analysis authors reach this conclusion given all the negative trials? It has to do with their statistical methods – they performed both standard, frequentist (if statistical significance isn’t reached the study, is considered negative) and Bayesian analyses (posterior probability of benefit is calculated, regardless of P value). The frequentist approach was negative, but the posterior probability for benefit remained high.

Personally, I see no reason not to favor LR when resuscitating ICU patients without head injuries. In particular, it seems that medical patients (who made up almost 80% of those in the SMART trial) and those with sepsis may benefit. The critical care community has again outdone itself by performing large, well-designed trials to address important questions. Despite not having a definitive answer on crystalloid resuscitation, we know a lot more than we did when I was a medical student.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He reported receiving research grant from: Fisher-Paykel and receiving income from the American College of Chest Physicians. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 80% of people infected with Zika virus show no symptoms, and that’s particularly problematic during pregnancy. The infection can cause birth defects and is the origin of numerous cases of microcephaly and other neurologic impairments.

The large amount of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Brazilian cities, in addition to social and political problems, facilitated the spread of Zika to the point that the country recorded its highest number of congenital Zika syndrome notifications from 2015 to 2018. Since then, researchers have investigated the extent of the problem.

One of the most compelling findings about the dramatic legacy of Zika in Brazil was published Feb. 24 in The New England Journal of Medicine: After tracking 11,481,215 children born alive in Brazil up to 36 months of age between the years 2015 and 2018, the researchers found that the mortality rate was about 12 times higher among children with congenital Zika syndrome in comparison to children without the syndrome. The study is the first to follow children with congenital Zika syndrome for 3 years and to report mortality in this group.

“This difference persisted throughout the first 3 years of life,” Enny S. Paixão, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Fiocruz-Bahia’s Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, in Brazil, said in an interview.

At the end of the study period, the mortality rate was 52.6 deaths (95% confidence interval, 47.6-58.0) per 1,000 person-years among children with congenital Zika syndrome and 5.6 deaths (95% CI, 5.6-5.7) per 1,000 person-years among those without the syndrome. The mortality rate ratio among children with congenital Zika syndrome, compared with those without it, was 11.3 (95% CI, 10.2-12.4). Data analysis also showed that the 3,308 children with the syndrome were born to mothers who were younger and had fewer years of study when compared to the mothers of their 11,477,907 counterparts without the syndrome.

“If the children survived the first month of life, they had a greater chance of surviving during childhood, because the mortality rates drop,” said Dr. Paixão. “In children with congenital Zika syndrome, this rate also drops, but slowly. The more we stratified by period – neonatal, post neonatal, and the period from the first to the third year of life – the more we saw the relative risk increase. After the first year of life, children with the syndrome were almost 22 times more likely to die compared to children without it. It was hard to believe the data.” Dr. Paixão added that the mortality observed in this study is comparable with the findings of previous studies.

In addition to the large sample size – more than 11 million children – another unique aspect of the work was the comparison with healthy live births. “Previous studies didn’t have this comparison group,” Dr. said Paixão.

Perhaps the major challenge of the study, Dr. Paixão explained, was the fragmentation of the data. “In Brazil we have high-quality data systems, but they are not interconnected. We have a database with all live births, another with mortality records, and another with all children with congenital Zika syndrome. The first big challenge was putting all this information together.”

The solution found by the researchers was to use data linkage – bringing information about the same person from different data banks to create a richer dataset. Basically, they linked the data from the live births registry with the deaths that occurred in the studied age group plus around 18,000 children with congenital Zika syndrome. This was done, said Dr. Paixão, by choosing some identifying variables (such as mother’s name, address, and age) and using an algorithm that evaluates the probability that the “N” in one database is the same person in another database.

“This is expensive, complex, [and] involves super-powerful computers and a lot of researchers,” she said.

The impressive mortality data for children with congenital Zika syndrome obtained by the group of researchers made it inevitable to think about how the country should address this terrible legacy.

“The first and most important recommendation is that the country needs to invest in primary care, so that women don’t get Zika during pregnancy and children aren’t at risk of getting the syndrome,” said Dr. Paixão.

As for the affected population, she highlighted the need to deepen the understanding of the syndrome’s natural history to improve survival and quality of life of affected children and their families. One possibility that was recently discussed by the group of researchers is to carry out a study on the causes of hospitalization of children with the syndrome to develop appropriate protocols and procedures that reduce admissions and death in this population.

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

About 80% of people infected with Zika virus show no symptoms, and that’s particularly problematic during pregnancy. The infection can cause birth defects and is the origin of numerous cases of microcephaly and other neurologic impairments.

The large amount of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Brazilian cities, in addition to social and political problems, facilitated the spread of Zika to the point that the country recorded its highest number of congenital Zika syndrome notifications from 2015 to 2018. Since then, researchers have investigated the extent of the problem.

One of the most compelling findings about the dramatic legacy of Zika in Brazil was published Feb. 24 in The New England Journal of Medicine: After tracking 11,481,215 children born alive in Brazil up to 36 months of age between the years 2015 and 2018, the researchers found that the mortality rate was about 12 times higher among children with congenital Zika syndrome in comparison to children without the syndrome. The study is the first to follow children with congenital Zika syndrome for 3 years and to report mortality in this group.

“This difference persisted throughout the first 3 years of life,” Enny S. Paixão, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Fiocruz-Bahia’s Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, in Brazil, said in an interview.

At the end of the study period, the mortality rate was 52.6 deaths (95% confidence interval, 47.6-58.0) per 1,000 person-years among children with congenital Zika syndrome and 5.6 deaths (95% CI, 5.6-5.7) per 1,000 person-years among those without the syndrome. The mortality rate ratio among children with congenital Zika syndrome, compared with those without it, was 11.3 (95% CI, 10.2-12.4). Data analysis also showed that the 3,308 children with the syndrome were born to mothers who were younger and had fewer years of study when compared to the mothers of their 11,477,907 counterparts without the syndrome.

“If the children survived the first month of life, they had a greater chance of surviving during childhood, because the mortality rates drop,” said Dr. Paixão. “In children with congenital Zika syndrome, this rate also drops, but slowly. The more we stratified by period – neonatal, post neonatal, and the period from the first to the third year of life – the more we saw the relative risk increase. After the first year of life, children with the syndrome were almost 22 times more likely to die compared to children without it. It was hard to believe the data.” Dr. Paixão added that the mortality observed in this study is comparable with the findings of previous studies.

In addition to the large sample size – more than 11 million children – another unique aspect of the work was the comparison with healthy live births. “Previous studies didn’t have this comparison group,” Dr. said Paixão.

Perhaps the major challenge of the study, Dr. Paixão explained, was the fragmentation of the data. “In Brazil we have high-quality data systems, but they are not interconnected. We have a database with all live births, another with mortality records, and another with all children with congenital Zika syndrome. The first big challenge was putting all this information together.”

The solution found by the researchers was to use data linkage – bringing information about the same person from different data banks to create a richer dataset. Basically, they linked the data from the live births registry with the deaths that occurred in the studied age group plus around 18,000 children with congenital Zika syndrome. This was done, said Dr. Paixão, by choosing some identifying variables (such as mother’s name, address, and age) and using an algorithm that evaluates the probability that the “N” in one database is the same person in another database.

“This is expensive, complex, [and] involves super-powerful computers and a lot of researchers,” she said.

The impressive mortality data for children with congenital Zika syndrome obtained by the group of researchers made it inevitable to think about how the country should address this terrible legacy.

“The first and most important recommendation is that the country needs to invest in primary care, so that women don’t get Zika during pregnancy and children aren’t at risk of getting the syndrome,” said Dr. Paixão.

As for the affected population, she highlighted the need to deepen the understanding of the syndrome’s natural history to improve survival and quality of life of affected children and their families. One possibility that was recently discussed by the group of researchers is to carry out a study on the causes of hospitalization of children with the syndrome to develop appropriate protocols and procedures that reduce admissions and death in this population.

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

About 80% of people infected with Zika virus show no symptoms, and that’s particularly problematic during pregnancy. The infection can cause birth defects and is the origin of numerous cases of microcephaly and other neurologic impairments.

The large amount of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Brazilian cities, in addition to social and political problems, facilitated the spread of Zika to the point that the country recorded its highest number of congenital Zika syndrome notifications from 2015 to 2018. Since then, researchers have investigated the extent of the problem.

One of the most compelling findings about the dramatic legacy of Zika in Brazil was published Feb. 24 in The New England Journal of Medicine: After tracking 11,481,215 children born alive in Brazil up to 36 months of age between the years 2015 and 2018, the researchers found that the mortality rate was about 12 times higher among children with congenital Zika syndrome in comparison to children without the syndrome. The study is the first to follow children with congenital Zika syndrome for 3 years and to report mortality in this group.

“This difference persisted throughout the first 3 years of life,” Enny S. Paixão, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Fiocruz-Bahia’s Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, in Brazil, said in an interview.

At the end of the study period, the mortality rate was 52.6 deaths (95% confidence interval, 47.6-58.0) per 1,000 person-years among children with congenital Zika syndrome and 5.6 deaths (95% CI, 5.6-5.7) per 1,000 person-years among those without the syndrome. The mortality rate ratio among children with congenital Zika syndrome, compared with those without it, was 11.3 (95% CI, 10.2-12.4). Data analysis also showed that the 3,308 children with the syndrome were born to mothers who were younger and had fewer years of study when compared to the mothers of their 11,477,907 counterparts without the syndrome.

“If the children survived the first month of life, they had a greater chance of surviving during childhood, because the mortality rates drop,” said Dr. Paixão. “In children with congenital Zika syndrome, this rate also drops, but slowly. The more we stratified by period – neonatal, post neonatal, and the period from the first to the third year of life – the more we saw the relative risk increase. After the first year of life, children with the syndrome were almost 22 times more likely to die compared to children without it. It was hard to believe the data.” Dr. Paixão added that the mortality observed in this study is comparable with the findings of previous studies.

In addition to the large sample size – more than 11 million children – another unique aspect of the work was the comparison with healthy live births. “Previous studies didn’t have this comparison group,” Dr. said Paixão.

Perhaps the major challenge of the study, Dr. Paixão explained, was the fragmentation of the data. “In Brazil we have high-quality data systems, but they are not interconnected. We have a database with all live births, another with mortality records, and another with all children with congenital Zika syndrome. The first big challenge was putting all this information together.”

The solution found by the researchers was to use data linkage – bringing information about the same person from different data banks to create a richer dataset. Basically, they linked the data from the live births registry with the deaths that occurred in the studied age group plus around 18,000 children with congenital Zika syndrome. This was done, said Dr. Paixão, by choosing some identifying variables (such as mother’s name, address, and age) and using an algorithm that evaluates the probability that the “N” in one database is the same person in another database.

“This is expensive, complex, [and] involves super-powerful computers and a lot of researchers,” she said.

The impressive mortality data for children with congenital Zika syndrome obtained by the group of researchers made it inevitable to think about how the country should address this terrible legacy.

“The first and most important recommendation is that the country needs to invest in primary care, so that women don’t get Zika during pregnancy and children aren’t at risk of getting the syndrome,” said Dr. Paixão.

As for the affected population, she highlighted the need to deepen the understanding of the syndrome’s natural history to improve survival and quality of life of affected children and their families. One possibility that was recently discussed by the group of researchers is to carry out a study on the causes of hospitalization of children with the syndrome to develop appropriate protocols and procedures that reduce admissions and death in this population.

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

The patient is probably experiencing migraine without aura. Migraines are a complex disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of headache, most often unilateral. These attacks are associated with symptoms related to the central nervous system. Approximately 15% of patients with migraine experience aura (temporary visual, sensory, speech, or other motor disturbances). More research is needed to determine whether migraine with and without aura are potentially different diagnostic entities.

Classic migraine is a clinical diagnosis. When patients experience migraine symptoms routinely, however, it is important to consider whether these signs and symptoms can be accounted for by another diagnosis. Neuroimaging and, less commonly, lumbar puncture may be indicated in some presentations; red flags that call for additional workup are captured in the acronym SNOOP: systemic symptoms, neurologic symptoms, onset is acute, older patients, and previous history. In addition, classic migraine should be distinguished from common headaches as well as rare subtypes of migraine. For instance, hemiplegic migraine typically presents with temporary unilateral hemiparesis, sometimes accompanied by speech disturbance, and may be inherited (familial hemiplegic migraine). Basilar migraine is another rare subtype of migraine that manifests with signs of vertebrobasilar insufficiency. Attacks of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania are unilateral (just as migraines can be in about half of all cases); they are marked by their high intensity but short duration, and are accompanied by same-side facial autonomic symptoms (eg, tearing, congestion). Such patients' history and presentation do not fulfill criteria put forth by the American Headache Society (AHS) for chronic migraine, which specify having headaches 15 or more days per month for more than 3 months, and in which on at least 8 days per month those attacks are consistent with migraine or are relieved by a triptan or ergot derivative.

Migraine management must be personalized for each patient and is often associated with a marked trial-and-error period. Migraine without aura and migraine with aura are treated via similar approaches. AHS guidelines include several medications that may be effective in mitigating migraines, including both migraine-specific agents (ergotamine, ergotamine derivatives, and lasmiditan), and nonspecific agents (NSAIDs, combination analgesics, intravenous magnesium, isometheptene-containing compounds, and antiemetics). Triptans represent first-line acute treatment for migraine, but the FDA has approved five acute migraine treatments in total: celecoxib, lasmiditan, remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), rimegepant, and ubrogepant. For moderate or severe attacks, migraine-specific agents are recommended: beyond triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants), and selective serotonin (5-HT1F) receptor agonists (ditans). Patients should limit medication use to an average of two headache days per week, and those who do not find relief within these parameters are candidates for preventive migraine treatment.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, Instructor, Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Associate Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The patient is probably experiencing migraine without aura. Migraines are a complex disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of headache, most often unilateral. These attacks are associated with symptoms related to the central nervous system. Approximately 15% of patients with migraine experience aura (temporary visual, sensory, speech, or other motor disturbances). More research is needed to determine whether migraine with and without aura are potentially different diagnostic entities.

Classic migraine is a clinical diagnosis. When patients experience migraine symptoms routinely, however, it is important to consider whether these signs and symptoms can be accounted for by another diagnosis. Neuroimaging and, less commonly, lumbar puncture may be indicated in some presentations; red flags that call for additional workup are captured in the acronym SNOOP: systemic symptoms, neurologic symptoms, onset is acute, older patients, and previous history. In addition, classic migraine should be distinguished from common headaches as well as rare subtypes of migraine. For instance, hemiplegic migraine typically presents with temporary unilateral hemiparesis, sometimes accompanied by speech disturbance, and may be inherited (familial hemiplegic migraine). Basilar migraine is another rare subtype of migraine that manifests with signs of vertebrobasilar insufficiency. Attacks of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania are unilateral (just as migraines can be in about half of all cases); they are marked by their high intensity but short duration, and are accompanied by same-side facial autonomic symptoms (eg, tearing, congestion). Such patients' history and presentation do not fulfill criteria put forth by the American Headache Society (AHS) for chronic migraine, which specify having headaches 15 or more days per month for more than 3 months, and in which on at least 8 days per month those attacks are consistent with migraine or are relieved by a triptan or ergot derivative.

Migraine management must be personalized for each patient and is often associated with a marked trial-and-error period. Migraine without aura and migraine with aura are treated via similar approaches. AHS guidelines include several medications that may be effective in mitigating migraines, including both migraine-specific agents (ergotamine, ergotamine derivatives, and lasmiditan), and nonspecific agents (NSAIDs, combination analgesics, intravenous magnesium, isometheptene-containing compounds, and antiemetics). Triptans represent first-line acute treatment for migraine, but the FDA has approved five acute migraine treatments in total: celecoxib, lasmiditan, remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), rimegepant, and ubrogepant. For moderate or severe attacks, migraine-specific agents are recommended: beyond triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants), and selective serotonin (5-HT1F) receptor agonists (ditans). Patients should limit medication use to an average of two headache days per week, and those who do not find relief within these parameters are candidates for preventive migraine treatment.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, Instructor, Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Associate Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The patient is probably experiencing migraine without aura. Migraines are a complex disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of headache, most often unilateral. These attacks are associated with symptoms related to the central nervous system. Approximately 15% of patients with migraine experience aura (temporary visual, sensory, speech, or other motor disturbances). More research is needed to determine whether migraine with and without aura are potentially different diagnostic entities.

Classic migraine is a clinical diagnosis. When patients experience migraine symptoms routinely, however, it is important to consider whether these signs and symptoms can be accounted for by another diagnosis. Neuroimaging and, less commonly, lumbar puncture may be indicated in some presentations; red flags that call for additional workup are captured in the acronym SNOOP: systemic symptoms, neurologic symptoms, onset is acute, older patients, and previous history. In addition, classic migraine should be distinguished from common headaches as well as rare subtypes of migraine. For instance, hemiplegic migraine typically presents with temporary unilateral hemiparesis, sometimes accompanied by speech disturbance, and may be inherited (familial hemiplegic migraine). Basilar migraine is another rare subtype of migraine that manifests with signs of vertebrobasilar insufficiency. Attacks of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania are unilateral (just as migraines can be in about half of all cases); they are marked by their high intensity but short duration, and are accompanied by same-side facial autonomic symptoms (eg, tearing, congestion). Such patients' history and presentation do not fulfill criteria put forth by the American Headache Society (AHS) for chronic migraine, which specify having headaches 15 or more days per month for more than 3 months, and in which on at least 8 days per month those attacks are consistent with migraine or are relieved by a triptan or ergot derivative.

Migraine management must be personalized for each patient and is often associated with a marked trial-and-error period. Migraine without aura and migraine with aura are treated via similar approaches. AHS guidelines include several medications that may be effective in mitigating migraines, including both migraine-specific agents (ergotamine, ergotamine derivatives, and lasmiditan), and nonspecific agents (NSAIDs, combination analgesics, intravenous magnesium, isometheptene-containing compounds, and antiemetics). Triptans represent first-line acute treatment for migraine, but the FDA has approved five acute migraine treatments in total: celecoxib, lasmiditan, remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), rimegepant, and ubrogepant. For moderate or severe attacks, migraine-specific agents are recommended: beyond triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants), and selective serotonin (5-HT1F) receptor agonists (ditans). Patients should limit medication use to an average of two headache days per week, and those who do not find relief within these parameters are candidates for preventive migraine treatment.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, Instructor, Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Associate Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Big Vegetable has lied to us all

Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.

Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.

nneem/Pixabay

For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.

Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.

The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
 

The good old days of surgery?

Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.

Petar Ubiparip/Pixabay

But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.

One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.

What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.

The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.

Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
 

I hate that song, with reason

Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.

MPI for Empirical Aesthetics

Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.

“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.

Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.

But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.

So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.

Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.

“Regular physical activity can increase joint stability and function, reduce the risk of injury, and improve quality of life in people with hemophilia,” they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.

Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.

People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
 

MEMO expert consensus project

To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.

The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.

A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
 

Overview of the MEMO consensus statements

The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.

Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.

Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.

Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.

Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”

The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.

Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.

“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.

The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.

Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.

“Regular physical activity can increase joint stability and function, reduce the risk of injury, and improve quality of life in people with hemophilia,” they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.

Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.

People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
 

MEMO expert consensus project

To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.

The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.

A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
 

Overview of the MEMO consensus statements

The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.

Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.

Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.

Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.

Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”

The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.

Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.

“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.

The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.

Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.

“Regular physical activity can increase joint stability and function, reduce the risk of injury, and improve quality of life in people with hemophilia,” they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.

Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.

People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
 

MEMO expert consensus project

To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.

The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.

A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
 

Overview of the MEMO consensus statements

The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.

Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.

Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.

Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.

Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”

The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.

Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.

“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.

The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.

Learn More

New therapies developed to treat non-small cell lung cancer are not reaching all patients with this disease. Human-created barriers bar the way for those experiencing real or perceived stigma and those who reside in remote places or live on little income. 

In this supplement, Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, hones in on this human-created dichotomy and discusses the problems and possible solutions, along with diagnostic and treatment options.

Learn more

Learn More

New therapies developed to treat non-small cell lung cancer are not reaching all patients with this disease. Human-created barriers bar the way for those experiencing real or perceived stigma and those who reside in remote places or live on little income. 

In this supplement, Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, hones in on this human-created dichotomy and discusses the problems and possible solutions, along with diagnostic and treatment options.

Learn more

Learn More

New therapies developed to treat non-small cell lung cancer are not reaching all patients with this disease. Human-created barriers bar the way for those experiencing real or perceived stigma and those who reside in remote places or live on little income. 

In this supplement, Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, hones in on this human-created dichotomy and discusses the problems and possible solutions, along with diagnostic and treatment options.

Learn more