In HER2-positive gastric cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche) and platinum-based chemotherapy led to a significant improvement in overall response rate, according to results from the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-811 phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

The results of the trial, initially presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and now published in Nature, were instrumental in the May 2021 FDA approval of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab along with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy for the first-line treatment locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab is an anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, which blocks a key immune escape mechanism employed by cancer cells. Trastuzumab causes an immune response that leads to HER2 internalization and cellular recycling, as well as stimulating HER2-specific T cells. Death of cancer cells from platinum-containing chemotherapy stimulates dendritic cells, which in turn promote tumor-specific T cells.

In her studies of immunotherapy and gastric cancer, lead author Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, noticed a trend in HER2-positive patients. “PD-L1 overexpression actually can occur and continue to increase while the patient is on trastuzumab as a mode of resistance,” Dr. Janjigian said in an interview.

That observation prompted the idea to combine a PD-L1 inhibitor in a phase 3 clinical trial. The results were striking. “I’ve never seen such depth of response. You could see responses as early as week 3 – after just one dose – and no one’s ever shown that before,” Dr. Janjigian said.

The new study randomized 264 patients to receive pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy. In the intention-to-treat population, 81.3% of the population was male, and the primary tumor site was the stomach in 68.4%. The pembrolizumab group had a significantly higher objective response rate than the placebo group (74.4% vs. 51.9%; P = .00006).

The median decrease in lesion size was 65% in the pembrolizumab group and 49% in the placebo group. 32.3% of the pembrolizumab group had at least an 80% decrease in lesion size, versus 14.8% in the placebo group. The pembrolizumab group had more complete responses (11.3% vs. 3.1%).

The message from this is that biomarkers are critical, even if actionable ones are rare, Dr. Janjigian said. “Even though it feels like it’s only 10% or 5% of population, you start chipping away at it. How do we cure cancer? We cure it one percentage at a time through biomarker testing.”

Writing in a commentary published with the study, Myriam Chalabi, MD, a physician specializing in gastrointestinal oncology with the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, described the findings as “impressive in terms of the tumor responses.” But she was cautious saying data on progression-free survival and overall survival are needed to understand how well the proposed treatment would work long term.

“Given that PD-1 blockade seems to complement trastuzumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of HER2-positive gastric cancers, Janjigian and colleagues’ study has moved the field forward, and their findings could be the next, long-awaited development in the treatment of these cancers,” she wrote.

A key limitation is that the study looked at overall response rate, rather than the overall survival. The latter results should come within a year, Dr. Janjigian said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Janjigian has received research funding from Merck, Rgenix, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, and has served on advisory boards for Rgenix, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi-Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. She has equity in Rgenix.

In HER2-positive gastric cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche) and platinum-based chemotherapy led to a significant improvement in overall response rate, according to results from the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-811 phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

The results of the trial, initially presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and now published in Nature, were instrumental in the May 2021 FDA approval of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab along with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy for the first-line treatment locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab is an anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, which blocks a key immune escape mechanism employed by cancer cells. Trastuzumab causes an immune response that leads to HER2 internalization and cellular recycling, as well as stimulating HER2-specific T cells. Death of cancer cells from platinum-containing chemotherapy stimulates dendritic cells, which in turn promote tumor-specific T cells.

In her studies of immunotherapy and gastric cancer, lead author Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, noticed a trend in HER2-positive patients. “PD-L1 overexpression actually can occur and continue to increase while the patient is on trastuzumab as a mode of resistance,” Dr. Janjigian said in an interview.

That observation prompted the idea to combine a PD-L1 inhibitor in a phase 3 clinical trial. The results were striking. “I’ve never seen such depth of response. You could see responses as early as week 3 – after just one dose – and no one’s ever shown that before,” Dr. Janjigian said.

The new study randomized 264 patients to receive pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy. In the intention-to-treat population, 81.3% of the population was male, and the primary tumor site was the stomach in 68.4%. The pembrolizumab group had a significantly higher objective response rate than the placebo group (74.4% vs. 51.9%; P = .00006).

The median decrease in lesion size was 65% in the pembrolizumab group and 49% in the placebo group. 32.3% of the pembrolizumab group had at least an 80% decrease in lesion size, versus 14.8% in the placebo group. The pembrolizumab group had more complete responses (11.3% vs. 3.1%).

The message from this is that biomarkers are critical, even if actionable ones are rare, Dr. Janjigian said. “Even though it feels like it’s only 10% or 5% of population, you start chipping away at it. How do we cure cancer? We cure it one percentage at a time through biomarker testing.”

Writing in a commentary published with the study, Myriam Chalabi, MD, a physician specializing in gastrointestinal oncology with the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, described the findings as “impressive in terms of the tumor responses.” But she was cautious saying data on progression-free survival and overall survival are needed to understand how well the proposed treatment would work long term.

“Given that PD-1 blockade seems to complement trastuzumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of HER2-positive gastric cancers, Janjigian and colleagues’ study has moved the field forward, and their findings could be the next, long-awaited development in the treatment of these cancers,” she wrote.

A key limitation is that the study looked at overall response rate, rather than the overall survival. The latter results should come within a year, Dr. Janjigian said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Janjigian has received research funding from Merck, Rgenix, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, and has served on advisory boards for Rgenix, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi-Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. She has equity in Rgenix.

In HER2-positive gastric cancer, the addition of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) to trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche) and platinum-based chemotherapy led to a significant improvement in overall response rate, according to results from the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-811 phase 3, randomized clinical trial.

The results of the trial, initially presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and now published in Nature, were instrumental in the May 2021 FDA approval of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab along with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy for the first-line treatment locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab is an anti–programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, which blocks a key immune escape mechanism employed by cancer cells. Trastuzumab causes an immune response that leads to HER2 internalization and cellular recycling, as well as stimulating HER2-specific T cells. Death of cancer cells from platinum-containing chemotherapy stimulates dendritic cells, which in turn promote tumor-specific T cells.

In her studies of immunotherapy and gastric cancer, lead author Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, noticed a trend in HER2-positive patients. “PD-L1 overexpression actually can occur and continue to increase while the patient is on trastuzumab as a mode of resistance,” Dr. Janjigian said in an interview.

That observation prompted the idea to combine a PD-L1 inhibitor in a phase 3 clinical trial. The results were striking. “I’ve never seen such depth of response. You could see responses as early as week 3 – after just one dose – and no one’s ever shown that before,” Dr. Janjigian said.

The new study randomized 264 patients to receive pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy. In the intention-to-treat population, 81.3% of the population was male, and the primary tumor site was the stomach in 68.4%. The pembrolizumab group had a significantly higher objective response rate than the placebo group (74.4% vs. 51.9%; P = .00006).

The median decrease in lesion size was 65% in the pembrolizumab group and 49% in the placebo group. 32.3% of the pembrolizumab group had at least an 80% decrease in lesion size, versus 14.8% in the placebo group. The pembrolizumab group had more complete responses (11.3% vs. 3.1%).

The message from this is that biomarkers are critical, even if actionable ones are rare, Dr. Janjigian said. “Even though it feels like it’s only 10% or 5% of population, you start chipping away at it. How do we cure cancer? We cure it one percentage at a time through biomarker testing.”

Writing in a commentary published with the study, Myriam Chalabi, MD, a physician specializing in gastrointestinal oncology with the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, described the findings as “impressive in terms of the tumor responses.” But she was cautious saying data on progression-free survival and overall survival are needed to understand how well the proposed treatment would work long term.

“Given that PD-1 blockade seems to complement trastuzumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of HER2-positive gastric cancers, Janjigian and colleagues’ study has moved the field forward, and their findings could be the next, long-awaited development in the treatment of these cancers,” she wrote.

A key limitation is that the study looked at overall response rate, rather than the overall survival. The latter results should come within a year, Dr. Janjigian said.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Janjigian has received research funding from Merck, Rgenix, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, and has served on advisory boards for Rgenix, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi-Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. She has equity in Rgenix.

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Many health care professionals do not feel prepared to cope with a patient overdose death or to support a colleague after such a death, new research suggests.

However, results from a survey study also showed that colleagues were an important source of support in the wake of this type of event.

“A patient overdose death can change clinical decision-making for providers experiencing high levels of stress related to the overdose death,” noted the investigators, led by Amy Yule, MD, director of adolescent addiction psychiatry, Boston Medical Center, and assistant professor of psychiatry at Boston University Medical Center.

The findings were presented by Dr. Yule at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
 

All-time high

As reported by this news organization, there has recently been a record number of drug overdose deaths. And these deaths affect families, communities, and often providers, Dr. Yule told meeting attendees.

Previous research has looked at the impact of drug overdose deaths and the opioid epidemic on first responders and community health workers in the field of overdose prevention.

“But there’s less in the literature to my knowledge that describes the experience of providers and clinicians who are working in more formalized medical settings,” said Dr. Yule.

In December 2020, researchers sent an email to members of the Providers Clinical Support System (PCSS) inviting them to complete an anonymous survey. The PCSS program was created in response to the opioid overdose epidemic to train primary care clinicians in the prevention and treatment of opioid use disorders.

A total of 12,204 members received the email, 1,064 opened the survey link, and 523 completed the survey.

Participants were mostly White and female, with an average age of 52 years. Respondents had been practicing for an average of about 16 years.

The largest responder group was physicians (47%), followed by counselors (29%), nurse practitioners (17%), and nurses (7%).

Among physician respondents, 41% reported having received additional formal training in addiction.

Only 24% of the respondents indicated they received training in “postvention,” which refers to interventions after a suicide to support the bereaved. Such interventions “could be helpful in potentially preparing them for a drug overdose death in their practice,” said Dr. Yule.
 

Categories of preparedness

The survey inquired about three categories of preparedness: coping with a drug overdose death, providing support to a colleague, and talking with families who have lost a member to a drug overdose.

Overall, 59% said they felt somewhat or fairly well prepared for the first two categories and 55% for the third category.

“I think it’s notable that there is a higher percentage of people who felt not at all prepared to talk with family members (20.5%), compared to those who felt not at all prepared to cope with a drug overdose death (13.8%) or prepared to support a colleague (12%),” Dr. Yule said.

More than half of respondents (55%) indicated a drug overdose death had occurred in their own practice.

The survey also looked at frequency of consultations with colleagues, critical incident debriefing sessions, and interactions with a patient’s family.

Almost half (48%) of the sample said they consulted with a colleague after most patient overdose deaths. Only 24% said they had a critical incidence debriefing session after most of these events, and 20% said they interacted with the patient’s family.

Asked what resources they found helpful for coping with a recent patient drug overdose death, respondents flagged their colleagues and meetings with families.

The survey also examined provider trauma after a patient drug overdose death, using the Impact of Event Scale–R. “If the score is above a certain cutoff level, there is potential concern” for PTSD, Dr. Yule said.

Among the 141 respondents who had a patient drug overdose death in their practice during the previous year, 121 completed this trauma scale. Of these, 18% had “a very elevated” score, Dr. Yule reported.
 

Sources of support

Commenting on the survey study, Larissa Mooney, MD, associate professor and director of the addiction psychiatry division in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said it is not surprising that many providers do not feel adequately prepared to cope with an overdose death, or how to support a colleague after such an event.

“This is not routinely covered in training, and patient overdose may occur without warning signs,” said Dr. Mooney, who was not involved with the research.

However, these new findings suggest a range of potential sources of support for providers after a patient overdose death that may be helpful, “including colleagues, friends, therapy, supervision, and meeting with the patient’s family,” she said.

The study received funding from the PCSS. Dr. Yule disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many health care professionals do not feel prepared to cope with a patient overdose death or to support a colleague after such a death, new research suggests.

However, results from a survey study also showed that colleagues were an important source of support in the wake of this type of event.

“A patient overdose death can change clinical decision-making for providers experiencing high levels of stress related to the overdose death,” noted the investigators, led by Amy Yule, MD, director of adolescent addiction psychiatry, Boston Medical Center, and assistant professor of psychiatry at Boston University Medical Center.

The findings were presented by Dr. Yule at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
 

All-time high

As reported by this news organization, there has recently been a record number of drug overdose deaths. And these deaths affect families, communities, and often providers, Dr. Yule told meeting attendees.

Previous research has looked at the impact of drug overdose deaths and the opioid epidemic on first responders and community health workers in the field of overdose prevention.

“But there’s less in the literature to my knowledge that describes the experience of providers and clinicians who are working in more formalized medical settings,” said Dr. Yule.

In December 2020, researchers sent an email to members of the Providers Clinical Support System (PCSS) inviting them to complete an anonymous survey. The PCSS program was created in response to the opioid overdose epidemic to train primary care clinicians in the prevention and treatment of opioid use disorders.

A total of 12,204 members received the email, 1,064 opened the survey link, and 523 completed the survey.

Participants were mostly White and female, with an average age of 52 years. Respondents had been practicing for an average of about 16 years.

The largest responder group was physicians (47%), followed by counselors (29%), nurse practitioners (17%), and nurses (7%).

Among physician respondents, 41% reported having received additional formal training in addiction.

Only 24% of the respondents indicated they received training in “postvention,” which refers to interventions after a suicide to support the bereaved. Such interventions “could be helpful in potentially preparing them for a drug overdose death in their practice,” said Dr. Yule.
 

Categories of preparedness

The survey inquired about three categories of preparedness: coping with a drug overdose death, providing support to a colleague, and talking with families who have lost a member to a drug overdose.

Overall, 59% said they felt somewhat or fairly well prepared for the first two categories and 55% for the third category.

“I think it’s notable that there is a higher percentage of people who felt not at all prepared to talk with family members (20.5%), compared to those who felt not at all prepared to cope with a drug overdose death (13.8%) or prepared to support a colleague (12%),” Dr. Yule said.

More than half of respondents (55%) indicated a drug overdose death had occurred in their own practice.

The survey also looked at frequency of consultations with colleagues, critical incident debriefing sessions, and interactions with a patient’s family.

Almost half (48%) of the sample said they consulted with a colleague after most patient overdose deaths. Only 24% said they had a critical incidence debriefing session after most of these events, and 20% said they interacted with the patient’s family.

Asked what resources they found helpful for coping with a recent patient drug overdose death, respondents flagged their colleagues and meetings with families.

The survey also examined provider trauma after a patient drug overdose death, using the Impact of Event Scale–R. “If the score is above a certain cutoff level, there is potential concern” for PTSD, Dr. Yule said.

Among the 141 respondents who had a patient drug overdose death in their practice during the previous year, 121 completed this trauma scale. Of these, 18% had “a very elevated” score, Dr. Yule reported.
 

Sources of support

Commenting on the survey study, Larissa Mooney, MD, associate professor and director of the addiction psychiatry division in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said it is not surprising that many providers do not feel adequately prepared to cope with an overdose death, or how to support a colleague after such an event.

“This is not routinely covered in training, and patient overdose may occur without warning signs,” said Dr. Mooney, who was not involved with the research.

However, these new findings suggest a range of potential sources of support for providers after a patient overdose death that may be helpful, “including colleagues, friends, therapy, supervision, and meeting with the patient’s family,” she said.

The study received funding from the PCSS. Dr. Yule disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many health care professionals do not feel prepared to cope with a patient overdose death or to support a colleague after such a death, new research suggests.

However, results from a survey study also showed that colleagues were an important source of support in the wake of this type of event.

“A patient overdose death can change clinical decision-making for providers experiencing high levels of stress related to the overdose death,” noted the investigators, led by Amy Yule, MD, director of adolescent addiction psychiatry, Boston Medical Center, and assistant professor of psychiatry at Boston University Medical Center.

The findings were presented by Dr. Yule at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
 

All-time high

As reported by this news organization, there has recently been a record number of drug overdose deaths. And these deaths affect families, communities, and often providers, Dr. Yule told meeting attendees.

Previous research has looked at the impact of drug overdose deaths and the opioid epidemic on first responders and community health workers in the field of overdose prevention.

“But there’s less in the literature to my knowledge that describes the experience of providers and clinicians who are working in more formalized medical settings,” said Dr. Yule.

In December 2020, researchers sent an email to members of the Providers Clinical Support System (PCSS) inviting them to complete an anonymous survey. The PCSS program was created in response to the opioid overdose epidemic to train primary care clinicians in the prevention and treatment of opioid use disorders.

A total of 12,204 members received the email, 1,064 opened the survey link, and 523 completed the survey.

Participants were mostly White and female, with an average age of 52 years. Respondents had been practicing for an average of about 16 years.

The largest responder group was physicians (47%), followed by counselors (29%), nurse practitioners (17%), and nurses (7%).

Among physician respondents, 41% reported having received additional formal training in addiction.

Only 24% of the respondents indicated they received training in “postvention,” which refers to interventions after a suicide to support the bereaved. Such interventions “could be helpful in potentially preparing them for a drug overdose death in their practice,” said Dr. Yule.
 

Categories of preparedness

The survey inquired about three categories of preparedness: coping with a drug overdose death, providing support to a colleague, and talking with families who have lost a member to a drug overdose.

Overall, 59% said they felt somewhat or fairly well prepared for the first two categories and 55% for the third category.

“I think it’s notable that there is a higher percentage of people who felt not at all prepared to talk with family members (20.5%), compared to those who felt not at all prepared to cope with a drug overdose death (13.8%) or prepared to support a colleague (12%),” Dr. Yule said.

More than half of respondents (55%) indicated a drug overdose death had occurred in their own practice.

The survey also looked at frequency of consultations with colleagues, critical incident debriefing sessions, and interactions with a patient’s family.

Almost half (48%) of the sample said they consulted with a colleague after most patient overdose deaths. Only 24% said they had a critical incidence debriefing session after most of these events, and 20% said they interacted with the patient’s family.

Asked what resources they found helpful for coping with a recent patient drug overdose death, respondents flagged their colleagues and meetings with families.

The survey also examined provider trauma after a patient drug overdose death, using the Impact of Event Scale–R. “If the score is above a certain cutoff level, there is potential concern” for PTSD, Dr. Yule said.

Among the 141 respondents who had a patient drug overdose death in their practice during the previous year, 121 completed this trauma scale. Of these, 18% had “a very elevated” score, Dr. Yule reported.
 

Sources of support

Commenting on the survey study, Larissa Mooney, MD, associate professor and director of the addiction psychiatry division in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said it is not surprising that many providers do not feel adequately prepared to cope with an overdose death, or how to support a colleague after such an event.

“This is not routinely covered in training, and patient overdose may occur without warning signs,” said Dr. Mooney, who was not involved with the research.

However, these new findings suggest a range of potential sources of support for providers after a patient overdose death that may be helpful, “including colleagues, friends, therapy, supervision, and meeting with the patient’s family,” she said.

The study received funding from the PCSS. Dr. Yule disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Answer: Infectious gastroparesis secondary to acute hepatitis A infection.

A computed tomography scan of the abdomen/pelvis demonstrated marked gastric distention without obvious obstructing mass and normal caliber small bowel and colon. Additional laboratory workup revealed a positive hepatitis A IgM antibody. Hepatitis B surface antigen and core IgM antibody were negative, as was the hepatitis C virus antibody. Human immunodeficiency virus antigen and antibody were negative. An esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed that showed a large amount of food in a dilated and atonic stomach.

With conservative treatment, the patient’s liver enzymes trended down over the next 2 days to alanine aminotransferase 993 U/L, aspartate aminotransferase 244 U/L, and direct bilirubin 3.8 mg/dL. At the time of discharge, she was tolerating soft foods without any difficulty. She was educated on taking appropriate precautions to avoid transmitting the hepatitis A infection to others. Her risk factor for hepatitis A was recent incarceration.

Here we highlight a rare case of infectious gastroparesis secondary to hepatitis A infection. Hepatitis A virus is a small, nonenveloped, RNA-containing virus.¹ It typically presents with a self-limited illness with liver failure occurring in rare cases. Common presenting symptoms including nausea, vomiting, jaundice, fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.Laboratory abnormalities include elevations in the serum aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and total bilirubin.² The diagnosis is confirmed with a positive hepatitis A IgM antibody. The most common route of transmission is the fecal-oral route such as through consumption of contaminated water and food or from person-to-person contact.¹ Individuals can develop immunity to the virus either from prior infection or vaccination.

Gastroparesis refers to delayed emptying of gastric contents when mechanical obstruction has been ruled out. Common causes of gastroparesis include diabetes mellitus, medications, postoperative complications, and infections. Infectious gastroparesis may present acutely after a viral prodrome and symptoms may be severe and slow to resolve.³

References

1. Lemon SM. N Engl J Med. 1985 Oct 24;313(17):1059-67.

2. Tong MJ et al. J Infect Dis. 1995 Mar;171 Suppl 1:S15-8.

3. Bityutskiy LP. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997 Sep;92(9):1501-4.

Answer: Infectious gastroparesis secondary to acute hepatitis A infection.

A computed tomography scan of the abdomen/pelvis demonstrated marked gastric distention without obvious obstructing mass and normal caliber small bowel and colon. Additional laboratory workup revealed a positive hepatitis A IgM antibody. Hepatitis B surface antigen and core IgM antibody were negative, as was the hepatitis C virus antibody. Human immunodeficiency virus antigen and antibody were negative. An esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed that showed a large amount of food in a dilated and atonic stomach.

With conservative treatment, the patient’s liver enzymes trended down over the next 2 days to alanine aminotransferase 993 U/L, aspartate aminotransferase 244 U/L, and direct bilirubin 3.8 mg/dL. At the time of discharge, she was tolerating soft foods without any difficulty. She was educated on taking appropriate precautions to avoid transmitting the hepatitis A infection to others. Her risk factor for hepatitis A was recent incarceration.

Here we highlight a rare case of infectious gastroparesis secondary to hepatitis A infection. Hepatitis A virus is a small, nonenveloped, RNA-containing virus.¹ It typically presents with a self-limited illness with liver failure occurring in rare cases. Common presenting symptoms including nausea, vomiting, jaundice, fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.Laboratory abnormalities include elevations in the serum aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and total bilirubin.² The diagnosis is confirmed with a positive hepatitis A IgM antibody. The most common route of transmission is the fecal-oral route such as through consumption of contaminated water and food or from person-to-person contact.¹ Individuals can develop immunity to the virus either from prior infection or vaccination.

Gastroparesis refers to delayed emptying of gastric contents when mechanical obstruction has been ruled out. Common causes of gastroparesis include diabetes mellitus, medications, postoperative complications, and infections. Infectious gastroparesis may present acutely after a viral prodrome and symptoms may be severe and slow to resolve.³

References

1. Lemon SM. N Engl J Med. 1985 Oct 24;313(17):1059-67.

2. Tong MJ et al. J Infect Dis. 1995 Mar;171 Suppl 1:S15-8.

3. Bityutskiy LP. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997 Sep;92(9):1501-4.

Answer: Infectious gastroparesis secondary to acute hepatitis A infection.

A computed tomography scan of the abdomen/pelvis demonstrated marked gastric distention without obvious obstructing mass and normal caliber small bowel and colon. Additional laboratory workup revealed a positive hepatitis A IgM antibody. Hepatitis B surface antigen and core IgM antibody were negative, as was the hepatitis C virus antibody. Human immunodeficiency virus antigen and antibody were negative. An esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed that showed a large amount of food in a dilated and atonic stomach.

With conservative treatment, the patient’s liver enzymes trended down over the next 2 days to alanine aminotransferase 993 U/L, aspartate aminotransferase 244 U/L, and direct bilirubin 3.8 mg/dL. At the time of discharge, she was tolerating soft foods without any difficulty. She was educated on taking appropriate precautions to avoid transmitting the hepatitis A infection to others. Her risk factor for hepatitis A was recent incarceration.

Here we highlight a rare case of infectious gastroparesis secondary to hepatitis A infection. Hepatitis A virus is a small, nonenveloped, RNA-containing virus.¹ It typically presents with a self-limited illness with liver failure occurring in rare cases. Common presenting symptoms including nausea, vomiting, jaundice, fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.Laboratory abnormalities include elevations in the serum aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, and total bilirubin.² The diagnosis is confirmed with a positive hepatitis A IgM antibody. The most common route of transmission is the fecal-oral route such as through consumption of contaminated water and food or from person-to-person contact.¹ Individuals can develop immunity to the virus either from prior infection or vaccination.

Gastroparesis refers to delayed emptying of gastric contents when mechanical obstruction has been ruled out. Common causes of gastroparesis include diabetes mellitus, medications, postoperative complications, and infections. Infectious gastroparesis may present acutely after a viral prodrome and symptoms may be severe and slow to resolve.³

References

1. Lemon SM. N Engl J Med. 1985 Oct 24;313(17):1059-67.

2. Tong MJ et al. J Infect Dis. 1995 Mar;171 Suppl 1:S15-8.

3. Bityutskiy LP. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997 Sep;92(9):1501-4.

While 2022 is lurking around the corner, many of us still have 2020 on our minds. Social media posts are already emerging: “No new years resolutions. It is the circumstances turn to improve [sic],” one post declares. Others proclaim that it is difficult coming to terms with the idea that 2022 is actually pronounced “2020 too.” A critical difference exists between then and now – we have experienced months of living in limbo and rolling with the punches of pandemic life.

In some ways, it has become easy to think of the early pandemic days as a distant memory, yet respect that the impact of 2020 has been indelible for virtually all of us and feels palpable as if it were yesterday.

The year 2020 was marked by the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accompanied by extreme uncertainty, loss of all kinds, and emotional turmoil. The early pandemic had a profound economic and social impact, with added stress tethered to political and race-related division in America that created divides among families and friends, and yielded ceaseless discourse related to divergent perspectives. This only exacerbated the stress that came with the pandemic, given that providing support and leaning on one another was more important than ever. All of this was compounded by natural disasters that have plagued the country.

So much was unprecedented. There was a collective sense of feeling “worn down,” and the burnout that was felt was quite profound. Enormous amounts of mental and physical effort were allocated to simply surviving, getting basic needs met, having enough food and supplies, and completing basic tasks. Ordinary relating felt taxing. At this stage of the pandemic, the COVID-19 experience can be conceived of as a traumatic stressor capable of eliciting a traumatic response and exacerbating other mental health symptoms. Our capacity to cope has been diminished. Anxiety rates have soared, as have rates of clinical depression. Those most affected have had lower household incomes, are unmarried, and have experienced pandemic-related stressors. The links between the impact of the pandemic on mental health have been clear.

The pandemic has forced the landscape of social support to dramatically change. Initially, we felt pulled to connect and we leaned into the use of virtual platforms to connect for all matters (simple social gatherings, big birthday events, family reunions, celebration of holidays, work duties, and academic work). However, “Zoom fatigue” began to set in, and our screen time was maxed out. There has been the added dynamic of frontline workers who did not have the option to work virtually or from home. This group largely has felt disconnected from others who didn’t understand the depth of their anxiety and loneliness of their experience. Health care workers have had to make challenging, life-and-death, patient-related decisions that called into question personal morals and ethics all while their own lives were at risk.

Fast-forward to the present, and support systems have either strengthened or worn down – which has yielded a unique dichotomy. Maintaining friendships has either felt of utmost importance given the impact of the disconnect and physical distance or has felt challenging given the mental energy expended from working and connecting virtually. Empathy burnout is also a real and important facet in the equation. We begin to ask the question: Are we checking in with others in the spirit of authentic relating, to cultivate real connection, or to check a box?
 

Impact of layered traumas

It is interesting to think about the pandemic’s traumatic impact being “superimposed” on top of the “ordinary traumas” experienced outside of the pandemic. We are essentially at the 2-year mark, in some ways have cultivated a sense of resilience and found ways to adapt, and in other ways at times feel right back where we were in early 2020. There were moments that felt hopeful, glimmers of normalcy, and setbacks that all ebbed and flowed – but even so, there have not been many “mental breaks,” only temporary and transient reprieves. Some got sick and died; some recovered; and others are still experiencing long-hauler syndrome and have lingering sequelae. Despite adaptation and resilience, one can’t help but wonder the impact of superimposed traumas on top of this collective trauma. Many of us have not even rebounded from the pandemic, and then are faced with loss, grief, challenges, illness, hard and big life decisions. We are challenged to answer the question: How do we endure in the face of this trauma inception?

It has been a challenging time for all, including those who are ordinarily happy-go-lucky, resilient, and see the glass half-full and are struggling with the idea of struggling. I am no “resilience expert” but gleaned much wisdom from responding to the Surfside, Fla., building collapse. This was a collective trauma that took place in the summer of 2021, and the wisdom of this event highlighted the value of collective healing and unification even in spite of the times. What happened in Surfside was a shock, and the loss was felt by those directly affected, the surrounding community, and those who were part of the disaster response efforts. All of those parties had been processing losses prior to this – loss of normalcy because of the pandemic, loss of people we loved as a result, other personal losses – and this community tragedy was yet another loss to disentangle on top of a period in U.S. history demarcated by a great lack of unity, divisiveness, anger, and hatred. The collapse highlighted the small size yet interconnectedness of the community and the power of connection and authentic relating. It was overwhelming in the moment but extremely heartening and beautiful to see the amount of willingness to drop everything and help. Despite feeling worn down from the pandemic, people drew upon their internal resources, natural goodness, and kindness “reserves” to provide support.

Responding to the collapse highlighted that resilience in the context of collective trauma requires flexibility, embracing uncertainty, cultivating unity, and paying attention to meeting basic needs/self-care. The role of kindness cannot be overemphasized. In the realm of reflecting on the notion of kindness, it is worth noting how much power there is to bearing witness to someone’s experience, especially when they are in pain. Sometimes there are no words, nothing “to do,” no solution to offer other than just “being,” which can be enough. People often diminish the role or at the very least do not recognize the power of showing up for someone and just listening. Pandemic resilience, and coping with coalescing traumas, is likely composed of these same facets that were essential in the context of coping with the collapse.

It is not only the immediate impact of a trauma as much as the aftermath that needs to processed and worked through. In one sense, people feel that they should be adjusted to and accustomed to this new reality, and at the same time, one has to remember and reflect on how unnatural this experience has been. There is an impact of a cumulative onslaught of negative events, and it is hard to imagine not being phased, remaining unchanged, or not feeling affected. We may feel hardened and that there are limits to the compassion we have to offer others. We may be feel empathic. There can be desensitization and an apathy to others’ suffering when our patience is worn down and we have limited bandwidth. There are data to support the idea that a level of habituation occurs to individuals who experience multiple traumas, which yields a level of “sensitization” to the negative impact of subsequent events. It becomes easy to make comparisons of suffering. The challenge will be to rise above these and make a conscious effort to connect with who and how we were before we were worn down.

I am still in awe about how much I learned from the victims’ families, survivors, and my colleagues at Surfside – about pain, suffering, loss, resilience, coping, fortitude, and meaning making. We were all forced to think beyond ourselves, show up for others, and unify in a way that remedied this period of fragmentation. With respect to the pandemic and “where we are at now,” some elements of our lives are stabilizing; other aspects feel volatile from the fatigue of what we have been experiencing. This pandemic has not fully abated, but we can find some clarity in the value of setting boundaries and knowing our limits – but not overlooking the power of unity and kindness and the value of the reciprocating those qualities.

Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the college of psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She also serves on the board of directors of the Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. Dr. Feldman has no disclosures.

While 2022 is lurking around the corner, many of us still have 2020 on our minds. Social media posts are already emerging: “No new years resolutions. It is the circumstances turn to improve [sic],” one post declares. Others proclaim that it is difficult coming to terms with the idea that 2022 is actually pronounced “2020 too.” A critical difference exists between then and now – we have experienced months of living in limbo and rolling with the punches of pandemic life.

In some ways, it has become easy to think of the early pandemic days as a distant memory, yet respect that the impact of 2020 has been indelible for virtually all of us and feels palpable as if it were yesterday.

The year 2020 was marked by the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accompanied by extreme uncertainty, loss of all kinds, and emotional turmoil. The early pandemic had a profound economic and social impact, with added stress tethered to political and race-related division in America that created divides among families and friends, and yielded ceaseless discourse related to divergent perspectives. This only exacerbated the stress that came with the pandemic, given that providing support and leaning on one another was more important than ever. All of this was compounded by natural disasters that have plagued the country.

So much was unprecedented. There was a collective sense of feeling “worn down,” and the burnout that was felt was quite profound. Enormous amounts of mental and physical effort were allocated to simply surviving, getting basic needs met, having enough food and supplies, and completing basic tasks. Ordinary relating felt taxing. At this stage of the pandemic, the COVID-19 experience can be conceived of as a traumatic stressor capable of eliciting a traumatic response and exacerbating other mental health symptoms. Our capacity to cope has been diminished. Anxiety rates have soared, as have rates of clinical depression. Those most affected have had lower household incomes, are unmarried, and have experienced pandemic-related stressors. The links between the impact of the pandemic on mental health have been clear.

The pandemic has forced the landscape of social support to dramatically change. Initially, we felt pulled to connect and we leaned into the use of virtual platforms to connect for all matters (simple social gatherings, big birthday events, family reunions, celebration of holidays, work duties, and academic work). However, “Zoom fatigue” began to set in, and our screen time was maxed out. There has been the added dynamic of frontline workers who did not have the option to work virtually or from home. This group largely has felt disconnected from others who didn’t understand the depth of their anxiety and loneliness of their experience. Health care workers have had to make challenging, life-and-death, patient-related decisions that called into question personal morals and ethics all while their own lives were at risk.

Fast-forward to the present, and support systems have either strengthened or worn down – which has yielded a unique dichotomy. Maintaining friendships has either felt of utmost importance given the impact of the disconnect and physical distance or has felt challenging given the mental energy expended from working and connecting virtually. Empathy burnout is also a real and important facet in the equation. We begin to ask the question: Are we checking in with others in the spirit of authentic relating, to cultivate real connection, or to check a box?
 

Impact of layered traumas

It is interesting to think about the pandemic’s traumatic impact being “superimposed” on top of the “ordinary traumas” experienced outside of the pandemic. We are essentially at the 2-year mark, in some ways have cultivated a sense of resilience and found ways to adapt, and in other ways at times feel right back where we were in early 2020. There were moments that felt hopeful, glimmers of normalcy, and setbacks that all ebbed and flowed – but even so, there have not been many “mental breaks,” only temporary and transient reprieves. Some got sick and died; some recovered; and others are still experiencing long-hauler syndrome and have lingering sequelae. Despite adaptation and resilience, one can’t help but wonder the impact of superimposed traumas on top of this collective trauma. Many of us have not even rebounded from the pandemic, and then are faced with loss, grief, challenges, illness, hard and big life decisions. We are challenged to answer the question: How do we endure in the face of this trauma inception?

It has been a challenging time for all, including those who are ordinarily happy-go-lucky, resilient, and see the glass half-full and are struggling with the idea of struggling. I am no “resilience expert” but gleaned much wisdom from responding to the Surfside, Fla., building collapse. This was a collective trauma that took place in the summer of 2021, and the wisdom of this event highlighted the value of collective healing and unification even in spite of the times. What happened in Surfside was a shock, and the loss was felt by those directly affected, the surrounding community, and those who were part of the disaster response efforts. All of those parties had been processing losses prior to this – loss of normalcy because of the pandemic, loss of people we loved as a result, other personal losses – and this community tragedy was yet another loss to disentangle on top of a period in U.S. history demarcated by a great lack of unity, divisiveness, anger, and hatred. The collapse highlighted the small size yet interconnectedness of the community and the power of connection and authentic relating. It was overwhelming in the moment but extremely heartening and beautiful to see the amount of willingness to drop everything and help. Despite feeling worn down from the pandemic, people drew upon their internal resources, natural goodness, and kindness “reserves” to provide support.

Responding to the collapse highlighted that resilience in the context of collective trauma requires flexibility, embracing uncertainty, cultivating unity, and paying attention to meeting basic needs/self-care. The role of kindness cannot be overemphasized. In the realm of reflecting on the notion of kindness, it is worth noting how much power there is to bearing witness to someone’s experience, especially when they are in pain. Sometimes there are no words, nothing “to do,” no solution to offer other than just “being,” which can be enough. People often diminish the role or at the very least do not recognize the power of showing up for someone and just listening. Pandemic resilience, and coping with coalescing traumas, is likely composed of these same facets that were essential in the context of coping with the collapse.

It is not only the immediate impact of a trauma as much as the aftermath that needs to processed and worked through. In one sense, people feel that they should be adjusted to and accustomed to this new reality, and at the same time, one has to remember and reflect on how unnatural this experience has been. There is an impact of a cumulative onslaught of negative events, and it is hard to imagine not being phased, remaining unchanged, or not feeling affected. We may feel hardened and that there are limits to the compassion we have to offer others. We may be feel empathic. There can be desensitization and an apathy to others’ suffering when our patience is worn down and we have limited bandwidth. There are data to support the idea that a level of habituation occurs to individuals who experience multiple traumas, which yields a level of “sensitization” to the negative impact of subsequent events. It becomes easy to make comparisons of suffering. The challenge will be to rise above these and make a conscious effort to connect with who and how we were before we were worn down.

I am still in awe about how much I learned from the victims’ families, survivors, and my colleagues at Surfside – about pain, suffering, loss, resilience, coping, fortitude, and meaning making. We were all forced to think beyond ourselves, show up for others, and unify in a way that remedied this period of fragmentation. With respect to the pandemic and “where we are at now,” some elements of our lives are stabilizing; other aspects feel volatile from the fatigue of what we have been experiencing. This pandemic has not fully abated, but we can find some clarity in the value of setting boundaries and knowing our limits – but not overlooking the power of unity and kindness and the value of the reciprocating those qualities.

Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the college of psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She also serves on the board of directors of the Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. Dr. Feldman has no disclosures.

While 2022 is lurking around the corner, many of us still have 2020 on our minds. Social media posts are already emerging: “No new years resolutions. It is the circumstances turn to improve [sic],” one post declares. Others proclaim that it is difficult coming to terms with the idea that 2022 is actually pronounced “2020 too.” A critical difference exists between then and now – we have experienced months of living in limbo and rolling with the punches of pandemic life.

In some ways, it has become easy to think of the early pandemic days as a distant memory, yet respect that the impact of 2020 has been indelible for virtually all of us and feels palpable as if it were yesterday.

The year 2020 was marked by the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accompanied by extreme uncertainty, loss of all kinds, and emotional turmoil. The early pandemic had a profound economic and social impact, with added stress tethered to political and race-related division in America that created divides among families and friends, and yielded ceaseless discourse related to divergent perspectives. This only exacerbated the stress that came with the pandemic, given that providing support and leaning on one another was more important than ever. All of this was compounded by natural disasters that have plagued the country.

So much was unprecedented. There was a collective sense of feeling “worn down,” and the burnout that was felt was quite profound. Enormous amounts of mental and physical effort were allocated to simply surviving, getting basic needs met, having enough food and supplies, and completing basic tasks. Ordinary relating felt taxing. At this stage of the pandemic, the COVID-19 experience can be conceived of as a traumatic stressor capable of eliciting a traumatic response and exacerbating other mental health symptoms. Our capacity to cope has been diminished. Anxiety rates have soared, as have rates of clinical depression. Those most affected have had lower household incomes, are unmarried, and have experienced pandemic-related stressors. The links between the impact of the pandemic on mental health have been clear.

The pandemic has forced the landscape of social support to dramatically change. Initially, we felt pulled to connect and we leaned into the use of virtual platforms to connect for all matters (simple social gatherings, big birthday events, family reunions, celebration of holidays, work duties, and academic work). However, “Zoom fatigue” began to set in, and our screen time was maxed out. There has been the added dynamic of frontline workers who did not have the option to work virtually or from home. This group largely has felt disconnected from others who didn’t understand the depth of their anxiety and loneliness of their experience. Health care workers have had to make challenging, life-and-death, patient-related decisions that called into question personal morals and ethics all while their own lives were at risk.

Fast-forward to the present, and support systems have either strengthened or worn down – which has yielded a unique dichotomy. Maintaining friendships has either felt of utmost importance given the impact of the disconnect and physical distance or has felt challenging given the mental energy expended from working and connecting virtually. Empathy burnout is also a real and important facet in the equation. We begin to ask the question: Are we checking in with others in the spirit of authentic relating, to cultivate real connection, or to check a box?
 

Impact of layered traumas

It is interesting to think about the pandemic’s traumatic impact being “superimposed” on top of the “ordinary traumas” experienced outside of the pandemic. We are essentially at the 2-year mark, in some ways have cultivated a sense of resilience and found ways to adapt, and in other ways at times feel right back where we were in early 2020. There were moments that felt hopeful, glimmers of normalcy, and setbacks that all ebbed and flowed – but even so, there have not been many “mental breaks,” only temporary and transient reprieves. Some got sick and died; some recovered; and others are still experiencing long-hauler syndrome and have lingering sequelae. Despite adaptation and resilience, one can’t help but wonder the impact of superimposed traumas on top of this collective trauma. Many of us have not even rebounded from the pandemic, and then are faced with loss, grief, challenges, illness, hard and big life decisions. We are challenged to answer the question: How do we endure in the face of this trauma inception?

It has been a challenging time for all, including those who are ordinarily happy-go-lucky, resilient, and see the glass half-full and are struggling with the idea of struggling. I am no “resilience expert” but gleaned much wisdom from responding to the Surfside, Fla., building collapse. This was a collective trauma that took place in the summer of 2021, and the wisdom of this event highlighted the value of collective healing and unification even in spite of the times. What happened in Surfside was a shock, and the loss was felt by those directly affected, the surrounding community, and those who were part of the disaster response efforts. All of those parties had been processing losses prior to this – loss of normalcy because of the pandemic, loss of people we loved as a result, other personal losses – and this community tragedy was yet another loss to disentangle on top of a period in U.S. history demarcated by a great lack of unity, divisiveness, anger, and hatred. The collapse highlighted the small size yet interconnectedness of the community and the power of connection and authentic relating. It was overwhelming in the moment but extremely heartening and beautiful to see the amount of willingness to drop everything and help. Despite feeling worn down from the pandemic, people drew upon their internal resources, natural goodness, and kindness “reserves” to provide support.

Responding to the collapse highlighted that resilience in the context of collective trauma requires flexibility, embracing uncertainty, cultivating unity, and paying attention to meeting basic needs/self-care. The role of kindness cannot be overemphasized. In the realm of reflecting on the notion of kindness, it is worth noting how much power there is to bearing witness to someone’s experience, especially when they are in pain. Sometimes there are no words, nothing “to do,” no solution to offer other than just “being,” which can be enough. People often diminish the role or at the very least do not recognize the power of showing up for someone and just listening. Pandemic resilience, and coping with coalescing traumas, is likely composed of these same facets that were essential in the context of coping with the collapse.

It is not only the immediate impact of a trauma as much as the aftermath that needs to processed and worked through. In one sense, people feel that they should be adjusted to and accustomed to this new reality, and at the same time, one has to remember and reflect on how unnatural this experience has been. There is an impact of a cumulative onslaught of negative events, and it is hard to imagine not being phased, remaining unchanged, or not feeling affected. We may feel hardened and that there are limits to the compassion we have to offer others. We may be feel empathic. There can be desensitization and an apathy to others’ suffering when our patience is worn down and we have limited bandwidth. There are data to support the idea that a level of habituation occurs to individuals who experience multiple traumas, which yields a level of “sensitization” to the negative impact of subsequent events. It becomes easy to make comparisons of suffering. The challenge will be to rise above these and make a conscious effort to connect with who and how we were before we were worn down.

I am still in awe about how much I learned from the victims’ families, survivors, and my colleagues at Surfside – about pain, suffering, loss, resilience, coping, fortitude, and meaning making. We were all forced to think beyond ourselves, show up for others, and unify in a way that remedied this period of fragmentation. With respect to the pandemic and “where we are at now,” some elements of our lives are stabilizing; other aspects feel volatile from the fatigue of what we have been experiencing. This pandemic has not fully abated, but we can find some clarity in the value of setting boundaries and knowing our limits – but not overlooking the power of unity and kindness and the value of the reciprocating those qualities.

Dr. Feldman is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Miami. She is an adjunct professor in the college of psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where she teaches clinical psychology doctoral students. She also serves on the board of directors of the Southeast Florida Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology. Dr. Feldman has no disclosures.

The amount of fat surrounding abdominal organs may help clinicians identify cardiovascular risk in young people with obesity, researchers have found.

Severely overweight children and young adults showed a subtle association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness independent of body mass index (BMI). The association was not present in those of healthy weight, possibly because their visceral fat stores are too small to have a detectable effect on cardiovascular health, according to the researchers, who reported their findings in the latest issue of Pediatric Obesity.

“Those kids with greater visceral fat had stiffer arteries, which can overtax and overstress the system and lead to unfortunate consequences in terms of cardiovascular health down the line,” senior author Joseph M. Kindler, PhD, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, told this news organization.

The data came from cross-sectional measurements in 605 youth (67% female, 56% non-Black) aged 10-23 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. The sample included 236 individuals of healthy weight, 224 with obesity, and 145 with type 2 diabetes.    

Visceral fat was assessed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a widely used test of bone mineral density screening to assess fracture risk. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was used to gauge arterial stiffness, a subclinical sign of cardiovascular disease.

Visceral fat was associated with PWV in all three groups of study subjects (P < .05), the researchers found, whereas the amount of subcutaneous fat was linked to arterial stiffness in obese youth and those with obesity but not those whose weight was considered healthy.

The amount of fat was associated with an additional 1.6% of the variability in arterial stiffness in youth with obesity after accounting for BMI. Subcutaneous fat, meanwhile, did not appear to affect PWV, the researchers found. “In youth with healthy weight, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, BMI, and waist circumference were not significantly associated with PWV in any analyses,” they write.

The researchers cited a paucity of data on the relationship between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease in children with obesity. Although BMI is a reliable and readily available indicator of risk for disease, DXA “might give us a little more information,” Dr. Kindler, a nutritionist and bone biologist, said. As for clinical use to supplement BMI and waist circumference, he said, “maybe there’s room for visceral fat, but we do need a lot more science to back those decisions down the line.”

For example, what normal visceral fat accumulation during childhood looks like is unknown, he said.

Rigorous longitudinal studies are needed to establish cause and effect, but the new findings offer “a potential connection between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease risk in youth in a relatively large sample,” Wei Shen, MD, MPH, the associate director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center at Columbia University, New York, said.

Ideally, said Dr. Shen, who was not involved in the latest study, it would be “more credible to use the most accurate measure of visceral fat, the volumetric measurement of visceral fat using MRI” to establish a causal relationship with cardiovascular risk. However, MRI is more expensive and less accessible than DXA. To assess visceral fat in the clinic, “waist circumference may still be a good choice, as it is so convenient to use,” she added.

Dr. Kindler and his colleagues highlighted the need to examine the effect of excess visceral fat as well as intrahepatic fat on youth with type 2 diabetes, who experience cardiovascular complications independent of whether they are obese. In the new study, the positive association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness did not differ between youth with obesity and normal glucose control and those with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Funding came from the Endocrine Fellows Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Georgia Obesity Initiative. Dr. Kindler and Dr. Shen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The amount of fat surrounding abdominal organs may help clinicians identify cardiovascular risk in young people with obesity, researchers have found.

Severely overweight children and young adults showed a subtle association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness independent of body mass index (BMI). The association was not present in those of healthy weight, possibly because their visceral fat stores are too small to have a detectable effect on cardiovascular health, according to the researchers, who reported their findings in the latest issue of Pediatric Obesity.

“Those kids with greater visceral fat had stiffer arteries, which can overtax and overstress the system and lead to unfortunate consequences in terms of cardiovascular health down the line,” senior author Joseph M. Kindler, PhD, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, told this news organization.

The data came from cross-sectional measurements in 605 youth (67% female, 56% non-Black) aged 10-23 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. The sample included 236 individuals of healthy weight, 224 with obesity, and 145 with type 2 diabetes.    

Visceral fat was assessed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a widely used test of bone mineral density screening to assess fracture risk. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was used to gauge arterial stiffness, a subclinical sign of cardiovascular disease.

Visceral fat was associated with PWV in all three groups of study subjects (P < .05), the researchers found, whereas the amount of subcutaneous fat was linked to arterial stiffness in obese youth and those with obesity but not those whose weight was considered healthy.

The amount of fat was associated with an additional 1.6% of the variability in arterial stiffness in youth with obesity after accounting for BMI. Subcutaneous fat, meanwhile, did not appear to affect PWV, the researchers found. “In youth with healthy weight, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, BMI, and waist circumference were not significantly associated with PWV in any analyses,” they write.

The researchers cited a paucity of data on the relationship between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease in children with obesity. Although BMI is a reliable and readily available indicator of risk for disease, DXA “might give us a little more information,” Dr. Kindler, a nutritionist and bone biologist, said. As for clinical use to supplement BMI and waist circumference, he said, “maybe there’s room for visceral fat, but we do need a lot more science to back those decisions down the line.”

For example, what normal visceral fat accumulation during childhood looks like is unknown, he said.

Rigorous longitudinal studies are needed to establish cause and effect, but the new findings offer “a potential connection between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease risk in youth in a relatively large sample,” Wei Shen, MD, MPH, the associate director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center at Columbia University, New York, said.

Ideally, said Dr. Shen, who was not involved in the latest study, it would be “more credible to use the most accurate measure of visceral fat, the volumetric measurement of visceral fat using MRI” to establish a causal relationship with cardiovascular risk. However, MRI is more expensive and less accessible than DXA. To assess visceral fat in the clinic, “waist circumference may still be a good choice, as it is so convenient to use,” she added.

Dr. Kindler and his colleagues highlighted the need to examine the effect of excess visceral fat as well as intrahepatic fat on youth with type 2 diabetes, who experience cardiovascular complications independent of whether they are obese. In the new study, the positive association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness did not differ between youth with obesity and normal glucose control and those with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Funding came from the Endocrine Fellows Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Georgia Obesity Initiative. Dr. Kindler and Dr. Shen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The amount of fat surrounding abdominal organs may help clinicians identify cardiovascular risk in young people with obesity, researchers have found.

Severely overweight children and young adults showed a subtle association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness independent of body mass index (BMI). The association was not present in those of healthy weight, possibly because their visceral fat stores are too small to have a detectable effect on cardiovascular health, according to the researchers, who reported their findings in the latest issue of Pediatric Obesity.

“Those kids with greater visceral fat had stiffer arteries, which can overtax and overstress the system and lead to unfortunate consequences in terms of cardiovascular health down the line,” senior author Joseph M. Kindler, PhD, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, told this news organization.

The data came from cross-sectional measurements in 605 youth (67% female, 56% non-Black) aged 10-23 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. The sample included 236 individuals of healthy weight, 224 with obesity, and 145 with type 2 diabetes.    

Visceral fat was assessed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a widely used test of bone mineral density screening to assess fracture risk. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was used to gauge arterial stiffness, a subclinical sign of cardiovascular disease.

Visceral fat was associated with PWV in all three groups of study subjects (P < .05), the researchers found, whereas the amount of subcutaneous fat was linked to arterial stiffness in obese youth and those with obesity but not those whose weight was considered healthy.

The amount of fat was associated with an additional 1.6% of the variability in arterial stiffness in youth with obesity after accounting for BMI. Subcutaneous fat, meanwhile, did not appear to affect PWV, the researchers found. “In youth with healthy weight, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, BMI, and waist circumference were not significantly associated with PWV in any analyses,” they write.

The researchers cited a paucity of data on the relationship between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease in children with obesity. Although BMI is a reliable and readily available indicator of risk for disease, DXA “might give us a little more information,” Dr. Kindler, a nutritionist and bone biologist, said. As for clinical use to supplement BMI and waist circumference, he said, “maybe there’s room for visceral fat, but we do need a lot more science to back those decisions down the line.”

For example, what normal visceral fat accumulation during childhood looks like is unknown, he said.

Rigorous longitudinal studies are needed to establish cause and effect, but the new findings offer “a potential connection between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease risk in youth in a relatively large sample,” Wei Shen, MD, MPH, the associate director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center at Columbia University, New York, said.

Ideally, said Dr. Shen, who was not involved in the latest study, it would be “more credible to use the most accurate measure of visceral fat, the volumetric measurement of visceral fat using MRI” to establish a causal relationship with cardiovascular risk. However, MRI is more expensive and less accessible than DXA. To assess visceral fat in the clinic, “waist circumference may still be a good choice, as it is so convenient to use,” she added.

Dr. Kindler and his colleagues highlighted the need to examine the effect of excess visceral fat as well as intrahepatic fat on youth with type 2 diabetes, who experience cardiovascular complications independent of whether they are obese. In the new study, the positive association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness did not differ between youth with obesity and normal glucose control and those with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Funding came from the Endocrine Fellows Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Georgia Obesity Initiative. Dr. Kindler and Dr. Shen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery and had 10-year durable diabetes remission had a 60% lower risk of incident cancer than patients who had usual obesity care.

And women who had bariatric surgery had a 42% lower risk of having cancer during a median 21-year follow-up, compared with women who had usual obesity care.

These findings from 701 patients in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study who had type 2 diabetes were recently published in Diabetes Care.

The results illustrate the “connection between glucose control and cancer prevention” and suggest that “among patients with type 2 diabetes, many cancer cases are preventable,” lead author Kajsa Sjöholm, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), said in a press release from the university.

“The global epidemic of both obesity and diabetes leads to an increased risk of cancer, as well as an increased risk of premature death,” added senior author Magdalena Taube, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine in the same academy.

“It has been estimated that, over the next 10-15 years, obesity may cause more cancer cases than smoking in several countries,” she noted. Therefore, “strategies are needed to prevent this development, and our results can provide vital guidance for prevention of cancer in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
 

Durable diabetes remission seems key

Two-thirds of the patients in the bariatric surgery group had vertical banded gastroplasty (65%), and the rest had adjustable or nonadjustable gastric banding (18%) or gastric bypass (17%).

Each type of bariatric surgery was associated with higher diabetes remission rates, compared with usual care, in a previous study by these researchers, Dr. Taube said in an interview.

“In our present study,” she added, “we observed a nonsignificant trend, where patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes in the highest weight loss tertile (average weight loss, –44.8 kg) had somewhat lower risk of cancer compared to the lowest tertile [average weight loss, –14.9 kg].”

This might suggest, Dr. Taube continued, that with respect to cancer risk, surgery techniques resulting in greater weight loss (for example, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) should be recommended in patients with obesity and diabetes.

“However, it should also be noted that long-term diabetes remission seems imperative for cancer risk reduction,” she said, “and in a recent meta-analysis by McTigue et al., published in JAMA Surgery, it was shown that patients who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had greater weight loss, a slightly higher type 2 diabetes remission rate, less type 2 diabetes relapse, and better long-term glycemic control, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy.

“The observed cancer reduction in women with obesity and type 2 diabetes is in line with previous findings showing that cancer risk reduction following bariatric surgery in patients with obesity is more marked among women than men,” Dr. Taube noted. This may be because cancer rates are higher in women with diabetes than in men with diabetes, and common cancer types associated with obesity are female specific.

The main cancers in women were breast cancer, followed by endometrial and colorectal cancer. In men, the main cancers were colorectal, prostate, and urothelial/malignant skin cancer.
 

Study design and findings

It is well established that obesity is a risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and some of these cancers (liver, pancreatic, endometrial, colon and rectal, breast, and bladder) may be related to type 2 diabetes. And bariatric surgery has been shown to reduce cancer risk in patients with obesity.

However, it is not clear how bariatric surgery may affect cancer risk in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

To study this, the researchers examined data from 393 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 308 patients who received usual obesity treatment, who were part of the SOS study.

The SOS study enrolled men with a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m², and women with a BMI of at least 38 kg/m² who were aged 37-60 years between 1987 and 2001.

The current study outcome – cancer incidence in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes – was not a prespecified outcome

The intervention groups were matched on 18 variables, including age, sex, serum insulin, alcohol, education, and smoking.

At baseline, the patients had a mean age of about 49 and 60% were women. They had a mean BMI of about 42 and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.8%.

On average, patients in the surgery group had lost 27.5 kg and 22.7 kg, and patients in the usual care group had lost 3.2 kg and 4.8 kg, at 2 years and 10 years, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, there were 74 incident cancers in the control group and 68 cancers in the bariatric surgery group.

The risk of cancer during follow-up was 37% lower in the surgery group than in the usual care group, after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.89; P = .008).

A deeper dive showed that there were 86 incident cancers in women and 56 cancers in men. The risk of cancer was significantly lower in women who had bariatric surgery, compared with those who had usual care (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.90, P = .016). However, the risk of cancer was not significantly lower in men who had bariatric surgery versus those who had usual care (aHR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P = .413).

Diabetes remission at 10 years was associated with a 60% reduced cancer incidence (aHR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, P = .003).

The study was funded by the Swedish state (under an agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils), the Swedish Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Diabetes Foundation. One author received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery and had 10-year durable diabetes remission had a 60% lower risk of incident cancer than patients who had usual obesity care.

And women who had bariatric surgery had a 42% lower risk of having cancer during a median 21-year follow-up, compared with women who had usual obesity care.

These findings from 701 patients in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study who had type 2 diabetes were recently published in Diabetes Care.

The results illustrate the “connection between glucose control and cancer prevention” and suggest that “among patients with type 2 diabetes, many cancer cases are preventable,” lead author Kajsa Sjöholm, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), said in a press release from the university.

“The global epidemic of both obesity and diabetes leads to an increased risk of cancer, as well as an increased risk of premature death,” added senior author Magdalena Taube, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine in the same academy.

“It has been estimated that, over the next 10-15 years, obesity may cause more cancer cases than smoking in several countries,” she noted. Therefore, “strategies are needed to prevent this development, and our results can provide vital guidance for prevention of cancer in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
 

Durable diabetes remission seems key

Two-thirds of the patients in the bariatric surgery group had vertical banded gastroplasty (65%), and the rest had adjustable or nonadjustable gastric banding (18%) or gastric bypass (17%).

Each type of bariatric surgery was associated with higher diabetes remission rates, compared with usual care, in a previous study by these researchers, Dr. Taube said in an interview.

“In our present study,” she added, “we observed a nonsignificant trend, where patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes in the highest weight loss tertile (average weight loss, –44.8 kg) had somewhat lower risk of cancer compared to the lowest tertile [average weight loss, –14.9 kg].”

This might suggest, Dr. Taube continued, that with respect to cancer risk, surgery techniques resulting in greater weight loss (for example, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) should be recommended in patients with obesity and diabetes.

“However, it should also be noted that long-term diabetes remission seems imperative for cancer risk reduction,” she said, “and in a recent meta-analysis by McTigue et al., published in JAMA Surgery, it was shown that patients who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had greater weight loss, a slightly higher type 2 diabetes remission rate, less type 2 diabetes relapse, and better long-term glycemic control, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy.

“The observed cancer reduction in women with obesity and type 2 diabetes is in line with previous findings showing that cancer risk reduction following bariatric surgery in patients with obesity is more marked among women than men,” Dr. Taube noted. This may be because cancer rates are higher in women with diabetes than in men with diabetes, and common cancer types associated with obesity are female specific.

The main cancers in women were breast cancer, followed by endometrial and colorectal cancer. In men, the main cancers were colorectal, prostate, and urothelial/malignant skin cancer.
 

Study design and findings

It is well established that obesity is a risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and some of these cancers (liver, pancreatic, endometrial, colon and rectal, breast, and bladder) may be related to type 2 diabetes. And bariatric surgery has been shown to reduce cancer risk in patients with obesity.

However, it is not clear how bariatric surgery may affect cancer risk in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

To study this, the researchers examined data from 393 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 308 patients who received usual obesity treatment, who were part of the SOS study.

The SOS study enrolled men with a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m², and women with a BMI of at least 38 kg/m² who were aged 37-60 years between 1987 and 2001.

The current study outcome – cancer incidence in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes – was not a prespecified outcome

The intervention groups were matched on 18 variables, including age, sex, serum insulin, alcohol, education, and smoking.

At baseline, the patients had a mean age of about 49 and 60% were women. They had a mean BMI of about 42 and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.8%.

On average, patients in the surgery group had lost 27.5 kg and 22.7 kg, and patients in the usual care group had lost 3.2 kg and 4.8 kg, at 2 years and 10 years, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, there were 74 incident cancers in the control group and 68 cancers in the bariatric surgery group.

The risk of cancer during follow-up was 37% lower in the surgery group than in the usual care group, after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.89; P = .008).

A deeper dive showed that there were 86 incident cancers in women and 56 cancers in men. The risk of cancer was significantly lower in women who had bariatric surgery, compared with those who had usual care (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.90, P = .016). However, the risk of cancer was not significantly lower in men who had bariatric surgery versus those who had usual care (aHR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P = .413).

Diabetes remission at 10 years was associated with a 60% reduced cancer incidence (aHR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, P = .003).

The study was funded by the Swedish state (under an agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils), the Swedish Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Diabetes Foundation. One author received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery and had 10-year durable diabetes remission had a 60% lower risk of incident cancer than patients who had usual obesity care.

And women who had bariatric surgery had a 42% lower risk of having cancer during a median 21-year follow-up, compared with women who had usual obesity care.

These findings from 701 patients in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study who had type 2 diabetes were recently published in Diabetes Care.

The results illustrate the “connection between glucose control and cancer prevention” and suggest that “among patients with type 2 diabetes, many cancer cases are preventable,” lead author Kajsa Sjöholm, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), said in a press release from the university.

“The global epidemic of both obesity and diabetes leads to an increased risk of cancer, as well as an increased risk of premature death,” added senior author Magdalena Taube, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine in the same academy.

“It has been estimated that, over the next 10-15 years, obesity may cause more cancer cases than smoking in several countries,” she noted. Therefore, “strategies are needed to prevent this development, and our results can provide vital guidance for prevention of cancer in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
 

Durable diabetes remission seems key

Two-thirds of the patients in the bariatric surgery group had vertical banded gastroplasty (65%), and the rest had adjustable or nonadjustable gastric banding (18%) or gastric bypass (17%).

Each type of bariatric surgery was associated with higher diabetes remission rates, compared with usual care, in a previous study by these researchers, Dr. Taube said in an interview.

“In our present study,” she added, “we observed a nonsignificant trend, where patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes in the highest weight loss tertile (average weight loss, –44.8 kg) had somewhat lower risk of cancer compared to the lowest tertile [average weight loss, –14.9 kg].”

This might suggest, Dr. Taube continued, that with respect to cancer risk, surgery techniques resulting in greater weight loss (for example, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) should be recommended in patients with obesity and diabetes.

“However, it should also be noted that long-term diabetes remission seems imperative for cancer risk reduction,” she said, “and in a recent meta-analysis by McTigue et al., published in JAMA Surgery, it was shown that patients who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had greater weight loss, a slightly higher type 2 diabetes remission rate, less type 2 diabetes relapse, and better long-term glycemic control, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy.

“The observed cancer reduction in women with obesity and type 2 diabetes is in line with previous findings showing that cancer risk reduction following bariatric surgery in patients with obesity is more marked among women than men,” Dr. Taube noted. This may be because cancer rates are higher in women with diabetes than in men with diabetes, and common cancer types associated with obesity are female specific.

The main cancers in women were breast cancer, followed by endometrial and colorectal cancer. In men, the main cancers were colorectal, prostate, and urothelial/malignant skin cancer.
 

Study design and findings

It is well established that obesity is a risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and some of these cancers (liver, pancreatic, endometrial, colon and rectal, breast, and bladder) may be related to type 2 diabetes. And bariatric surgery has been shown to reduce cancer risk in patients with obesity.

However, it is not clear how bariatric surgery may affect cancer risk in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

To study this, the researchers examined data from 393 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 308 patients who received usual obesity treatment, who were part of the SOS study.

The SOS study enrolled men with a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m², and women with a BMI of at least 38 kg/m² who were aged 37-60 years between 1987 and 2001.

The current study outcome – cancer incidence in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes – was not a prespecified outcome

The intervention groups were matched on 18 variables, including age, sex, serum insulin, alcohol, education, and smoking.

At baseline, the patients had a mean age of about 49 and 60% were women. They had a mean BMI of about 42 and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.8%.

On average, patients in the surgery group had lost 27.5 kg and 22.7 kg, and patients in the usual care group had lost 3.2 kg and 4.8 kg, at 2 years and 10 years, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, there were 74 incident cancers in the control group and 68 cancers in the bariatric surgery group.

The risk of cancer during follow-up was 37% lower in the surgery group than in the usual care group, after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.89; P = .008).

A deeper dive showed that there were 86 incident cancers in women and 56 cancers in men. The risk of cancer was significantly lower in women who had bariatric surgery, compared with those who had usual care (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.90, P = .016). However, the risk of cancer was not significantly lower in men who had bariatric surgery versus those who had usual care (aHR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P = .413).

Diabetes remission at 10 years was associated with a 60% reduced cancer incidence (aHR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, P = .003).

The study was funded by the Swedish state (under an agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils), the Swedish Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Diabetes Foundation. One author received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

THE DIAGNOSIS:

Cutaneous Metastatic Mesothelioma

Biopsies of the larger erythematous papules revealed an infiltrate of atypical tumor cells with mitoses (Figure 1) that were immunoreactive for calretinin (Figure 2) and lacked nuclear BRCA1 associated protein-1, BAP1, expression (not shown). The patient’s prior mesothelioma was re-reviewed, and the cutaneous tumor cells were similar to the primary mesothelioma. A diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic mesothelioma (CMM) was made.

Mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm arising from the pleura, pericardium, peritoneum, and tunica vaginalis,¹ with an estimated annual incidence of 2500 cases.² The predominant risk factor for the development of pleural mesothelioma is asbestos exposure, which has been identified in up to 90% of cases. Mesothelioma can give rise to local and less frequently distant hematogenous metastases. Cutaneous involvement of mesothelioma is rare.³ More than 80% of CMM cases are attributed to seeding the skin at procedure sites or by direct infiltration of scars. Distant CMM is rare and typically presents as subcutaneous nodules.⁴ Few cases of inflammatory CMM have been published,^1,4,5 with even fewer mimicking herpes zoster infection (HZI), as seen in our patient.

The most specific stain for mesothelioma is calretinin, which strongly and diffusely stains both the nucleus and cytoplasm. Other markers include Wilms tumor 1, cytokeratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, and HBME-1. Immunohistochemistry to detect the loss of BAP1 staining in the nucleus is important for differentiating between mesothelioma and mesothelial hyperplasia.³

Cutaneous metastases occur in 0.7% to 9% of patients with internal malignant disease. Most commonly, cutaneous metastases present as cutaneous nodules, though other reported inflammatory presentations include erysipeloides, generalized erythematous patches, telangiectasia, and zosteriform distributions.⁶ Zosteriform distributions are particularly rare and most commonly are due to breast carcinomas or lymphomas. The mechanism of zosteriform metastasis is unknown, but theories include tumoral spread along vessels, invasion of the thoracic perineural sheaths, localized spread of tumor cells from a surgical site, or a Koebner-like reaction at the site of an existing HZI. Regardless of primary tumor type or presentation, cutaneous metastasis is a poor prognostic sign, with survival rates varying based on primary tumor type.⁷

Other differential diagnoses include herpes zoster granulomatous dermatitis, radiation recall dermatitis, cutaneous Rosai-Dorfman disease, and zosteriform lichen planus, all of which have been reported after HZI.^8-10 Herpes zoster granulomatous dermatitis typically presents weeks to years after acute HZI with erythematous to violaceous papules and plaques at the site of the prior HZI. A biopsy reveals interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and multinucleated giant cells.⁸ Radiation recall dermatitis is a cutaneous inflammatory reaction limited to regions of prior radiation exposure after the administration of a triggering medication. Radiation recall dermatitis can present days to many years after the completion of treatment.⁹ Although the eruption in our patient was at the site of prior radiation, the pathologic and clinical presentation was not consistent with radiation recall dermatitis. Cutaneous Rosai-Dorfman disease is a non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis that may present as either solitary or numerous papules, plaques, or nodules and has been reported to occur after HZI. Biopsy reveals a diffuse dermal histiocytic infiltration with plasma cells and lymphocytes. In contrast to metastatic disease, mitoses and nuclear atypia are rare in cutaneous RosaiDorfman disease.¹¹ Lichen planus is an inflammatory disease of unknown etiology presenting as flat-topped, violaceous, pruritic papules¹² that may present in a zosteriform pattern.¹³

Although it is uncommon, metastatic spread should be considered in patients with known malignancy presenting with zosteriform eruptions.² Our patient remained on treatment with immunotherapy, as he was unable to undergo additional radiation and had failed multiple other lines of therapy. He died 3 months after presentation.

THE DIAGNOSIS:

Cutaneous Metastatic Mesothelioma

Biopsies of the larger erythematous papules revealed an infiltrate of atypical tumor cells with mitoses (Figure 1) that were immunoreactive for calretinin (Figure 2) and lacked nuclear BRCA1 associated protein-1, BAP1, expression (not shown). The patient’s prior mesothelioma was re-reviewed, and the cutaneous tumor cells were similar to the primary mesothelioma. A diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic mesothelioma (CMM) was made.

Mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm arising from the pleura, pericardium, peritoneum, and tunica vaginalis,¹ with an estimated annual incidence of 2500 cases.² The predominant risk factor for the development of pleural mesothelioma is asbestos exposure, which has been identified in up to 90% of cases. Mesothelioma can give rise to local and less frequently distant hematogenous metastases. Cutaneous involvement of mesothelioma is rare.³ More than 80% of CMM cases are attributed to seeding the skin at procedure sites or by direct infiltration of scars. Distant CMM is rare and typically presents as subcutaneous nodules.⁴ Few cases of inflammatory CMM have been published,^1,4,5 with even fewer mimicking herpes zoster infection (HZI), as seen in our patient.

The most specific stain for mesothelioma is calretinin, which strongly and diffusely stains both the nucleus and cytoplasm. Other markers include Wilms tumor 1, cytokeratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, and HBME-1. Immunohistochemistry to detect the loss of BAP1 staining in the nucleus is important for differentiating between mesothelioma and mesothelial hyperplasia.³

Cutaneous metastases occur in 0.7% to 9% of patients with internal malignant disease. Most commonly, cutaneous metastases present as cutaneous nodules, though other reported inflammatory presentations include erysipeloides, generalized erythematous patches, telangiectasia, and zosteriform distributions.⁶ Zosteriform distributions are particularly rare and most commonly are due to breast carcinomas or lymphomas. The mechanism of zosteriform metastasis is unknown, but theories include tumoral spread along vessels, invasion of the thoracic perineural sheaths, localized spread of tumor cells from a surgical site, or a Koebner-like reaction at the site of an existing HZI. Regardless of primary tumor type or presentation, cutaneous metastasis is a poor prognostic sign, with survival rates varying based on primary tumor type.⁷

Other differential diagnoses include herpes zoster granulomatous dermatitis, radiation recall dermatitis, cutaneous Rosai-Dorfman disease, and zosteriform lichen planus, all of which have been reported after HZI.^8-10 Herpes zoster granulomatous dermatitis typically presents weeks to years after acute HZI with erythematous to violaceous papules and plaques at the site of the prior HZI. A biopsy reveals interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and multinucleated giant cells.⁸ Radiation recall dermatitis is a cutaneous inflammatory reaction limited to regions of prior radiation exposure after the administration of a triggering medication. Radiation recall dermatitis can present days to many years after the completion of treatment.⁹ Although the eruption in our patient was at the site of prior radiation, the pathologic and clinical presentation was not consistent with radiation recall dermatitis. Cutaneous Rosai-Dorfman disease is a non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis that may present as either solitary or numerous papules, plaques, or nodules and has been reported to occur after HZI. Biopsy reveals a diffuse dermal histiocytic infiltration with plasma cells and lymphocytes. In contrast to metastatic disease, mitoses and nuclear atypia are rare in cutaneous RosaiDorfman disease.¹¹ Lichen planus is an inflammatory disease of unknown etiology presenting as flat-topped, violaceous, pruritic papules¹² that may present in a zosteriform pattern.¹³

Although it is uncommon, metastatic spread should be considered in patients with known malignancy presenting with zosteriform eruptions.² Our patient remained on treatment with immunotherapy, as he was unable to undergo additional radiation and had failed multiple other lines of therapy. He died 3 months after presentation.

THE DIAGNOSIS:

Cutaneous Metastatic Mesothelioma

Biopsies of the larger erythematous papules revealed an infiltrate of atypical tumor cells with mitoses (Figure 1) that were immunoreactive for calretinin (Figure 2) and lacked nuclear BRCA1 associated protein-1, BAP1, expression (not shown). The patient’s prior mesothelioma was re-reviewed, and the cutaneous tumor cells were similar to the primary mesothelioma. A diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic mesothelioma (CMM) was made.

Mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm arising from the pleura, pericardium, peritoneum, and tunica vaginalis,¹ with an estimated annual incidence of 2500 cases.² The predominant risk factor for the development of pleural mesothelioma is asbestos exposure, which has been identified in up to 90% of cases. Mesothelioma can give rise to local and less frequently distant hematogenous metastases. Cutaneous involvement of mesothelioma is rare.³ More than 80% of CMM cases are attributed to seeding the skin at procedure sites or by direct infiltration of scars. Distant CMM is rare and typically presents as subcutaneous nodules.⁴ Few cases of inflammatory CMM have been published,^1,4,5 with even fewer mimicking herpes zoster infection (HZI), as seen in our patient.

The most specific stain for mesothelioma is calretinin, which strongly and diffusely stains both the nucleus and cytoplasm. Other markers include Wilms tumor 1, cytokeratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, and HBME-1. Immunohistochemistry to detect the loss of BAP1 staining in the nucleus is important for differentiating between mesothelioma and mesothelial hyperplasia.³

Cutaneous metastases occur in 0.7% to 9% of patients with internal malignant disease. Most commonly, cutaneous metastases present as cutaneous nodules, though other reported inflammatory presentations include erysipeloides, generalized erythematous patches, telangiectasia, and zosteriform distributions.⁶ Zosteriform distributions are particularly rare and most commonly are due to breast carcinomas or lymphomas. The mechanism of zosteriform metastasis is unknown, but theories include tumoral spread along vessels, invasion of the thoracic perineural sheaths, localized spread of tumor cells from a surgical site, or a Koebner-like reaction at the site of an existing HZI. Regardless of primary tumor type or presentation, cutaneous metastasis is a poor prognostic sign, with survival rates varying based on primary tumor type.⁷

Other differential diagnoses include herpes zoster granulomatous dermatitis, radiation recall dermatitis, cutaneous Rosai-Dorfman disease, and zosteriform lichen planus, all of which have been reported after HZI.^8-10 Herpes zoster granulomatous dermatitis typically presents weeks to years after acute HZI with erythematous to violaceous papules and plaques at the site of the prior HZI. A biopsy reveals interstitial granulomatous dermatitis and multinucleated giant cells.⁸ Radiation recall dermatitis is a cutaneous inflammatory reaction limited to regions of prior radiation exposure after the administration of a triggering medication. Radiation recall dermatitis can present days to many years after the completion of treatment.⁹ Although the eruption in our patient was at the site of prior radiation, the pathologic and clinical presentation was not consistent with radiation recall dermatitis. Cutaneous Rosai-Dorfman disease is a non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis that may present as either solitary or numerous papules, plaques, or nodules and has been reported to occur after HZI. Biopsy reveals a diffuse dermal histiocytic infiltration with plasma cells and lymphocytes. In contrast to metastatic disease, mitoses and nuclear atypia are rare in cutaneous RosaiDorfman disease.¹¹ Lichen planus is an inflammatory disease of unknown etiology presenting as flat-topped, violaceous, pruritic papules¹² that may present in a zosteriform pattern.¹³

Although it is uncommon, metastatic spread should be considered in patients with known malignancy presenting with zosteriform eruptions.² Our patient remained on treatment with immunotherapy, as he was unable to undergo additional radiation and had failed multiple other lines of therapy. He died 3 months after presentation.

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

Pediatricians should take a more proactive role in protecting children and adolescents from HIV infections, according to updated guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The comprehensive new recommendations stress winning the trust and confidence of pediatric patients and reaffirm support for testing and treating adolescents without parental consent where state laws allow.

While the number of HIV-infected people in the United States remains high, most sexually active youth do not believe they are at risk and have never been tested, noted authors Katherine K. Hsu, MD, MPH, of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Boston University Medical Center, and Natella Yurievna Rakhmanina, MD, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, both in Washington.

That is a knowledge gap that pediatricians are well situated to fill. “Pediatricians can play a key role in preventing and controlling HIV infection by promoting risk-reduction counseling and offering routine HIV testing and prophylaxis to adolescent and young adult (youth) patients,” they wrote on Dec. 20, 2021, in their study published in Pediatrics.

Key components of youth encounters, they stressed, is creating safe environments for obtaining an accurate sexual and reproductive health assessment and providing nonstigmatizing risk counseling.

According to Dr. Rakhmanina, major barriers to addressing preventive HIV counseling have included pediatricians’ lack of time, cultural differences, adolescents’ inaccurate responses, discomfort discussing sexual issues, and adolescents’ fear of parent or caregiver notification. Other concerns have been lack of adequate payment and insufficient training in how to talk to adolescents about sexual and reproductive issues.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at year end in 2018 an estimated 1,173,900 people age 13 or older were living with HIV infection in the United States, of whom 47,800 (4%) were adolescents and young adults 13-24 years of age.

These estimates include diagnosed and undiagnosed individuals. Between 2014 and 2018, new diagnoses of HIV infection accounted for 21% (7,817 of 37,515) of all new HIV diagnoses in the United States.

The new AAP clinical report updates policy statements from 2001 and again 2011 that encouraged HIV testing of all sexually active youth.

It reflects changes in epidemiology, advances in diagnostic testing with improved immunoassays, and updated recommendations for HIV testing and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), as well as new guidance for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

A 2017 study found that the 2011 HIV testing guidelines was associated with only a slight increase in HIV screening and a shift toward testing younger people and away from testing on the basis of risk.

Against this backdrop of persistent HIV infection and to-date modest uptake of earlier guidance, the 2021 statement made 14 main recommendations to pediatricians. Among these:
 

• Foster open discussion of gender and sexual orientation and behavior, as well as reproductive health issues.
• Recognize the clinical presentation of the acute retroviral syndrome, which can present as syndromes resembling infectious mononucleosis and influenza.
• Consider including virologic testing in the diagnostic workup of sexually active youth.
• Consider routine HIV screening for all youth 15 years or older at least once and rescreening high-risk youth. Those at higher risk should be rescreened at least annually, and potentially as frequently as every 3-6 months.
• Youth at substantial risk should be routinely offered PrEP, while PEP with antiretroviral drugs is indicated after unsafe exposures such as unsafe sexual activity, unsafe needle use, or sexual violence. Survivors of sexual violence should have baseline HIV testing and sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and treatment. They should also be offered mental health and other supportive counseling.
• Test youth who request HIV screening at any time even in the absence of reported risk factors. Although parent or guardian involvement is preferable, in most legal settings the adolescent’s consent should suffice for testing and treatment.
• For youth with a positive HIV test, facilitate and confirm prompt linkage to age-appropriate HIV specialty care.

Will the current report’s recommendations be met with greater uptake than previous iterations? Yes, according to Maria E. Trent, MD, MPH, chief of the division of adolescent/young adult medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but a fundamental first step will be the establishment of honesty and confidentiality. “Pediatricians are essential stakeholders in HIV prevention and intervention efforts in the United States. Recent data, however, suggest that pediatricians often struggle to create the essential alone time with adolescents and young adults to conduct critical sexual health conversations that allow for adequate STI/HIV risk screening,” said Dr. Trent, who was not involved in the report. “Consistently creating that space will be the first task for ensuring adherence to these recommendations.”

Strategies to optimize risk screening for clinical decision support, such as confidential online previsit questionnaires that link to the electronic medical record, may facilitate discussions during the visit while maintaining clinician efficiency, she added.

Furthermore, while one-time general HIV screening during adolescence will be an easy goal, “integrating annual testing, biomedical intervention for PrEP/PEP, and ongoing follow-up and testing for those on biomedical intervention may present practical but not insurmountable challenges,” Dr. Trent said.

When pediatricians recognize that care is suboptimal in practice, ensuring that pediatricians have established linkages to adolescent-friendly services for free or low-cost HIV testing, PrEP/PEP, and HIV management will prevent gaps in care, Dr. Trent continued. “The most exciting development in health care is that telemedicine can now be used to work with young people, giving the practicing pediatrician more opportunities and flexibility to deliver and triage care.”

Will any of the guidelines such as an adolescent’s right to independent consent be considered unacceptable by parents? “While this part of the recommendations is not new, the thought that their adolescent can initiate and receive confidential care for HIV prevention or intervention without their knowledge or consent may initially be challenging to process,” Dr. Trent said. “Ultimately, what I’ve observed in practice is that parents are relieved and often proud of their young person for taking the initiative to engage in self-care to maintain their health and relieved to be involved as a critical support person.”

She added that pediatricians need to make their practice policies clear and have information available for parents on state laws related to confidential care. “They also need to carefully use the electronic health record to avoid errors in disclosures to proxies without patient consent.”

Dr. Rakhmanina agreed there will likely be greater adherence to this round of recommendations. “The culture of addressing sexual and reproductive health issues among adolescents in the U.S. is changing among pediatric providers, and we start seeing more champions of PrEP and HIV testing in our communities,” she said.

This study received no external funding. The authors had no financial relationships or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Trent disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

Pediatricians should take a more proactive role in protecting children and adolescents from HIV infections, according to updated guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The comprehensive new recommendations stress winning the trust and confidence of pediatric patients and reaffirm support for testing and treating adolescents without parental consent where state laws allow.

While the number of HIV-infected people in the United States remains high, most sexually active youth do not believe they are at risk and have never been tested, noted authors Katherine K. Hsu, MD, MPH, of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Boston University Medical Center, and Natella Yurievna Rakhmanina, MD, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, both in Washington.

That is a knowledge gap that pediatricians are well situated to fill. “Pediatricians can play a key role in preventing and controlling HIV infection by promoting risk-reduction counseling and offering routine HIV testing and prophylaxis to adolescent and young adult (youth) patients,” they wrote on Dec. 20, 2021, in their study published in Pediatrics.

Key components of youth encounters, they stressed, is creating safe environments for obtaining an accurate sexual and reproductive health assessment and providing nonstigmatizing risk counseling.

According to Dr. Rakhmanina, major barriers to addressing preventive HIV counseling have included pediatricians’ lack of time, cultural differences, adolescents’ inaccurate responses, discomfort discussing sexual issues, and adolescents’ fear of parent or caregiver notification. Other concerns have been lack of adequate payment and insufficient training in how to talk to adolescents about sexual and reproductive issues.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at year end in 2018 an estimated 1,173,900 people age 13 or older were living with HIV infection in the United States, of whom 47,800 (4%) were adolescents and young adults 13-24 years of age.

These estimates include diagnosed and undiagnosed individuals. Between 2014 and 2018, new diagnoses of HIV infection accounted for 21% (7,817 of 37,515) of all new HIV diagnoses in the United States.

The new AAP clinical report updates policy statements from 2001 and again 2011 that encouraged HIV testing of all sexually active youth.

It reflects changes in epidemiology, advances in diagnostic testing with improved immunoassays, and updated recommendations for HIV testing and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), as well as new guidance for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

A 2017 study found that the 2011 HIV testing guidelines was associated with only a slight increase in HIV screening and a shift toward testing younger people and away from testing on the basis of risk.

Against this backdrop of persistent HIV infection and to-date modest uptake of earlier guidance, the 2021 statement made 14 main recommendations to pediatricians. Among these:
 

• Foster open discussion of gender and sexual orientation and behavior, as well as reproductive health issues.
• Recognize the clinical presentation of the acute retroviral syndrome, which can present as syndromes resembling infectious mononucleosis and influenza.
• Consider including virologic testing in the diagnostic workup of sexually active youth.
• Consider routine HIV screening for all youth 15 years or older at least once and rescreening high-risk youth. Those at higher risk should be rescreened at least annually, and potentially as frequently as every 3-6 months.
• Youth at substantial risk should be routinely offered PrEP, while PEP with antiretroviral drugs is indicated after unsafe exposures such as unsafe sexual activity, unsafe needle use, or sexual violence. Survivors of sexual violence should have baseline HIV testing and sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and treatment. They should also be offered mental health and other supportive counseling.
• Test youth who request HIV screening at any time even in the absence of reported risk factors. Although parent or guardian involvement is preferable, in most legal settings the adolescent’s consent should suffice for testing and treatment.
• For youth with a positive HIV test, facilitate and confirm prompt linkage to age-appropriate HIV specialty care.

Will the current report’s recommendations be met with greater uptake than previous iterations? Yes, according to Maria E. Trent, MD, MPH, chief of the division of adolescent/young adult medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but a fundamental first step will be the establishment of honesty and confidentiality. “Pediatricians are essential stakeholders in HIV prevention and intervention efforts in the United States. Recent data, however, suggest that pediatricians often struggle to create the essential alone time with adolescents and young adults to conduct critical sexual health conversations that allow for adequate STI/HIV risk screening,” said Dr. Trent, who was not involved in the report. “Consistently creating that space will be the first task for ensuring adherence to these recommendations.”

Strategies to optimize risk screening for clinical decision support, such as confidential online previsit questionnaires that link to the electronic medical record, may facilitate discussions during the visit while maintaining clinician efficiency, she added.

Furthermore, while one-time general HIV screening during adolescence will be an easy goal, “integrating annual testing, biomedical intervention for PrEP/PEP, and ongoing follow-up and testing for those on biomedical intervention may present practical but not insurmountable challenges,” Dr. Trent said.

When pediatricians recognize that care is suboptimal in practice, ensuring that pediatricians have established linkages to adolescent-friendly services for free or low-cost HIV testing, PrEP/PEP, and HIV management will prevent gaps in care, Dr. Trent continued. “The most exciting development in health care is that telemedicine can now be used to work with young people, giving the practicing pediatrician more opportunities and flexibility to deliver and triage care.”

Will any of the guidelines such as an adolescent’s right to independent consent be considered unacceptable by parents? “While this part of the recommendations is not new, the thought that their adolescent can initiate and receive confidential care for HIV prevention or intervention without their knowledge or consent may initially be challenging to process,” Dr. Trent said. “Ultimately, what I’ve observed in practice is that parents are relieved and often proud of their young person for taking the initiative to engage in self-care to maintain their health and relieved to be involved as a critical support person.”

She added that pediatricians need to make their practice policies clear and have information available for parents on state laws related to confidential care. “They also need to carefully use the electronic health record to avoid errors in disclosures to proxies without patient consent.”

Dr. Rakhmanina agreed there will likely be greater adherence to this round of recommendations. “The culture of addressing sexual and reproductive health issues among adolescents in the U.S. is changing among pediatric providers, and we start seeing more champions of PrEP and HIV testing in our communities,” she said.

This study received no external funding. The authors had no financial relationships or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Trent disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

Pediatricians should take a more proactive role in protecting children and adolescents from HIV infections, according to updated guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The comprehensive new recommendations stress winning the trust and confidence of pediatric patients and reaffirm support for testing and treating adolescents without parental consent where state laws allow.

While the number of HIV-infected people in the United States remains high, most sexually active youth do not believe they are at risk and have never been tested, noted authors Katherine K. Hsu, MD, MPH, of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Boston University Medical Center, and Natella Yurievna Rakhmanina, MD, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, both in Washington.

That is a knowledge gap that pediatricians are well situated to fill. “Pediatricians can play a key role in preventing and controlling HIV infection by promoting risk-reduction counseling and offering routine HIV testing and prophylaxis to adolescent and young adult (youth) patients,” they wrote on Dec. 20, 2021, in their study published in Pediatrics.

Key components of youth encounters, they stressed, is creating safe environments for obtaining an accurate sexual and reproductive health assessment and providing nonstigmatizing risk counseling.

According to Dr. Rakhmanina, major barriers to addressing preventive HIV counseling have included pediatricians’ lack of time, cultural differences, adolescents’ inaccurate responses, discomfort discussing sexual issues, and adolescents’ fear of parent or caregiver notification. Other concerns have been lack of adequate payment and insufficient training in how to talk to adolescents about sexual and reproductive issues.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at year end in 2018 an estimated 1,173,900 people age 13 or older were living with HIV infection in the United States, of whom 47,800 (4%) were adolescents and young adults 13-24 years of age.

These estimates include diagnosed and undiagnosed individuals. Between 2014 and 2018, new diagnoses of HIV infection accounted for 21% (7,817 of 37,515) of all new HIV diagnoses in the United States.

The new AAP clinical report updates policy statements from 2001 and again 2011 that encouraged HIV testing of all sexually active youth.

It reflects changes in epidemiology, advances in diagnostic testing with improved immunoassays, and updated recommendations for HIV testing and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), as well as new guidance for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

A 2017 study found that the 2011 HIV testing guidelines was associated with only a slight increase in HIV screening and a shift toward testing younger people and away from testing on the basis of risk.

Against this backdrop of persistent HIV infection and to-date modest uptake of earlier guidance, the 2021 statement made 14 main recommendations to pediatricians. Among these:
 

• Foster open discussion of gender and sexual orientation and behavior, as well as reproductive health issues.
• Recognize the clinical presentation of the acute retroviral syndrome, which can present as syndromes resembling infectious mononucleosis and influenza.
• Consider including virologic testing in the diagnostic workup of sexually active youth.
• Consider routine HIV screening for all youth 15 years or older at least once and rescreening high-risk youth. Those at higher risk should be rescreened at least annually, and potentially as frequently as every 3-6 months.
• Youth at substantial risk should be routinely offered PrEP, while PEP with antiretroviral drugs is indicated after unsafe exposures such as unsafe sexual activity, unsafe needle use, or sexual violence. Survivors of sexual violence should have baseline HIV testing and sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and treatment. They should also be offered mental health and other supportive counseling.
• Test youth who request HIV screening at any time even in the absence of reported risk factors. Although parent or guardian involvement is preferable, in most legal settings the adolescent’s consent should suffice for testing and treatment.
• For youth with a positive HIV test, facilitate and confirm prompt linkage to age-appropriate HIV specialty care.

Will the current report’s recommendations be met with greater uptake than previous iterations? Yes, according to Maria E. Trent, MD, MPH, chief of the division of adolescent/young adult medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but a fundamental first step will be the establishment of honesty and confidentiality. “Pediatricians are essential stakeholders in HIV prevention and intervention efforts in the United States. Recent data, however, suggest that pediatricians often struggle to create the essential alone time with adolescents and young adults to conduct critical sexual health conversations that allow for adequate STI/HIV risk screening,” said Dr. Trent, who was not involved in the report. “Consistently creating that space will be the first task for ensuring adherence to these recommendations.”

Strategies to optimize risk screening for clinical decision support, such as confidential online previsit questionnaires that link to the electronic medical record, may facilitate discussions during the visit while maintaining clinician efficiency, she added.

Furthermore, while one-time general HIV screening during adolescence will be an easy goal, “integrating annual testing, biomedical intervention for PrEP/PEP, and ongoing follow-up and testing for those on biomedical intervention may present practical but not insurmountable challenges,” Dr. Trent said.

When pediatricians recognize that care is suboptimal in practice, ensuring that pediatricians have established linkages to adolescent-friendly services for free or low-cost HIV testing, PrEP/PEP, and HIV management will prevent gaps in care, Dr. Trent continued. “The most exciting development in health care is that telemedicine can now be used to work with young people, giving the practicing pediatrician more opportunities and flexibility to deliver and triage care.”

Will any of the guidelines such as an adolescent’s right to independent consent be considered unacceptable by parents? “While this part of the recommendations is not new, the thought that their adolescent can initiate and receive confidential care for HIV prevention or intervention without their knowledge or consent may initially be challenging to process,” Dr. Trent said. “Ultimately, what I’ve observed in practice is that parents are relieved and often proud of their young person for taking the initiative to engage in self-care to maintain their health and relieved to be involved as a critical support person.”

She added that pediatricians need to make their practice policies clear and have information available for parents on state laws related to confidential care. “They also need to carefully use the electronic health record to avoid errors in disclosures to proxies without patient consent.”

Dr. Rakhmanina agreed there will likely be greater adherence to this round of recommendations. “The culture of addressing sexual and reproductive health issues among adolescents in the U.S. is changing among pediatric providers, and we start seeing more champions of PrEP and HIV testing in our communities,” she said.

This study received no external funding. The authors had no financial relationships or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Trent disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.