User login
In scleroderma, GERD questionnaires are essential tools
Every rheumatologist ought to be comfortable in using a validated gastrointestinal symptom scale for evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with scleroderma, Tracy M. Frech, MD, declared at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
About 90% of scleroderma patients will develop GI tract involvement during the course of their connective tissue disease. And while any portion of the GI tract from esophagus to anus can be involved, the most common GI manifestation is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), affecting up to 90% of scleroderma patients, observed Dr. Frech, a rheumatologist and director of the systemic sclerosis clinic at the University of Utah and the George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Salt Lake City.
“It is essential to ask scleroderma patients questions in order to understand their gastrointestinal tract symptoms. The questionnaires are really critical for us to grade the severity and then properly order tests,” she explained. “The goal is symptom identification, ideally with minimal time burden and at no cost, to guide decisions that move our patients’ care forward.”
Three of the most useful validated instruments for assessment of GERD symptoms in scleroderma patients in routine clinical practice are the GerdQ, the University of California, Los Angeles, Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium GI Tract Questionnaire (UCLA GIT) 2.0 reflux scale, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) reflux scale.
The GerdQ is a six-item, self-administered questionnaire in which patients specify how many days in the past week they have experienced heartburn, regurgitation, nausea, sleep interference, upper abdominal pain, and need for medication. A free online tool is available for calculating the likelihood of having GERD based upon GerdQ score. A score of 8 or more points out of a possible 18 has the highest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of GERD.
The UCLA GIT 2.0 – the most commonly used instrument for GI symptom assessment in scleroderma patients – includes 34 items. It takes 6-8 minutes to complete the whole thing, but patients being assessed for GERD only need answer the eight GERD-specific questions. Six of these eight questions are the same as in the GerdQ. One of the two extra questions asks about difficulty in swallowing solid food, which if answered affirmatively warrants early referral to a gastroenterologist. The other question inquires about any food triggers for the reflux, providing an opportunity for a rheumatologist to educate the patient about the importance of avoiding acidic foods, such as tomatoes, and other food and drink generally considered healthy but which actually exacerbate GERD.
The National Institutes of Health PROMIS scale, the newest of the three instruments, is a 60-item questionnaire; however, only 20 questions relate to reflux and dysphagia and are thus germane to a focused GERD assessment in scleroderma.
When a clinical diagnosis of GERD is made in a scleroderma patient based upon symptoms elicited by questionnaire, guidelines recommend a trial of empiric proton pump inhibitor therapy and behavioral interventions, such as raising the head of the bed, in order to confirm the diagnosis. If the patient reports feeling better after these basic interventions, the diagnosis is confirmed. If not, it’s time to make a referral to a gastroenterologist for specialized care, Dr. Frech said.
Dr. Frech was a coinvestigator in an international, prospective, longitudinal study of patient-reported outcomes measures in 116 patients with scleroderma and GERD. All study participants had to complete the UCLA GIT 2.0, the PROMIS reflux scale, and a third patient-reported GERD measure both before and after the therapeutic intervention. The UCLA GIT 2.0 and PROMIS instruments demonstrated similarly robust sensitivity for identifying changes in GERD symptoms after therapeutic intervention.
“It doesn’t really matter what questionnaire we’re using,” according to the rheumatologist. “But I will point out that there is significant overlap in symptoms among GERD, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, and eosinophilic esophagitis, all of which cause symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation. So we don’t want to ask these questions just once, we want to make an intervention and then reask the questions to ensure that we’re continuously moving forward with the gastrointestinal tract management plan.”
Dr. Frech reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
Every rheumatologist ought to be comfortable in using a validated gastrointestinal symptom scale for evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with scleroderma, Tracy M. Frech, MD, declared at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
About 90% of scleroderma patients will develop GI tract involvement during the course of their connective tissue disease. And while any portion of the GI tract from esophagus to anus can be involved, the most common GI manifestation is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), affecting up to 90% of scleroderma patients, observed Dr. Frech, a rheumatologist and director of the systemic sclerosis clinic at the University of Utah and the George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Salt Lake City.
“It is essential to ask scleroderma patients questions in order to understand their gastrointestinal tract symptoms. The questionnaires are really critical for us to grade the severity and then properly order tests,” she explained. “The goal is symptom identification, ideally with minimal time burden and at no cost, to guide decisions that move our patients’ care forward.”
Three of the most useful validated instruments for assessment of GERD symptoms in scleroderma patients in routine clinical practice are the GerdQ, the University of California, Los Angeles, Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium GI Tract Questionnaire (UCLA GIT) 2.0 reflux scale, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) reflux scale.
The GerdQ is a six-item, self-administered questionnaire in which patients specify how many days in the past week they have experienced heartburn, regurgitation, nausea, sleep interference, upper abdominal pain, and need for medication. A free online tool is available for calculating the likelihood of having GERD based upon GerdQ score. A score of 8 or more points out of a possible 18 has the highest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of GERD.
The UCLA GIT 2.0 – the most commonly used instrument for GI symptom assessment in scleroderma patients – includes 34 items. It takes 6-8 minutes to complete the whole thing, but patients being assessed for GERD only need answer the eight GERD-specific questions. Six of these eight questions are the same as in the GerdQ. One of the two extra questions asks about difficulty in swallowing solid food, which if answered affirmatively warrants early referral to a gastroenterologist. The other question inquires about any food triggers for the reflux, providing an opportunity for a rheumatologist to educate the patient about the importance of avoiding acidic foods, such as tomatoes, and other food and drink generally considered healthy but which actually exacerbate GERD.
The National Institutes of Health PROMIS scale, the newest of the three instruments, is a 60-item questionnaire; however, only 20 questions relate to reflux and dysphagia and are thus germane to a focused GERD assessment in scleroderma.
When a clinical diagnosis of GERD is made in a scleroderma patient based upon symptoms elicited by questionnaire, guidelines recommend a trial of empiric proton pump inhibitor therapy and behavioral interventions, such as raising the head of the bed, in order to confirm the diagnosis. If the patient reports feeling better after these basic interventions, the diagnosis is confirmed. If not, it’s time to make a referral to a gastroenterologist for specialized care, Dr. Frech said.
Dr. Frech was a coinvestigator in an international, prospective, longitudinal study of patient-reported outcomes measures in 116 patients with scleroderma and GERD. All study participants had to complete the UCLA GIT 2.0, the PROMIS reflux scale, and a third patient-reported GERD measure both before and after the therapeutic intervention. The UCLA GIT 2.0 and PROMIS instruments demonstrated similarly robust sensitivity for identifying changes in GERD symptoms after therapeutic intervention.
“It doesn’t really matter what questionnaire we’re using,” according to the rheumatologist. “But I will point out that there is significant overlap in symptoms among GERD, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, and eosinophilic esophagitis, all of which cause symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation. So we don’t want to ask these questions just once, we want to make an intervention and then reask the questions to ensure that we’re continuously moving forward with the gastrointestinal tract management plan.”
Dr. Frech reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
Every rheumatologist ought to be comfortable in using a validated gastrointestinal symptom scale for evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with scleroderma, Tracy M. Frech, MD, declared at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
About 90% of scleroderma patients will develop GI tract involvement during the course of their connective tissue disease. And while any portion of the GI tract from esophagus to anus can be involved, the most common GI manifestation is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), affecting up to 90% of scleroderma patients, observed Dr. Frech, a rheumatologist and director of the systemic sclerosis clinic at the University of Utah and the George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Salt Lake City.
“It is essential to ask scleroderma patients questions in order to understand their gastrointestinal tract symptoms. The questionnaires are really critical for us to grade the severity and then properly order tests,” she explained. “The goal is symptom identification, ideally with minimal time burden and at no cost, to guide decisions that move our patients’ care forward.”
Three of the most useful validated instruments for assessment of GERD symptoms in scleroderma patients in routine clinical practice are the GerdQ, the University of California, Los Angeles, Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium GI Tract Questionnaire (UCLA GIT) 2.0 reflux scale, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) reflux scale.
The GerdQ is a six-item, self-administered questionnaire in which patients specify how many days in the past week they have experienced heartburn, regurgitation, nausea, sleep interference, upper abdominal pain, and need for medication. A free online tool is available for calculating the likelihood of having GERD based upon GerdQ score. A score of 8 or more points out of a possible 18 has the highest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of GERD.
The UCLA GIT 2.0 – the most commonly used instrument for GI symptom assessment in scleroderma patients – includes 34 items. It takes 6-8 minutes to complete the whole thing, but patients being assessed for GERD only need answer the eight GERD-specific questions. Six of these eight questions are the same as in the GerdQ. One of the two extra questions asks about difficulty in swallowing solid food, which if answered affirmatively warrants early referral to a gastroenterologist. The other question inquires about any food triggers for the reflux, providing an opportunity for a rheumatologist to educate the patient about the importance of avoiding acidic foods, such as tomatoes, and other food and drink generally considered healthy but which actually exacerbate GERD.
The National Institutes of Health PROMIS scale, the newest of the three instruments, is a 60-item questionnaire; however, only 20 questions relate to reflux and dysphagia and are thus germane to a focused GERD assessment in scleroderma.
When a clinical diagnosis of GERD is made in a scleroderma patient based upon symptoms elicited by questionnaire, guidelines recommend a trial of empiric proton pump inhibitor therapy and behavioral interventions, such as raising the head of the bed, in order to confirm the diagnosis. If the patient reports feeling better after these basic interventions, the diagnosis is confirmed. If not, it’s time to make a referral to a gastroenterologist for specialized care, Dr. Frech said.
Dr. Frech was a coinvestigator in an international, prospective, longitudinal study of patient-reported outcomes measures in 116 patients with scleroderma and GERD. All study participants had to complete the UCLA GIT 2.0, the PROMIS reflux scale, and a third patient-reported GERD measure both before and after the therapeutic intervention. The UCLA GIT 2.0 and PROMIS instruments demonstrated similarly robust sensitivity for identifying changes in GERD symptoms after therapeutic intervention.
“It doesn’t really matter what questionnaire we’re using,” according to the rheumatologist. “But I will point out that there is significant overlap in symptoms among GERD, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, and eosinophilic esophagitis, all of which cause symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation. So we don’t want to ask these questions just once, we want to make an intervention and then reask the questions to ensure that we’re continuously moving forward with the gastrointestinal tract management plan.”
Dr. Frech reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
FROM SOTA 2020
Azacitidine plus enasidenib improves response, but not survival, in mIDH2 AML
Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.
“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.
About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.
The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.
Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.
Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.
The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.
Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).
However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).
A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.
Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).
Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.
The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.
Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.
“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.
About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.
The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.
Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.
Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.
The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.
Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).
However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).
A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.
Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).
Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.
The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.
Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.
“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.
About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.
The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.
Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.
Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.
The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.
Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).
However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).
A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.
Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).
Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.
The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.
FROM EHA CONGRESS
More than 10,000 excess cancer deaths because of COVID-19 delays
A model created by the National Cancer Institute predicts that tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths will occur over the next decade as a result of missed screenings, delays in diagnosis, and reductions in oncology care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“As director of NCI, I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of delayed diagnoses and deferred or modified treatment plans on cancer incidence and mortality,” said Norman “Ned” Sharpless, MD.
“In the past 3 decades, we have seen steady and strong progress against death and suffering from cancer, thanks to improvements in prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. I worry that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has put those decades of steady progress at risk and may precipitate reversals of these trends.”
In an editorial published June 19 in Science, Dr. Sharpless highlighted modeling performed by the NCI that predicts an excess of 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancer over the next 10 years.
The number of excess deaths per year would peak in the next year or 2, likely sooner for colorectal than for breast cancer, but “for both cancer types, we believe the pandemic will influence cancer deaths for at least a decade.”
In an interview, Dr. Sharpless pointed out that this analysis is conservative because the researchers only evaluated two types of cancer. They chose breast and colorectal cancer because these are common cancers (accounting for about one-sixth of all cancers) with relatively high screening rates.
“We didn’t model other cancer types, but we have no reason to think that we’re not going to see the same thing with other types of malignancies,” he said. “That is a significant amount of excess mortality.”
Delayed diagnosis, modified therapy
One of the effects of the pandemic has been to cause delays in cancer diagnosis. “Routine screening has plummeted and is running at less than 90% in some systems,” Dr. Sharpless said.
“Most cancers are diagnosed when people experience symptoms and go see their doctors, and those symptomatic screening events are also not happening,” he continued. “Fear of contracting the coronavirus in health care settings has dissuaded people from visits.”
In some cases, a delay in diagnosis will allow the cancer to progress to a more advanced stage. “The earlier the diagnosis, the better, and if the stages are more advanced, patients will not do as well for virtually every kind of cancer,” he said.
In addition to delays in diagnosis, treatments are being postponed or modified for patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Because of delays and reductions in curative therapies, patients may be receiving less than optimal care.
“We are seeing a lot of nonstandard care,” said Dr. Sharpless. “All of these things add up to increased cancer morbidity and mortality.”
He also pointed out that the term “elective” is confusing and problematic. “It doesn’t mean that it’s not needed, just that it’s not an emergency and doesn’t need to be done today,” said Dr. Sharpless. “But if we’re talking about chemotherapy and surgery, we don’t think they can be delayed for too long – maybe a week, but not for several months.”
Dr. Sharpless feels that overall it is time for cancer care to resume as much as possible, because “ignoring cancer for too long is an untenable choice and may turn one public health crisis into another.”
“If we act now, we can make up for lost time,” he wrote in the editorial. “Clearly, postponing procedures and deferring care due to the pandemic was prudent at one time, but now that we have made it through the initial shock of the pandemic, I believe it is time to resume robust cancer care.”
Through their network of cancer centers, researchers with the NCI can develop innovative solutions that allow screening and treatment to move forward while maintaining safety. “We need to make patients feel safe, and we have to answer important questions quickly,” he said.
Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care
The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide and has created major challenges for clinicians who are caring for patients with cancer.
As previously reported, hospitals reprioritized resources for an impending onslaught of COVID-19 patients. Services and procedures deemed to be nonessential were canceled or delayed, including surgeries and imaging.
In a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, half of the 1219 respondents reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).
In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the United Kingdom, Cancer Research UK estimated that because of the disruption to cancer services, 2.4 million people did not undergo cancer screening or further testing or did not receive cancer treatment and that tens of thousands of cases have gone undiagnosed.
Similarly, a survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have experienced delays or cancellations of cancer treatments, or their treatments have been altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear. Calling cancer “the forgotten C” of the pandemic, it warned of a potential cancer “time bomb” when, as the number of deaths from COVID-19 falls, cancer returns as the leading cause of death in the United Kingdom.
Last month, a report also predicted that there will be an excess of cancer deaths in both the United States and United Kingdom because of patients not accessing health care services.
The authors calculated that there will be 6270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients older than 40 years in the United States.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A model created by the National Cancer Institute predicts that tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths will occur over the next decade as a result of missed screenings, delays in diagnosis, and reductions in oncology care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“As director of NCI, I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of delayed diagnoses and deferred or modified treatment plans on cancer incidence and mortality,” said Norman “Ned” Sharpless, MD.
“In the past 3 decades, we have seen steady and strong progress against death and suffering from cancer, thanks to improvements in prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. I worry that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has put those decades of steady progress at risk and may precipitate reversals of these trends.”
In an editorial published June 19 in Science, Dr. Sharpless highlighted modeling performed by the NCI that predicts an excess of 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancer over the next 10 years.
The number of excess deaths per year would peak in the next year or 2, likely sooner for colorectal than for breast cancer, but “for both cancer types, we believe the pandemic will influence cancer deaths for at least a decade.”
In an interview, Dr. Sharpless pointed out that this analysis is conservative because the researchers only evaluated two types of cancer. They chose breast and colorectal cancer because these are common cancers (accounting for about one-sixth of all cancers) with relatively high screening rates.
“We didn’t model other cancer types, but we have no reason to think that we’re not going to see the same thing with other types of malignancies,” he said. “That is a significant amount of excess mortality.”
Delayed diagnosis, modified therapy
One of the effects of the pandemic has been to cause delays in cancer diagnosis. “Routine screening has plummeted and is running at less than 90% in some systems,” Dr. Sharpless said.
“Most cancers are diagnosed when people experience symptoms and go see their doctors, and those symptomatic screening events are also not happening,” he continued. “Fear of contracting the coronavirus in health care settings has dissuaded people from visits.”
In some cases, a delay in diagnosis will allow the cancer to progress to a more advanced stage. “The earlier the diagnosis, the better, and if the stages are more advanced, patients will not do as well for virtually every kind of cancer,” he said.
In addition to delays in diagnosis, treatments are being postponed or modified for patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Because of delays and reductions in curative therapies, patients may be receiving less than optimal care.
“We are seeing a lot of nonstandard care,” said Dr. Sharpless. “All of these things add up to increased cancer morbidity and mortality.”
He also pointed out that the term “elective” is confusing and problematic. “It doesn’t mean that it’s not needed, just that it’s not an emergency and doesn’t need to be done today,” said Dr. Sharpless. “But if we’re talking about chemotherapy and surgery, we don’t think they can be delayed for too long – maybe a week, but not for several months.”
Dr. Sharpless feels that overall it is time for cancer care to resume as much as possible, because “ignoring cancer for too long is an untenable choice and may turn one public health crisis into another.”
“If we act now, we can make up for lost time,” he wrote in the editorial. “Clearly, postponing procedures and deferring care due to the pandemic was prudent at one time, but now that we have made it through the initial shock of the pandemic, I believe it is time to resume robust cancer care.”
Through their network of cancer centers, researchers with the NCI can develop innovative solutions that allow screening and treatment to move forward while maintaining safety. “We need to make patients feel safe, and we have to answer important questions quickly,” he said.
Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care
The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide and has created major challenges for clinicians who are caring for patients with cancer.
As previously reported, hospitals reprioritized resources for an impending onslaught of COVID-19 patients. Services and procedures deemed to be nonessential were canceled or delayed, including surgeries and imaging.
In a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, half of the 1219 respondents reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).
In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the United Kingdom, Cancer Research UK estimated that because of the disruption to cancer services, 2.4 million people did not undergo cancer screening or further testing or did not receive cancer treatment and that tens of thousands of cases have gone undiagnosed.
Similarly, a survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have experienced delays or cancellations of cancer treatments, or their treatments have been altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear. Calling cancer “the forgotten C” of the pandemic, it warned of a potential cancer “time bomb” when, as the number of deaths from COVID-19 falls, cancer returns as the leading cause of death in the United Kingdom.
Last month, a report also predicted that there will be an excess of cancer deaths in both the United States and United Kingdom because of patients not accessing health care services.
The authors calculated that there will be 6270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients older than 40 years in the United States.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A model created by the National Cancer Institute predicts that tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths will occur over the next decade as a result of missed screenings, delays in diagnosis, and reductions in oncology care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“As director of NCI, I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of delayed diagnoses and deferred or modified treatment plans on cancer incidence and mortality,” said Norman “Ned” Sharpless, MD.
“In the past 3 decades, we have seen steady and strong progress against death and suffering from cancer, thanks to improvements in prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. I worry that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has put those decades of steady progress at risk and may precipitate reversals of these trends.”
In an editorial published June 19 in Science, Dr. Sharpless highlighted modeling performed by the NCI that predicts an excess of 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancer over the next 10 years.
The number of excess deaths per year would peak in the next year or 2, likely sooner for colorectal than for breast cancer, but “for both cancer types, we believe the pandemic will influence cancer deaths for at least a decade.”
In an interview, Dr. Sharpless pointed out that this analysis is conservative because the researchers only evaluated two types of cancer. They chose breast and colorectal cancer because these are common cancers (accounting for about one-sixth of all cancers) with relatively high screening rates.
“We didn’t model other cancer types, but we have no reason to think that we’re not going to see the same thing with other types of malignancies,” he said. “That is a significant amount of excess mortality.”
Delayed diagnosis, modified therapy
One of the effects of the pandemic has been to cause delays in cancer diagnosis. “Routine screening has plummeted and is running at less than 90% in some systems,” Dr. Sharpless said.
“Most cancers are diagnosed when people experience symptoms and go see their doctors, and those symptomatic screening events are also not happening,” he continued. “Fear of contracting the coronavirus in health care settings has dissuaded people from visits.”
In some cases, a delay in diagnosis will allow the cancer to progress to a more advanced stage. “The earlier the diagnosis, the better, and if the stages are more advanced, patients will not do as well for virtually every kind of cancer,” he said.
In addition to delays in diagnosis, treatments are being postponed or modified for patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Because of delays and reductions in curative therapies, patients may be receiving less than optimal care.
“We are seeing a lot of nonstandard care,” said Dr. Sharpless. “All of these things add up to increased cancer morbidity and mortality.”
He also pointed out that the term “elective” is confusing and problematic. “It doesn’t mean that it’s not needed, just that it’s not an emergency and doesn’t need to be done today,” said Dr. Sharpless. “But if we’re talking about chemotherapy and surgery, we don’t think they can be delayed for too long – maybe a week, but not for several months.”
Dr. Sharpless feels that overall it is time for cancer care to resume as much as possible, because “ignoring cancer for too long is an untenable choice and may turn one public health crisis into another.”
“If we act now, we can make up for lost time,” he wrote in the editorial. “Clearly, postponing procedures and deferring care due to the pandemic was prudent at one time, but now that we have made it through the initial shock of the pandemic, I believe it is time to resume robust cancer care.”
Through their network of cancer centers, researchers with the NCI can develop innovative solutions that allow screening and treatment to move forward while maintaining safety. “We need to make patients feel safe, and we have to answer important questions quickly,” he said.
Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care
The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide and has created major challenges for clinicians who are caring for patients with cancer.
As previously reported, hospitals reprioritized resources for an impending onslaught of COVID-19 patients. Services and procedures deemed to be nonessential were canceled or delayed, including surgeries and imaging.
In a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, half of the 1219 respondents reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).
In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the United Kingdom, Cancer Research UK estimated that because of the disruption to cancer services, 2.4 million people did not undergo cancer screening or further testing or did not receive cancer treatment and that tens of thousands of cases have gone undiagnosed.
Similarly, a survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have experienced delays or cancellations of cancer treatments, or their treatments have been altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear. Calling cancer “the forgotten C” of the pandemic, it warned of a potential cancer “time bomb” when, as the number of deaths from COVID-19 falls, cancer returns as the leading cause of death in the United Kingdom.
Last month, a report also predicted that there will be an excess of cancer deaths in both the United States and United Kingdom because of patients not accessing health care services.
The authors calculated that there will be 6270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients older than 40 years in the United States.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early hypertensive disorders in pregnancy linked to obesity
Rising classes of obesity are linked with progressively increased risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders in pregnant women, as has been established for late-onset hypertensive disorders, according to a U.S.-based retrospective cohort study.
Between 4% and 8% of pregnancies are impacted by hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia is associated with a doubling of adverse neonatal events and causes 16% of maternal deaths in developed countries, previous studies have found. This study showed a clear risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders (less than 34 weeks’ gestation), which may be more deadly than late-onset disease: Compared with later-developing disorders, early hypertensive disorders are linked to a 400% increased risk of perinatal death and a 100%-300% increased risk of severe cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic maternal morbidity, according to previous studies.
The new research, led by Matthew Bicocca, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers analyzed data from U.S. Vital Statistics, including over 14 million singleton births. The sample excluded women with chronic hypertension and a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 kg/m2.
Previous studies demonstrated that obesity is a risk factor for late-onset hypertensive disorders, but studies of early-onset hypertensive disorders have yielded conflicting results. That could be because early-onset disorders are rare, representing just 5%-10% of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, making it difficult to obtain a sufficient sample size to show a relationship.
“We know that obese pregnant women are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is of particular importance with the increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States. As this is a nationwide cohort with a large sample size, it allowed for evaluation of the rare outcome of early-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study.
The researchers classified the women in the study as nonobese (BMI, 18.5-29.9 kg/m2; 46%), class I obese (BMI, 30.0-34.9; 29%), class II obese (BMI, 35.0-39.9; 15%), or class III obese (BMI, 40 or higher; 10%). About 6% of the participants developed hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (0.3% early onset), and the associated risk was greater with increasing class of obesity. Compared with nonobese women, class III obesity was associated with the highest adjusted risk ratio (2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-2.24) for early-onset hypertensive disorders, followed by class II obesity (aRR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.53-1.62) and class I (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16). A similar pattern was observed with late-onset hypertensive disorders, with the highest risk associated with class III obese (aRR, 3.93; 95% CI, 3.91-3.96), followed by class II (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.58-2.62) and class I (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.70-1.73).
The mechanism underlying any potential link between obesity and risk of hypertensive orders of pregnancy isn’t completely understood, especially because the early-onset and late-onset hypertensive disorders have differing pathophysiology. “Early onset is the result from abnormal placentation [leading to] chronic placental insufficiency, and late onset likely [results from] placental insufficiency paired with oxidative stress from conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance,” Dr. Krishna said.
The new research reinforces the need for obese women to receive early prenatal care and counseling on nutrition and exercise “to mitigate weight gain during pregnancy in hopes of reducing their risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” she concluded.
No source of funding was disclosed. The authors reported having no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bicocca M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003901.
Rising classes of obesity are linked with progressively increased risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders in pregnant women, as has been established for late-onset hypertensive disorders, according to a U.S.-based retrospective cohort study.
Between 4% and 8% of pregnancies are impacted by hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia is associated with a doubling of adverse neonatal events and causes 16% of maternal deaths in developed countries, previous studies have found. This study showed a clear risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders (less than 34 weeks’ gestation), which may be more deadly than late-onset disease: Compared with later-developing disorders, early hypertensive disorders are linked to a 400% increased risk of perinatal death and a 100%-300% increased risk of severe cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic maternal morbidity, according to previous studies.
The new research, led by Matthew Bicocca, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers analyzed data from U.S. Vital Statistics, including over 14 million singleton births. The sample excluded women with chronic hypertension and a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 kg/m2.
Previous studies demonstrated that obesity is a risk factor for late-onset hypertensive disorders, but studies of early-onset hypertensive disorders have yielded conflicting results. That could be because early-onset disorders are rare, representing just 5%-10% of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, making it difficult to obtain a sufficient sample size to show a relationship.
“We know that obese pregnant women are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is of particular importance with the increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States. As this is a nationwide cohort with a large sample size, it allowed for evaluation of the rare outcome of early-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study.
The researchers classified the women in the study as nonobese (BMI, 18.5-29.9 kg/m2; 46%), class I obese (BMI, 30.0-34.9; 29%), class II obese (BMI, 35.0-39.9; 15%), or class III obese (BMI, 40 or higher; 10%). About 6% of the participants developed hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (0.3% early onset), and the associated risk was greater with increasing class of obesity. Compared with nonobese women, class III obesity was associated with the highest adjusted risk ratio (2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-2.24) for early-onset hypertensive disorders, followed by class II obesity (aRR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.53-1.62) and class I (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16). A similar pattern was observed with late-onset hypertensive disorders, with the highest risk associated with class III obese (aRR, 3.93; 95% CI, 3.91-3.96), followed by class II (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.58-2.62) and class I (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.70-1.73).
The mechanism underlying any potential link between obesity and risk of hypertensive orders of pregnancy isn’t completely understood, especially because the early-onset and late-onset hypertensive disorders have differing pathophysiology. “Early onset is the result from abnormal placentation [leading to] chronic placental insufficiency, and late onset likely [results from] placental insufficiency paired with oxidative stress from conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance,” Dr. Krishna said.
The new research reinforces the need for obese women to receive early prenatal care and counseling on nutrition and exercise “to mitigate weight gain during pregnancy in hopes of reducing their risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” she concluded.
No source of funding was disclosed. The authors reported having no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bicocca M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003901.
Rising classes of obesity are linked with progressively increased risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders in pregnant women, as has been established for late-onset hypertensive disorders, according to a U.S.-based retrospective cohort study.
Between 4% and 8% of pregnancies are impacted by hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia is associated with a doubling of adverse neonatal events and causes 16% of maternal deaths in developed countries, previous studies have found. This study showed a clear risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders (less than 34 weeks’ gestation), which may be more deadly than late-onset disease: Compared with later-developing disorders, early hypertensive disorders are linked to a 400% increased risk of perinatal death and a 100%-300% increased risk of severe cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic maternal morbidity, according to previous studies.
The new research, led by Matthew Bicocca, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers analyzed data from U.S. Vital Statistics, including over 14 million singleton births. The sample excluded women with chronic hypertension and a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 kg/m2.
Previous studies demonstrated that obesity is a risk factor for late-onset hypertensive disorders, but studies of early-onset hypertensive disorders have yielded conflicting results. That could be because early-onset disorders are rare, representing just 5%-10% of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, making it difficult to obtain a sufficient sample size to show a relationship.
“We know that obese pregnant women are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is of particular importance with the increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States. As this is a nationwide cohort with a large sample size, it allowed for evaluation of the rare outcome of early-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study.
The researchers classified the women in the study as nonobese (BMI, 18.5-29.9 kg/m2; 46%), class I obese (BMI, 30.0-34.9; 29%), class II obese (BMI, 35.0-39.9; 15%), or class III obese (BMI, 40 or higher; 10%). About 6% of the participants developed hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (0.3% early onset), and the associated risk was greater with increasing class of obesity. Compared with nonobese women, class III obesity was associated with the highest adjusted risk ratio (2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-2.24) for early-onset hypertensive disorders, followed by class II obesity (aRR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.53-1.62) and class I (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16). A similar pattern was observed with late-onset hypertensive disorders, with the highest risk associated with class III obese (aRR, 3.93; 95% CI, 3.91-3.96), followed by class II (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.58-2.62) and class I (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.70-1.73).
The mechanism underlying any potential link between obesity and risk of hypertensive orders of pregnancy isn’t completely understood, especially because the early-onset and late-onset hypertensive disorders have differing pathophysiology. “Early onset is the result from abnormal placentation [leading to] chronic placental insufficiency, and late onset likely [results from] placental insufficiency paired with oxidative stress from conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance,” Dr. Krishna said.
The new research reinforces the need for obese women to receive early prenatal care and counseling on nutrition and exercise “to mitigate weight gain during pregnancy in hopes of reducing their risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” she concluded.
No source of funding was disclosed. The authors reported having no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bicocca M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003901.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Ringing the alarm about black youth suicide
A “growing and disturbing” increase in suicidal behavior among black youth has quietly been underway in the United States during the past several decades, even while rates in white and Latino youth have declined, Michael A. Lindsey, PhD, MSW, MPH, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.
Until recently this trend remained below the radar of public awareness. That’s changing. Dr. Lindsey was coauthor of a December 2019 report to Congress prepared in collaboration with the Congressional Black Caucus entitled, “Ring the Alarm: The Crisis of Black Youth Suicide In America.” Release of the report was accompanied by submission of an omnibus bill aimed at addressing the issue comprehensively, including what Dr. Lindsey considers to be the single most important policy imperative: providing federal resources to support more and better school mental health services proportionate to student needs.
“Black youth, relative to white youth, do not receive treatment for depression, which may be a precursor issue. They’re often disconnected from mental health therapy. This is perhaps a reason why we’re seeing this uptick in suicide expression among black youth,” according to Dr. Lindsey, executive director of the McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy and Research and professor of poverty studies at New York University.
Investigators at Ohio State University analyzed youth suicide data for the years 2001-2015 obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They determined that black children aged 5-12 years had an 82% higher incidence of completed suicide than white children (JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Jul 1;172[7]:697-9).
This report was followed by a study of trends in suicidal behaviors among U.S. high school students during 1991-2017. The study, led by Dr. Lindsey, used data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey covering the years 1991-2017 to document an overall 19% prevalence of thoughts about suicide, while 15% of high school students had a suicide plan. During the study years there was a 73% increase in suicide attempts among black adolescents, while rates in white and Latino teens fell by 7.5% and 11.4%, respectively (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov;144[5]:e20191187).
Dr. Lindsey cited multiple reasons for undertreatment of depression in black youth. The lack of adequate mental health services in many schools figures prominently. As a result of this situation, mental health problems in black youth are often misinterpreted as conduct problems, leading to well-documented overuse of school suspensions and expulsions.
“We tend to oversuspend and expel black kids from school for problems that are treatable. This becomes a major, major issue in the pathway from schools to prisons,” he said.
Another factor in underutilization of mental health services by black youth is the stigma involved. Many black families see mental health therapy as irrelevant. Dr. Lindsey has received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health for development of engagement interventions that focus on stigma reduction and enhancing family support for mental health therapy in black youth. He has found that, once those barriers are lowered, therapies seem to be as effective in black youth as in other populations, despite the cultural differences.
Yet another potential explanation for the racial disparity in pediatric suicide might be that suicide may, in some cases, be more of an impulsive behavior in black youth. Dr. Lindsey presented data from a soon-to-be-published analysis of Youth Risk Behavior Survey data on nearly 5,000 adolescents with suicidal thoughts, plans, and/or attempts within the previous 12 months. About 23% had suicidal thoughts only, 37% had suicidal thoughts and a plan, another 37% had thoughts, plans, and suicide attempts, and 3% had attempts without thoughts or a plan.
Black youth were 3.7 times more likely than white youth to have attempted suicide in the absence of background suicidal thoughts and 3.3 times more likely to have attempted suicide without having suicidal thoughts and plans.
He and his coinvestigators identified a similar pattern of suicide as an impulsive behavior in youths of all races with a history of sexual assault. They were 4.2 times more likely to have attempted suicide without prior suicidal thoughts than individuals without such a history and 3.9 times more likely to have attempted suicide without thinking about it or having a plan.
“This has implications for screening and prevention; warning signs may not be present,” he said.
Dr. Lindsey reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
A “growing and disturbing” increase in suicidal behavior among black youth has quietly been underway in the United States during the past several decades, even while rates in white and Latino youth have declined, Michael A. Lindsey, PhD, MSW, MPH, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.
Until recently this trend remained below the radar of public awareness. That’s changing. Dr. Lindsey was coauthor of a December 2019 report to Congress prepared in collaboration with the Congressional Black Caucus entitled, “Ring the Alarm: The Crisis of Black Youth Suicide In America.” Release of the report was accompanied by submission of an omnibus bill aimed at addressing the issue comprehensively, including what Dr. Lindsey considers to be the single most important policy imperative: providing federal resources to support more and better school mental health services proportionate to student needs.
“Black youth, relative to white youth, do not receive treatment for depression, which may be a precursor issue. They’re often disconnected from mental health therapy. This is perhaps a reason why we’re seeing this uptick in suicide expression among black youth,” according to Dr. Lindsey, executive director of the McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy and Research and professor of poverty studies at New York University.
Investigators at Ohio State University analyzed youth suicide data for the years 2001-2015 obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They determined that black children aged 5-12 years had an 82% higher incidence of completed suicide than white children (JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Jul 1;172[7]:697-9).
This report was followed by a study of trends in suicidal behaviors among U.S. high school students during 1991-2017. The study, led by Dr. Lindsey, used data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey covering the years 1991-2017 to document an overall 19% prevalence of thoughts about suicide, while 15% of high school students had a suicide plan. During the study years there was a 73% increase in suicide attempts among black adolescents, while rates in white and Latino teens fell by 7.5% and 11.4%, respectively (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov;144[5]:e20191187).
Dr. Lindsey cited multiple reasons for undertreatment of depression in black youth. The lack of adequate mental health services in many schools figures prominently. As a result of this situation, mental health problems in black youth are often misinterpreted as conduct problems, leading to well-documented overuse of school suspensions and expulsions.
“We tend to oversuspend and expel black kids from school for problems that are treatable. This becomes a major, major issue in the pathway from schools to prisons,” he said.
Another factor in underutilization of mental health services by black youth is the stigma involved. Many black families see mental health therapy as irrelevant. Dr. Lindsey has received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health for development of engagement interventions that focus on stigma reduction and enhancing family support for mental health therapy in black youth. He has found that, once those barriers are lowered, therapies seem to be as effective in black youth as in other populations, despite the cultural differences.
Yet another potential explanation for the racial disparity in pediatric suicide might be that suicide may, in some cases, be more of an impulsive behavior in black youth. Dr. Lindsey presented data from a soon-to-be-published analysis of Youth Risk Behavior Survey data on nearly 5,000 adolescents with suicidal thoughts, plans, and/or attempts within the previous 12 months. About 23% had suicidal thoughts only, 37% had suicidal thoughts and a plan, another 37% had thoughts, plans, and suicide attempts, and 3% had attempts without thoughts or a plan.
Black youth were 3.7 times more likely than white youth to have attempted suicide in the absence of background suicidal thoughts and 3.3 times more likely to have attempted suicide without having suicidal thoughts and plans.
He and his coinvestigators identified a similar pattern of suicide as an impulsive behavior in youths of all races with a history of sexual assault. They were 4.2 times more likely to have attempted suicide without prior suicidal thoughts than individuals without such a history and 3.9 times more likely to have attempted suicide without thinking about it or having a plan.
“This has implications for screening and prevention; warning signs may not be present,” he said.
Dr. Lindsey reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
A “growing and disturbing” increase in suicidal behavior among black youth has quietly been underway in the United States during the past several decades, even while rates in white and Latino youth have declined, Michael A. Lindsey, PhD, MSW, MPH, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.
Until recently this trend remained below the radar of public awareness. That’s changing. Dr. Lindsey was coauthor of a December 2019 report to Congress prepared in collaboration with the Congressional Black Caucus entitled, “Ring the Alarm: The Crisis of Black Youth Suicide In America.” Release of the report was accompanied by submission of an omnibus bill aimed at addressing the issue comprehensively, including what Dr. Lindsey considers to be the single most important policy imperative: providing federal resources to support more and better school mental health services proportionate to student needs.
“Black youth, relative to white youth, do not receive treatment for depression, which may be a precursor issue. They’re often disconnected from mental health therapy. This is perhaps a reason why we’re seeing this uptick in suicide expression among black youth,” according to Dr. Lindsey, executive director of the McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy and Research and professor of poverty studies at New York University.
Investigators at Ohio State University analyzed youth suicide data for the years 2001-2015 obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They determined that black children aged 5-12 years had an 82% higher incidence of completed suicide than white children (JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Jul 1;172[7]:697-9).
This report was followed by a study of trends in suicidal behaviors among U.S. high school students during 1991-2017. The study, led by Dr. Lindsey, used data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey covering the years 1991-2017 to document an overall 19% prevalence of thoughts about suicide, while 15% of high school students had a suicide plan. During the study years there was a 73% increase in suicide attempts among black adolescents, while rates in white and Latino teens fell by 7.5% and 11.4%, respectively (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov;144[5]:e20191187).
Dr. Lindsey cited multiple reasons for undertreatment of depression in black youth. The lack of adequate mental health services in many schools figures prominently. As a result of this situation, mental health problems in black youth are often misinterpreted as conduct problems, leading to well-documented overuse of school suspensions and expulsions.
“We tend to oversuspend and expel black kids from school for problems that are treatable. This becomes a major, major issue in the pathway from schools to prisons,” he said.
Another factor in underutilization of mental health services by black youth is the stigma involved. Many black families see mental health therapy as irrelevant. Dr. Lindsey has received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health for development of engagement interventions that focus on stigma reduction and enhancing family support for mental health therapy in black youth. He has found that, once those barriers are lowered, therapies seem to be as effective in black youth as in other populations, despite the cultural differences.
Yet another potential explanation for the racial disparity in pediatric suicide might be that suicide may, in some cases, be more of an impulsive behavior in black youth. Dr. Lindsey presented data from a soon-to-be-published analysis of Youth Risk Behavior Survey data on nearly 5,000 adolescents with suicidal thoughts, plans, and/or attempts within the previous 12 months. About 23% had suicidal thoughts only, 37% had suicidal thoughts and a plan, another 37% had thoughts, plans, and suicide attempts, and 3% had attempts without thoughts or a plan.
Black youth were 3.7 times more likely than white youth to have attempted suicide in the absence of background suicidal thoughts and 3.3 times more likely to have attempted suicide without having suicidal thoughts and plans.
He and his coinvestigators identified a similar pattern of suicide as an impulsive behavior in youths of all races with a history of sexual assault. They were 4.2 times more likely to have attempted suicide without prior suicidal thoughts than individuals without such a history and 3.9 times more likely to have attempted suicide without thinking about it or having a plan.
“This has implications for screening and prevention; warning signs may not be present,” he said.
Dr. Lindsey reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
FROM AAS 2020
Consistent effects for galcanezumab in cluster headache
new research suggests. A post hoc analysis of patients from the phase 3 CGAL study who also entered the open-label CGAR extension study was conducted. Results showed that the majority of participants whose scores on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) showed improvement 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab in the CGAL study also showed improvement after treatment for subsequent cluster bouts during the CGAR study.
“There was good agreement between PGI-I between the two [cluster headache] periods,” noted the investigators, led by Brian Plato, DO, a neurologist at Norton Neuroscience Institute in Louisville, Ky.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Two cluster periods
Galcanezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of episodic cluster headache in adults.
In cluster headache, attacks of recurrent, unilateral headaches with cranial autonomic symptoms last for weeks or months and are followed by periods of remission. Most studies of therapies for cluster headache examine only one cluster period. Few data about the consistency of treatment response throughout consecutive cluster periods are available, the investigators noted.
The current analysis was undertaken to examine the consistency of galcanezumab’s effect in episodic cluster headache during two cluster periods. Patients eligible for inclusion in the analysis had completed the double-blind phase of the CGAL study and had entered the open-label CGAR study.
CGAL was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in which patients with episodic cluster headache were assigned to receive galcanezumab 300 mg per month or placebo. Patients who completed the double-blind and washout phases of this study were eligible for enrollment into CGAR, a phase 3b, single-arm safety study. The investigators determined the dose of galcanezumab in accordance with each patient’s symptoms and clinical response.
Response agreement
In both studies, the PGI-I was administered 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab. Only patients who were in an active cluster bout on entry into CGAR and who had valid PGI-I results 1 month after the first dose in CGAL and CGAR were included in the analysis.
PGI-I responses ranged from 1, signifying very much better, to 7, signifying very much worse. The investigators summarized the proportions of patients who reported each level of PGI-I score in CGAR and analyzed the results by dichotomizing PGI-I scores at both time points in two ways.
Fifty patients entered CGAR (78% men; mean age, 46.8 years). Of this group, Dr. Plato and colleagues included 39 in their analysis. Of the 17 patients who had a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 in CGAL, 12 (70.6%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. All four participants who had a score of 3 or higher in CGAL had a score in the same range in CGAR. Eighteen participants had a PGI-I score of 1, 2, or 3 in CGAL. Of this group, 15 patients (83.3%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. Of the three patients who had a score above 3 in CGAL, two (66.7%) had a score in the same range in CGAR.
The results indicate that most patients whose PGI-I score improved in one cluster bout, such as in CGAL, also improved in a subsequent bout, such as in CGAR, the investigators noted.
‘Encouraging’ results
Commenting on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, a neurologist at the John R. Graham Headache Center, Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston, noted that the PGI-I is an “easy-to-understand” outcome that has been widely used in headache medicine.
“Patient-assessed outcomes have become increasingly important and are an important complement to other outcomes,” said Dr. McGeeney, who was not involved in the research. However, a disadvantage is that “it is entirely subjective and may or may not reflect a change on other outcome measures that reflect the disorder itself,” he said.
“It can be difficult to demonstrate how much usefulness a treatment has with the helpful but simple outcome measures that are seen in CGAL and CGAR,” Dr. McGeeney added. “This is due to the nature of cluster headache and not to any methodological shortcomings of those studies.”
He said this is a core problem in general with cluster headache studies, “of which there are very few.”
In addition, CGAR only included episodic cluster headache, and the study period was relatively short; and CGAL only explored one cluster period per patient, Dr. McGeeney noted.
The current research attempts to provide insight that was previously unavailable, he said. “Many headache medicine clinical trial results reflect only one episode, and in general, we infer repeated usefulness – although it is not demonstrated in clinical trials,” said Dr. McGeeney.
“In this recent presentation, the authors attempt to go further and demonstrate some consistency across multiple cluster periods. The results are encouraging and what one might expect,” he said. However, “the small numbers and ad hoc nature preclude much inference from this study alone.”
Dr. Plato has received honoraria for speaking from Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He has also received research grants and support from Electrocore and Teva. Dr. McGeeney has consulted for Upsher-Smith and Theranica.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. A post hoc analysis of patients from the phase 3 CGAL study who also entered the open-label CGAR extension study was conducted. Results showed that the majority of participants whose scores on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) showed improvement 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab in the CGAL study also showed improvement after treatment for subsequent cluster bouts during the CGAR study.
“There was good agreement between PGI-I between the two [cluster headache] periods,” noted the investigators, led by Brian Plato, DO, a neurologist at Norton Neuroscience Institute in Louisville, Ky.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Two cluster periods
Galcanezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of episodic cluster headache in adults.
In cluster headache, attacks of recurrent, unilateral headaches with cranial autonomic symptoms last for weeks or months and are followed by periods of remission. Most studies of therapies for cluster headache examine only one cluster period. Few data about the consistency of treatment response throughout consecutive cluster periods are available, the investigators noted.
The current analysis was undertaken to examine the consistency of galcanezumab’s effect in episodic cluster headache during two cluster periods. Patients eligible for inclusion in the analysis had completed the double-blind phase of the CGAL study and had entered the open-label CGAR study.
CGAL was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in which patients with episodic cluster headache were assigned to receive galcanezumab 300 mg per month or placebo. Patients who completed the double-blind and washout phases of this study were eligible for enrollment into CGAR, a phase 3b, single-arm safety study. The investigators determined the dose of galcanezumab in accordance with each patient’s symptoms and clinical response.
Response agreement
In both studies, the PGI-I was administered 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab. Only patients who were in an active cluster bout on entry into CGAR and who had valid PGI-I results 1 month after the first dose in CGAL and CGAR were included in the analysis.
PGI-I responses ranged from 1, signifying very much better, to 7, signifying very much worse. The investigators summarized the proportions of patients who reported each level of PGI-I score in CGAR and analyzed the results by dichotomizing PGI-I scores at both time points in two ways.
Fifty patients entered CGAR (78% men; mean age, 46.8 years). Of this group, Dr. Plato and colleagues included 39 in their analysis. Of the 17 patients who had a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 in CGAL, 12 (70.6%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. All four participants who had a score of 3 or higher in CGAL had a score in the same range in CGAR. Eighteen participants had a PGI-I score of 1, 2, or 3 in CGAL. Of this group, 15 patients (83.3%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. Of the three patients who had a score above 3 in CGAL, two (66.7%) had a score in the same range in CGAR.
The results indicate that most patients whose PGI-I score improved in one cluster bout, such as in CGAL, also improved in a subsequent bout, such as in CGAR, the investigators noted.
‘Encouraging’ results
Commenting on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, a neurologist at the John R. Graham Headache Center, Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston, noted that the PGI-I is an “easy-to-understand” outcome that has been widely used in headache medicine.
“Patient-assessed outcomes have become increasingly important and are an important complement to other outcomes,” said Dr. McGeeney, who was not involved in the research. However, a disadvantage is that “it is entirely subjective and may or may not reflect a change on other outcome measures that reflect the disorder itself,” he said.
“It can be difficult to demonstrate how much usefulness a treatment has with the helpful but simple outcome measures that are seen in CGAL and CGAR,” Dr. McGeeney added. “This is due to the nature of cluster headache and not to any methodological shortcomings of those studies.”
He said this is a core problem in general with cluster headache studies, “of which there are very few.”
In addition, CGAR only included episodic cluster headache, and the study period was relatively short; and CGAL only explored one cluster period per patient, Dr. McGeeney noted.
The current research attempts to provide insight that was previously unavailable, he said. “Many headache medicine clinical trial results reflect only one episode, and in general, we infer repeated usefulness – although it is not demonstrated in clinical trials,” said Dr. McGeeney.
“In this recent presentation, the authors attempt to go further and demonstrate some consistency across multiple cluster periods. The results are encouraging and what one might expect,” he said. However, “the small numbers and ad hoc nature preclude much inference from this study alone.”
Dr. Plato has received honoraria for speaking from Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He has also received research grants and support from Electrocore and Teva. Dr. McGeeney has consulted for Upsher-Smith and Theranica.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. A post hoc analysis of patients from the phase 3 CGAL study who also entered the open-label CGAR extension study was conducted. Results showed that the majority of participants whose scores on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) showed improvement 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab in the CGAL study also showed improvement after treatment for subsequent cluster bouts during the CGAR study.
“There was good agreement between PGI-I between the two [cluster headache] periods,” noted the investigators, led by Brian Plato, DO, a neurologist at Norton Neuroscience Institute in Louisville, Ky.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Two cluster periods
Galcanezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of episodic cluster headache in adults.
In cluster headache, attacks of recurrent, unilateral headaches with cranial autonomic symptoms last for weeks or months and are followed by periods of remission. Most studies of therapies for cluster headache examine only one cluster period. Few data about the consistency of treatment response throughout consecutive cluster periods are available, the investigators noted.
The current analysis was undertaken to examine the consistency of galcanezumab’s effect in episodic cluster headache during two cluster periods. Patients eligible for inclusion in the analysis had completed the double-blind phase of the CGAL study and had entered the open-label CGAR study.
CGAL was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in which patients with episodic cluster headache were assigned to receive galcanezumab 300 mg per month or placebo. Patients who completed the double-blind and washout phases of this study were eligible for enrollment into CGAR, a phase 3b, single-arm safety study. The investigators determined the dose of galcanezumab in accordance with each patient’s symptoms and clinical response.
Response agreement
In both studies, the PGI-I was administered 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab. Only patients who were in an active cluster bout on entry into CGAR and who had valid PGI-I results 1 month after the first dose in CGAL and CGAR were included in the analysis.
PGI-I responses ranged from 1, signifying very much better, to 7, signifying very much worse. The investigators summarized the proportions of patients who reported each level of PGI-I score in CGAR and analyzed the results by dichotomizing PGI-I scores at both time points in two ways.
Fifty patients entered CGAR (78% men; mean age, 46.8 years). Of this group, Dr. Plato and colleagues included 39 in their analysis. Of the 17 patients who had a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 in CGAL, 12 (70.6%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. All four participants who had a score of 3 or higher in CGAL had a score in the same range in CGAR. Eighteen participants had a PGI-I score of 1, 2, or 3 in CGAL. Of this group, 15 patients (83.3%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. Of the three patients who had a score above 3 in CGAL, two (66.7%) had a score in the same range in CGAR.
The results indicate that most patients whose PGI-I score improved in one cluster bout, such as in CGAL, also improved in a subsequent bout, such as in CGAR, the investigators noted.
‘Encouraging’ results
Commenting on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, a neurologist at the John R. Graham Headache Center, Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston, noted that the PGI-I is an “easy-to-understand” outcome that has been widely used in headache medicine.
“Patient-assessed outcomes have become increasingly important and are an important complement to other outcomes,” said Dr. McGeeney, who was not involved in the research. However, a disadvantage is that “it is entirely subjective and may or may not reflect a change on other outcome measures that reflect the disorder itself,” he said.
“It can be difficult to demonstrate how much usefulness a treatment has with the helpful but simple outcome measures that are seen in CGAL and CGAR,” Dr. McGeeney added. “This is due to the nature of cluster headache and not to any methodological shortcomings of those studies.”
He said this is a core problem in general with cluster headache studies, “of which there are very few.”
In addition, CGAR only included episodic cluster headache, and the study period was relatively short; and CGAL only explored one cluster period per patient, Dr. McGeeney noted.
The current research attempts to provide insight that was previously unavailable, he said. “Many headache medicine clinical trial results reflect only one episode, and in general, we infer repeated usefulness – although it is not demonstrated in clinical trials,” said Dr. McGeeney.
“In this recent presentation, the authors attempt to go further and demonstrate some consistency across multiple cluster periods. The results are encouraging and what one might expect,” he said. However, “the small numbers and ad hoc nature preclude much inference from this study alone.”
Dr. Plato has received honoraria for speaking from Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He has also received research grants and support from Electrocore and Teva. Dr. McGeeney has consulted for Upsher-Smith and Theranica.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2020
Truth in Tension: Reflections on Racism in Medicine
Core values should reflect our fundamental beliefs and serve as the building blocks of our behaviors and actions. Health systems across the United States define themselves by a myriad of guiding principles, which include patient-centeredness, dignity, respect, safety, and teamwork. On the surface, medicine’s ties to such altruistic values make intuitive sense. However, as Black physicians, we are in a state of cognitive dissonance as we wrestle with healthcare’s real identity and the principles it espouses. We know that within this psychological tension lies the truth: the US healthcare system was not designed to live up to these ideals. This truth is most evident in health inequities that exist among Black people and other marginalized communities of color. It is also the undeniable reality of Black physicians whose professional role is juxtaposed with recurring experiences that signal to us that we do not belong.
SYSTEMIC RACISM, MISTRUST, AND HEALTH INEQUITIES
Racism in healthcare, laid bare by the well-documented exploitation of Black people by the medical community, adds to the not-so-subtle ways we are told our lives don’t matter.1 This mistreatment has resulted in a deep mistrust of healthcare providers that is legitimate and real. The 40-year Tuskegee Syphilis Study is infamous for breaking trust via the deception of hundreds of Black men. The study participants with syphilis were denied treatment despite a known and available cure; an act both unconscionable and inhumane. As recently as the 1990s, a study sought to identify a genetic origin for aggressive behavior; however, enrollment was restricted to Black and Latino boys, and families were incentivized with money. Furthermore, the children were taken off all medications, kept overnight without their parents, deprived of water, subjected to hourly blood draws, and given fenfluramine, a drug known to be associated with precipitating aggressive behavior.1 The study design perpetuated the stereotype of Black males as perpetrators of violence—a distorted and biased perception that continues to cost Black people their lives. This sobering example illustrates that even in the era of institutional review boards, the welfare and protection of Black people who participate in research is by no means guaranteed.
The very notion of social determinants of health exposes the underbelly of institutional racism and its pervasiveness in our healthcare system. As Black physicians, we see the flawed healthcare system’s disproportionate and devastating effects on patients who look like us: we have first-hand accounts as patients ourselves, and we have traversed the experiences endured by our loved ones. Broken trust and fractured care contribute to disparate rates of morbidity and mortality in Black men and women with cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes.2 Black mothers have the highest rates of premature births and are three times more likely than White women to die from pregnancy-related complications.3 Black infants are two times more likely to die before their first birthday than are White infants.4 Children and adolescents from poor, predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods spend significantly more days in the hospital for various acute and chronic diagnoses than their counterparts from affluent, predominantly White neighborhoods.5 Not surprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on the Black community read like lines memorized from the same old, tired, script6: staggering mortality rates, extreme poverty, food insecurity, alarming education inequities, and a widening digital divide. And, as Black pediatricians, we hold our breath as we wait until the coast is clear to fully assess the overwhelming damage to our children caused by the pandemic’s tsunami.
ACADEMIC MEDICINE AND OUR INVISIBLE WOUNDS
In our roles as doctors, we experience first-hand the ills of academic medicine, an environment that poses significant challenges for those of us who are underrepresented in medicine (UIM). Despite an acute awareness of the need for Black physicians, little has changed over the past few decades. As of 2018, the percentages of Black or African American students who applied and were accepted to US medical schools were 8.4% and 7%, respectively.7 Diversity gains in the acceptance and matriculation rates of medical students were noted across multiple demographic groups over the past 40 years; however, Black applicants were the exception. In fact, the number of Black men enrolled in medical schools is currently less than it was in 1978, a dismal statistic that underscores this issue.8 Only 5% of US physicians identify as Black or African American.7 Furthermore, in academia, while 64% of faculty are White, only 3.6% are Black or African American.7 But there is more to it than just the numbers. Diversity means nothing without an inclusive environment. As Black physicians, we understand the power of visibility, and our strong desire to cultivate a safe and inclusive environment for students, trainees, and other faculty is a large part of why we remain in academia. Nevertheless, the experience in academic medicine for Black physicians and other UIMs is commonly one of isolation.
Lack of inclusivity and feelings of isolation are common themes among Black physicians in academia.9 They are intensified by microaggressions,10 shards of glass that slowly cut at our self-concept, confidence, and resolve. We nurse the wounds from the ones hurled at our Black patients as well as the ones directed our way. They are the microassaults from the mother who requests that a different physician care for her child; the father who proudly displays a swastika tattoo as you examine his newborn infant in the nursery; or the directive to empty out the garbage when you walk into a patient’s room. They are the microinsults from colleagues that convey our inferiority and associate our advancement with handouts because of our race; questions like, “How did you get that role?” and backhanded compliments such as, “You are so articulate,” as we exceed their mediocre expectations. They are the microinvalidations, for example being constantly confused with the few other Black physicians in the hospital, which sends the message that we are invisible. Likewise, our minority tax9—an underappreciated list of service-oriented expectations and responsibilities related to our UIM status—is paid in full via the call to put our “otherness” on display for the sake of diversity and when we speak out against racism and bias because no one else will. There are limited opportunities to establish strong relationships with Black physician mentors, who are more likely to understand the needs and identify with the differential experiences of Black physician mentees. Examples of authentic and effective cross-race mentorship relationships built on trust and psychological safety are scarce, and their rarity exacerbates feelings of isolation and disillusionment among Black physicians. And rare sponsorship—in the form of high visibility recognition or career advancing opportunities—is conflated with veiled tokenism. This atmosphere breeds hypervigilance for Black physicians in academia. The weight of our actions and performance being judged not on an individual level, but rather as a reflection of our entire race, is a heavy load to bear.
A CRITICAL JUNCTURE
Our country is at a crossroads, with resounding calls to dismantle systemic racism in all its forms. The call is greatest for those of us who fight to heal our patients yet work in a healthcare system that perpetuates inequity. Radical steps are needed to rebuild the system and include:
- Working relentlessly towards health equity in all phases and facets of patient care. This must involve mandating data transparency, defining clear measures, and implementing processes that make equitable practices the default.
- Moving beyond one-dimensional diversity initiatives that focus on recruitment, and investing in strategies that promote the inclusion, retention, and advancement of UIM faculty along leadership and academic ranks.
- Establishing specific experiences, opportunities, and support structures for UIMs that include Black students, trainees, and faculty to combat isolation and foster inclusivity.
- Developing and implementing comprehensive trainee and faculty education focused on implicit bias in general, and structural racism, medical mistrust, and racial bias in healthcare in particular.
- Cultivating an antiracist environment in which true and authentic allyship is widespread and macro- and microaggressions are not silently endured by UIMs but are immediately and effectively addressed by all.
We must reconcile the dissonance that currently exists in our healthcare system between lofty ideals of racial equity and opportunity with actual practice—and as a result, honor the dignity and worth of the people who experience and work in it.
1. Washington HA. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History Of Medical Experimentation On Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present. Doubleday Books; 2006.
2. Calvin R, Winters K, Wyatt SB, Williams DR, Henderson FC, Walker ER. Racism and cardiovascular disease in African Americans. Am J Med Sci. 2003;325(6):315-331. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-200306000-00003
3. Petersen EE, Davis NL, Goodman D, et al. Vital signs: pregnancy-related deaths, United States, 2011–2015, and strategies for prevention, 13 states, 2013–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(18):423. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6818e1
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health. Maternal and Infant Health. Infant Mortality Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2016. Accessed June 6, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm
5. Beck AF, Anderson KL, Rich K, et al. Cooling the hot spots where child hospitalization rates are high: a neighborhood approach to population health. Health Aff. 2019;38(9):1433-1441. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05496
6. Yancy CW. COVID-19 and African Americans. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1891-1892. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6548
7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Association of American Medical Colleges. Accessed June 6, 2020. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/report/diversity-medicine-facts-and-figures-2019
8. Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine. Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.
9. Campbell KM, Rodríguez JE. Addressing the minority tax: perspectives from two diversity leaders on building minority faculty success in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(12):1854-1857. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002839
10. Freeman L, Stewart H. Microaggressions in clinical medicine. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2018;28(4):411-449. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2018.0024
Core values should reflect our fundamental beliefs and serve as the building blocks of our behaviors and actions. Health systems across the United States define themselves by a myriad of guiding principles, which include patient-centeredness, dignity, respect, safety, and teamwork. On the surface, medicine’s ties to such altruistic values make intuitive sense. However, as Black physicians, we are in a state of cognitive dissonance as we wrestle with healthcare’s real identity and the principles it espouses. We know that within this psychological tension lies the truth: the US healthcare system was not designed to live up to these ideals. This truth is most evident in health inequities that exist among Black people and other marginalized communities of color. It is also the undeniable reality of Black physicians whose professional role is juxtaposed with recurring experiences that signal to us that we do not belong.
SYSTEMIC RACISM, MISTRUST, AND HEALTH INEQUITIES
Racism in healthcare, laid bare by the well-documented exploitation of Black people by the medical community, adds to the not-so-subtle ways we are told our lives don’t matter.1 This mistreatment has resulted in a deep mistrust of healthcare providers that is legitimate and real. The 40-year Tuskegee Syphilis Study is infamous for breaking trust via the deception of hundreds of Black men. The study participants with syphilis were denied treatment despite a known and available cure; an act both unconscionable and inhumane. As recently as the 1990s, a study sought to identify a genetic origin for aggressive behavior; however, enrollment was restricted to Black and Latino boys, and families were incentivized with money. Furthermore, the children were taken off all medications, kept overnight without their parents, deprived of water, subjected to hourly blood draws, and given fenfluramine, a drug known to be associated with precipitating aggressive behavior.1 The study design perpetuated the stereotype of Black males as perpetrators of violence—a distorted and biased perception that continues to cost Black people their lives. This sobering example illustrates that even in the era of institutional review boards, the welfare and protection of Black people who participate in research is by no means guaranteed.
The very notion of social determinants of health exposes the underbelly of institutional racism and its pervasiveness in our healthcare system. As Black physicians, we see the flawed healthcare system’s disproportionate and devastating effects on patients who look like us: we have first-hand accounts as patients ourselves, and we have traversed the experiences endured by our loved ones. Broken trust and fractured care contribute to disparate rates of morbidity and mortality in Black men and women with cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes.2 Black mothers have the highest rates of premature births and are three times more likely than White women to die from pregnancy-related complications.3 Black infants are two times more likely to die before their first birthday than are White infants.4 Children and adolescents from poor, predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods spend significantly more days in the hospital for various acute and chronic diagnoses than their counterparts from affluent, predominantly White neighborhoods.5 Not surprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on the Black community read like lines memorized from the same old, tired, script6: staggering mortality rates, extreme poverty, food insecurity, alarming education inequities, and a widening digital divide. And, as Black pediatricians, we hold our breath as we wait until the coast is clear to fully assess the overwhelming damage to our children caused by the pandemic’s tsunami.
ACADEMIC MEDICINE AND OUR INVISIBLE WOUNDS
In our roles as doctors, we experience first-hand the ills of academic medicine, an environment that poses significant challenges for those of us who are underrepresented in medicine (UIM). Despite an acute awareness of the need for Black physicians, little has changed over the past few decades. As of 2018, the percentages of Black or African American students who applied and were accepted to US medical schools were 8.4% and 7%, respectively.7 Diversity gains in the acceptance and matriculation rates of medical students were noted across multiple demographic groups over the past 40 years; however, Black applicants were the exception. In fact, the number of Black men enrolled in medical schools is currently less than it was in 1978, a dismal statistic that underscores this issue.8 Only 5% of US physicians identify as Black or African American.7 Furthermore, in academia, while 64% of faculty are White, only 3.6% are Black or African American.7 But there is more to it than just the numbers. Diversity means nothing without an inclusive environment. As Black physicians, we understand the power of visibility, and our strong desire to cultivate a safe and inclusive environment for students, trainees, and other faculty is a large part of why we remain in academia. Nevertheless, the experience in academic medicine for Black physicians and other UIMs is commonly one of isolation.
Lack of inclusivity and feelings of isolation are common themes among Black physicians in academia.9 They are intensified by microaggressions,10 shards of glass that slowly cut at our self-concept, confidence, and resolve. We nurse the wounds from the ones hurled at our Black patients as well as the ones directed our way. They are the microassaults from the mother who requests that a different physician care for her child; the father who proudly displays a swastika tattoo as you examine his newborn infant in the nursery; or the directive to empty out the garbage when you walk into a patient’s room. They are the microinsults from colleagues that convey our inferiority and associate our advancement with handouts because of our race; questions like, “How did you get that role?” and backhanded compliments such as, “You are so articulate,” as we exceed their mediocre expectations. They are the microinvalidations, for example being constantly confused with the few other Black physicians in the hospital, which sends the message that we are invisible. Likewise, our minority tax9—an underappreciated list of service-oriented expectations and responsibilities related to our UIM status—is paid in full via the call to put our “otherness” on display for the sake of diversity and when we speak out against racism and bias because no one else will. There are limited opportunities to establish strong relationships with Black physician mentors, who are more likely to understand the needs and identify with the differential experiences of Black physician mentees. Examples of authentic and effective cross-race mentorship relationships built on trust and psychological safety are scarce, and their rarity exacerbates feelings of isolation and disillusionment among Black physicians. And rare sponsorship—in the form of high visibility recognition or career advancing opportunities—is conflated with veiled tokenism. This atmosphere breeds hypervigilance for Black physicians in academia. The weight of our actions and performance being judged not on an individual level, but rather as a reflection of our entire race, is a heavy load to bear.
A CRITICAL JUNCTURE
Our country is at a crossroads, with resounding calls to dismantle systemic racism in all its forms. The call is greatest for those of us who fight to heal our patients yet work in a healthcare system that perpetuates inequity. Radical steps are needed to rebuild the system and include:
- Working relentlessly towards health equity in all phases and facets of patient care. This must involve mandating data transparency, defining clear measures, and implementing processes that make equitable practices the default.
- Moving beyond one-dimensional diversity initiatives that focus on recruitment, and investing in strategies that promote the inclusion, retention, and advancement of UIM faculty along leadership and academic ranks.
- Establishing specific experiences, opportunities, and support structures for UIMs that include Black students, trainees, and faculty to combat isolation and foster inclusivity.
- Developing and implementing comprehensive trainee and faculty education focused on implicit bias in general, and structural racism, medical mistrust, and racial bias in healthcare in particular.
- Cultivating an antiracist environment in which true and authentic allyship is widespread and macro- and microaggressions are not silently endured by UIMs but are immediately and effectively addressed by all.
We must reconcile the dissonance that currently exists in our healthcare system between lofty ideals of racial equity and opportunity with actual practice—and as a result, honor the dignity and worth of the people who experience and work in it.
Core values should reflect our fundamental beliefs and serve as the building blocks of our behaviors and actions. Health systems across the United States define themselves by a myriad of guiding principles, which include patient-centeredness, dignity, respect, safety, and teamwork. On the surface, medicine’s ties to such altruistic values make intuitive sense. However, as Black physicians, we are in a state of cognitive dissonance as we wrestle with healthcare’s real identity and the principles it espouses. We know that within this psychological tension lies the truth: the US healthcare system was not designed to live up to these ideals. This truth is most evident in health inequities that exist among Black people and other marginalized communities of color. It is also the undeniable reality of Black physicians whose professional role is juxtaposed with recurring experiences that signal to us that we do not belong.
SYSTEMIC RACISM, MISTRUST, AND HEALTH INEQUITIES
Racism in healthcare, laid bare by the well-documented exploitation of Black people by the medical community, adds to the not-so-subtle ways we are told our lives don’t matter.1 This mistreatment has resulted in a deep mistrust of healthcare providers that is legitimate and real. The 40-year Tuskegee Syphilis Study is infamous for breaking trust via the deception of hundreds of Black men. The study participants with syphilis were denied treatment despite a known and available cure; an act both unconscionable and inhumane. As recently as the 1990s, a study sought to identify a genetic origin for aggressive behavior; however, enrollment was restricted to Black and Latino boys, and families were incentivized with money. Furthermore, the children were taken off all medications, kept overnight without their parents, deprived of water, subjected to hourly blood draws, and given fenfluramine, a drug known to be associated with precipitating aggressive behavior.1 The study design perpetuated the stereotype of Black males as perpetrators of violence—a distorted and biased perception that continues to cost Black people their lives. This sobering example illustrates that even in the era of institutional review boards, the welfare and protection of Black people who participate in research is by no means guaranteed.
The very notion of social determinants of health exposes the underbelly of institutional racism and its pervasiveness in our healthcare system. As Black physicians, we see the flawed healthcare system’s disproportionate and devastating effects on patients who look like us: we have first-hand accounts as patients ourselves, and we have traversed the experiences endured by our loved ones. Broken trust and fractured care contribute to disparate rates of morbidity and mortality in Black men and women with cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes.2 Black mothers have the highest rates of premature births and are three times more likely than White women to die from pregnancy-related complications.3 Black infants are two times more likely to die before their first birthday than are White infants.4 Children and adolescents from poor, predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods spend significantly more days in the hospital for various acute and chronic diagnoses than their counterparts from affluent, predominantly White neighborhoods.5 Not surprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on the Black community read like lines memorized from the same old, tired, script6: staggering mortality rates, extreme poverty, food insecurity, alarming education inequities, and a widening digital divide. And, as Black pediatricians, we hold our breath as we wait until the coast is clear to fully assess the overwhelming damage to our children caused by the pandemic’s tsunami.
ACADEMIC MEDICINE AND OUR INVISIBLE WOUNDS
In our roles as doctors, we experience first-hand the ills of academic medicine, an environment that poses significant challenges for those of us who are underrepresented in medicine (UIM). Despite an acute awareness of the need for Black physicians, little has changed over the past few decades. As of 2018, the percentages of Black or African American students who applied and were accepted to US medical schools were 8.4% and 7%, respectively.7 Diversity gains in the acceptance and matriculation rates of medical students were noted across multiple demographic groups over the past 40 years; however, Black applicants were the exception. In fact, the number of Black men enrolled in medical schools is currently less than it was in 1978, a dismal statistic that underscores this issue.8 Only 5% of US physicians identify as Black or African American.7 Furthermore, in academia, while 64% of faculty are White, only 3.6% are Black or African American.7 But there is more to it than just the numbers. Diversity means nothing without an inclusive environment. As Black physicians, we understand the power of visibility, and our strong desire to cultivate a safe and inclusive environment for students, trainees, and other faculty is a large part of why we remain in academia. Nevertheless, the experience in academic medicine for Black physicians and other UIMs is commonly one of isolation.
Lack of inclusivity and feelings of isolation are common themes among Black physicians in academia.9 They are intensified by microaggressions,10 shards of glass that slowly cut at our self-concept, confidence, and resolve. We nurse the wounds from the ones hurled at our Black patients as well as the ones directed our way. They are the microassaults from the mother who requests that a different physician care for her child; the father who proudly displays a swastika tattoo as you examine his newborn infant in the nursery; or the directive to empty out the garbage when you walk into a patient’s room. They are the microinsults from colleagues that convey our inferiority and associate our advancement with handouts because of our race; questions like, “How did you get that role?” and backhanded compliments such as, “You are so articulate,” as we exceed their mediocre expectations. They are the microinvalidations, for example being constantly confused with the few other Black physicians in the hospital, which sends the message that we are invisible. Likewise, our minority tax9—an underappreciated list of service-oriented expectations and responsibilities related to our UIM status—is paid in full via the call to put our “otherness” on display for the sake of diversity and when we speak out against racism and bias because no one else will. There are limited opportunities to establish strong relationships with Black physician mentors, who are more likely to understand the needs and identify with the differential experiences of Black physician mentees. Examples of authentic and effective cross-race mentorship relationships built on trust and psychological safety are scarce, and their rarity exacerbates feelings of isolation and disillusionment among Black physicians. And rare sponsorship—in the form of high visibility recognition or career advancing opportunities—is conflated with veiled tokenism. This atmosphere breeds hypervigilance for Black physicians in academia. The weight of our actions and performance being judged not on an individual level, but rather as a reflection of our entire race, is a heavy load to bear.
A CRITICAL JUNCTURE
Our country is at a crossroads, with resounding calls to dismantle systemic racism in all its forms. The call is greatest for those of us who fight to heal our patients yet work in a healthcare system that perpetuates inequity. Radical steps are needed to rebuild the system and include:
- Working relentlessly towards health equity in all phases and facets of patient care. This must involve mandating data transparency, defining clear measures, and implementing processes that make equitable practices the default.
- Moving beyond one-dimensional diversity initiatives that focus on recruitment, and investing in strategies that promote the inclusion, retention, and advancement of UIM faculty along leadership and academic ranks.
- Establishing specific experiences, opportunities, and support structures for UIMs that include Black students, trainees, and faculty to combat isolation and foster inclusivity.
- Developing and implementing comprehensive trainee and faculty education focused on implicit bias in general, and structural racism, medical mistrust, and racial bias in healthcare in particular.
- Cultivating an antiracist environment in which true and authentic allyship is widespread and macro- and microaggressions are not silently endured by UIMs but are immediately and effectively addressed by all.
We must reconcile the dissonance that currently exists in our healthcare system between lofty ideals of racial equity and opportunity with actual practice—and as a result, honor the dignity and worth of the people who experience and work in it.
1. Washington HA. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History Of Medical Experimentation On Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present. Doubleday Books; 2006.
2. Calvin R, Winters K, Wyatt SB, Williams DR, Henderson FC, Walker ER. Racism and cardiovascular disease in African Americans. Am J Med Sci. 2003;325(6):315-331. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-200306000-00003
3. Petersen EE, Davis NL, Goodman D, et al. Vital signs: pregnancy-related deaths, United States, 2011–2015, and strategies for prevention, 13 states, 2013–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(18):423. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6818e1
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health. Maternal and Infant Health. Infant Mortality Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2016. Accessed June 6, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm
5. Beck AF, Anderson KL, Rich K, et al. Cooling the hot spots where child hospitalization rates are high: a neighborhood approach to population health. Health Aff. 2019;38(9):1433-1441. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05496
6. Yancy CW. COVID-19 and African Americans. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1891-1892. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6548
7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Association of American Medical Colleges. Accessed June 6, 2020. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/report/diversity-medicine-facts-and-figures-2019
8. Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine. Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.
9. Campbell KM, Rodríguez JE. Addressing the minority tax: perspectives from two diversity leaders on building minority faculty success in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(12):1854-1857. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002839
10. Freeman L, Stewart H. Microaggressions in clinical medicine. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2018;28(4):411-449. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2018.0024
1. Washington HA. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History Of Medical Experimentation On Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present. Doubleday Books; 2006.
2. Calvin R, Winters K, Wyatt SB, Williams DR, Henderson FC, Walker ER. Racism and cardiovascular disease in African Americans. Am J Med Sci. 2003;325(6):315-331. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-200306000-00003
3. Petersen EE, Davis NL, Goodman D, et al. Vital signs: pregnancy-related deaths, United States, 2011–2015, and strategies for prevention, 13 states, 2013–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(18):423. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6818e1
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health. Maternal and Infant Health. Infant Mortality Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2016. Accessed June 6, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm
5. Beck AF, Anderson KL, Rich K, et al. Cooling the hot spots where child hospitalization rates are high: a neighborhood approach to population health. Health Aff. 2019;38(9):1433-1441. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05496
6. Yancy CW. COVID-19 and African Americans. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1891-1892. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6548
7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Association of American Medical Colleges. Accessed June 6, 2020. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/report/diversity-medicine-facts-and-figures-2019
8. Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine. Association of American Medical Colleges; 2015.
9. Campbell KM, Rodríguez JE. Addressing the minority tax: perspectives from two diversity leaders on building minority faculty success in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(12):1854-1857. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002839
10. Freeman L, Stewart H. Microaggressions in clinical medicine. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2018;28(4):411-449. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2018.0024
© 2020 Society of Hospital Medicine
Newborn ear lesion
This lesion was diagnosed as an accessory tragus. Although sometimes called a preauricular skin tag, it is more aptly named accessory tragus since it arises embryonically along with the tragus from the first branchial arch. It usually is slightly anterior to the ear and can be seen unilaterally or bilaterally. The lesions usually feel firm to palpation due to an underlying cartilaginous component.
While this finding can be seen in congenital syndromes—most commonly oculoauriculovertebral syndrome (also known as Goldenhar syndrome)—it usually occurs in isolation. If there are no other abnormalities on exam to suggest a congenital syndrome, no additional work-up is necessary.
Concerns have been raised about a possible association with decreased hearing. Routine hearing screens are performed in the United States and this child’s screen was normal, so no further investigation for inner ear abnormalities was warranted.
These lesions usually are asymptomatic (unless traumatized). If removal is desired, it is important to remove the cartilaginous component, which can be deep and require additional dissection rather than simple transection at the base. Incomplete removal of the cartilage can cause chondritis, impede skin healing, and lead to infection.
Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
Bahrani B, Khachemoune A. Review of accessory tragus with highlights of its associated syndromes. Int J Dermatol. 2014;53:1442-1446.
This lesion was diagnosed as an accessory tragus. Although sometimes called a preauricular skin tag, it is more aptly named accessory tragus since it arises embryonically along with the tragus from the first branchial arch. It usually is slightly anterior to the ear and can be seen unilaterally or bilaterally. The lesions usually feel firm to palpation due to an underlying cartilaginous component.
While this finding can be seen in congenital syndromes—most commonly oculoauriculovertebral syndrome (also known as Goldenhar syndrome)—it usually occurs in isolation. If there are no other abnormalities on exam to suggest a congenital syndrome, no additional work-up is necessary.
Concerns have been raised about a possible association with decreased hearing. Routine hearing screens are performed in the United States and this child’s screen was normal, so no further investigation for inner ear abnormalities was warranted.
These lesions usually are asymptomatic (unless traumatized). If removal is desired, it is important to remove the cartilaginous component, which can be deep and require additional dissection rather than simple transection at the base. Incomplete removal of the cartilage can cause chondritis, impede skin healing, and lead to infection.
Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
This lesion was diagnosed as an accessory tragus. Although sometimes called a preauricular skin tag, it is more aptly named accessory tragus since it arises embryonically along with the tragus from the first branchial arch. It usually is slightly anterior to the ear and can be seen unilaterally or bilaterally. The lesions usually feel firm to palpation due to an underlying cartilaginous component.
While this finding can be seen in congenital syndromes—most commonly oculoauriculovertebral syndrome (also known as Goldenhar syndrome)—it usually occurs in isolation. If there are no other abnormalities on exam to suggest a congenital syndrome, no additional work-up is necessary.
Concerns have been raised about a possible association with decreased hearing. Routine hearing screens are performed in the United States and this child’s screen was normal, so no further investigation for inner ear abnormalities was warranted.
These lesions usually are asymptomatic (unless traumatized). If removal is desired, it is important to remove the cartilaginous component, which can be deep and require additional dissection rather than simple transection at the base. Incomplete removal of the cartilage can cause chondritis, impede skin healing, and lead to infection.
Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
Bahrani B, Khachemoune A. Review of accessory tragus with highlights of its associated syndromes. Int J Dermatol. 2014;53:1442-1446.
Bahrani B, Khachemoune A. Review of accessory tragus with highlights of its associated syndromes. Int J Dermatol. 2014;53:1442-1446.
New quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine joins VFC arsenal
No changes to the current meningococcal vaccination recommendations were made. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 14-0 to include MenACWY-TT as an option for vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in the VFC program. The vote took place in a virtual meeting held on June 24.
The currently available MenACWY vaccines in the United States are MenACWY-D (Menactra), MenACWY-CRW (Menveo), and MenACWY-TT (MedQuadfi), with MenACWY-TT approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2020.
Meningococcal vaccination is currently recommended for adolescents, with one dose at age 11 or 12 years and a booster at age 16 years, as well as individuals aged 2 months and older at increased risk for meningococcal disease, according to Lucy McNamara, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Dr. McNamara presented considerations from the Meningococcal Work Group, which determined that the inclusion of MenACWY-TT “is of public health importance given recent vaccine licensure and to support security of vaccine supply.”
The Work Group reviewed 10 studies (phase 2 or 3) of MenACWY-TT that included data on short-term immune response, persistence of immune response, immune interference because of coadministration with other routine adolescent vaccines, and incidence of serious adverse events. Overall, the data showed noninferiority of MenACWY-TT, compared with other available products, in terms of response rates, as well as higher levels of immune response in some studies. Serious adverse events were similar, and none determined to be associated with the vaccines.
ACIP member Paul Hunter, MD, of the University of Milwaukee, Wisc., expressed some concerns about pain or side effects for the new vaccine and Tdap when given together. However, a study of coadministration of MedACWY-TT and Tdap, compared with Tdap alone, showed no impact on geometric mean titer ratios.
Overall, the Work Group concluded that “desirable effects outweigh undesirable effects” and that the data favor the inclusion of MenACWY-TT as an option for meningococcal vaccination.
The committee members and Dr. McNamara had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
No changes to the current meningococcal vaccination recommendations were made. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 14-0 to include MenACWY-TT as an option for vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in the VFC program. The vote took place in a virtual meeting held on June 24.
The currently available MenACWY vaccines in the United States are MenACWY-D (Menactra), MenACWY-CRW (Menveo), and MenACWY-TT (MedQuadfi), with MenACWY-TT approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2020.
Meningococcal vaccination is currently recommended for adolescents, with one dose at age 11 or 12 years and a booster at age 16 years, as well as individuals aged 2 months and older at increased risk for meningococcal disease, according to Lucy McNamara, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Dr. McNamara presented considerations from the Meningococcal Work Group, which determined that the inclusion of MenACWY-TT “is of public health importance given recent vaccine licensure and to support security of vaccine supply.”
The Work Group reviewed 10 studies (phase 2 or 3) of MenACWY-TT that included data on short-term immune response, persistence of immune response, immune interference because of coadministration with other routine adolescent vaccines, and incidence of serious adverse events. Overall, the data showed noninferiority of MenACWY-TT, compared with other available products, in terms of response rates, as well as higher levels of immune response in some studies. Serious adverse events were similar, and none determined to be associated with the vaccines.
ACIP member Paul Hunter, MD, of the University of Milwaukee, Wisc., expressed some concerns about pain or side effects for the new vaccine and Tdap when given together. However, a study of coadministration of MedACWY-TT and Tdap, compared with Tdap alone, showed no impact on geometric mean titer ratios.
Overall, the Work Group concluded that “desirable effects outweigh undesirable effects” and that the data favor the inclusion of MenACWY-TT as an option for meningococcal vaccination.
The committee members and Dr. McNamara had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
No changes to the current meningococcal vaccination recommendations were made. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 14-0 to include MenACWY-TT as an option for vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in the VFC program. The vote took place in a virtual meeting held on June 24.
The currently available MenACWY vaccines in the United States are MenACWY-D (Menactra), MenACWY-CRW (Menveo), and MenACWY-TT (MedQuadfi), with MenACWY-TT approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2020.
Meningococcal vaccination is currently recommended for adolescents, with one dose at age 11 or 12 years and a booster at age 16 years, as well as individuals aged 2 months and older at increased risk for meningococcal disease, according to Lucy McNamara, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Dr. McNamara presented considerations from the Meningococcal Work Group, which determined that the inclusion of MenACWY-TT “is of public health importance given recent vaccine licensure and to support security of vaccine supply.”
The Work Group reviewed 10 studies (phase 2 or 3) of MenACWY-TT that included data on short-term immune response, persistence of immune response, immune interference because of coadministration with other routine adolescent vaccines, and incidence of serious adverse events. Overall, the data showed noninferiority of MenACWY-TT, compared with other available products, in terms of response rates, as well as higher levels of immune response in some studies. Serious adverse events were similar, and none determined to be associated with the vaccines.
ACIP member Paul Hunter, MD, of the University of Milwaukee, Wisc., expressed some concerns about pain or side effects for the new vaccine and Tdap when given together. However, a study of coadministration of MedACWY-TT and Tdap, compared with Tdap alone, showed no impact on geometric mean titer ratios.
Overall, the Work Group concluded that “desirable effects outweigh undesirable effects” and that the data favor the inclusion of MenACWY-TT as an option for meningococcal vaccination.
The committee members and Dr. McNamara had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Daily Recap: Healthy lifestyle may stave off dementia; Tentative evidence on marijuana for migraine
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
First reported U.S. case of COVID-19 linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome
The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.
Physicians in China reported the first case that initially presented as acute GBS. Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.
“This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted. Read more.
Five healthy lifestyle choices tied to dramatic cut in dementia risk
Combining four of five healthy lifestyle choices has been linked to up to a 60% reduced risk for Alzheimer’s dementia in new research that strengthens ties between healthy behaviors and lower dementia risk. “I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise; light to moderate alcohol consumption; consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities.
“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD. Read more.
Marijuana for migraine? Some tentative evidence
Medical marijuana may have promise for managing headache pain, according to results from a small study conducted at the Jefferson Headache Center at Thomas Jefferson University. The researchers found general satisfaction with medical marijuana, more frequent use as an abortive medication rather than a preventative, and more than two-thirds using the inhaled form rather than oral.
“A lot of patients are interested in medical marijuana but don’t know how to integrate it into the therapy plan they already have – whether it should be just to treat bad headaches when they happen, or is it meant to be a preventive medicine they use every day? We have some data out there that it can be helpful, but not a lot of specific information to guide your recommendations,” said Jefferson headache fellow Claire Ceriani, MD, in an interview. Read more.
Inside Mercy’s mission to care for non-COVID patients in Los Angeles
When the hospital ship USNS Mercy departed San Diego’s Naval Station North Island on March 23, 2020, to support the Department of Defense efforts in Los Angeles during the coronavirus outbreak, Commander Erin Blevins remembers the crew’s excitement was palpable. “We normally do partnerships abroad and respond to tsunamis and earthquakes,” said Cdr. Blevins, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist who served as director of medical services for the mission.
Between March 29 and May 15, about 1,071 medical personnel aboard the Mercy cared for 77 patients with an average age of 53 years who were referred from 11 Los Angeles area hospitals.
Care aboard the ship ranged from basic medical and surgical care to critical care and trauma. The most common procedures were cholecystectomies and orthopedic procedures, and the average length of stay was 4-5 days, according to Cdr. Blevins. Over the course of the mission, the medical professionals conducted 36 surgeries, 77 x-ray exams, 26 CT scans, and administered hundreds of ancillary studies ranging from routine labs to high-end x-rays and blood transfusion support. Special Feature.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
First reported U.S. case of COVID-19 linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome
The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.
Physicians in China reported the first case that initially presented as acute GBS. Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.
“This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted. Read more.
Five healthy lifestyle choices tied to dramatic cut in dementia risk
Combining four of five healthy lifestyle choices has been linked to up to a 60% reduced risk for Alzheimer’s dementia in new research that strengthens ties between healthy behaviors and lower dementia risk. “I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise; light to moderate alcohol consumption; consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities.
“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD. Read more.
Marijuana for migraine? Some tentative evidence
Medical marijuana may have promise for managing headache pain, according to results from a small study conducted at the Jefferson Headache Center at Thomas Jefferson University. The researchers found general satisfaction with medical marijuana, more frequent use as an abortive medication rather than a preventative, and more than two-thirds using the inhaled form rather than oral.
“A lot of patients are interested in medical marijuana but don’t know how to integrate it into the therapy plan they already have – whether it should be just to treat bad headaches when they happen, or is it meant to be a preventive medicine they use every day? We have some data out there that it can be helpful, but not a lot of specific information to guide your recommendations,” said Jefferson headache fellow Claire Ceriani, MD, in an interview. Read more.
Inside Mercy’s mission to care for non-COVID patients in Los Angeles
When the hospital ship USNS Mercy departed San Diego’s Naval Station North Island on March 23, 2020, to support the Department of Defense efforts in Los Angeles during the coronavirus outbreak, Commander Erin Blevins remembers the crew’s excitement was palpable. “We normally do partnerships abroad and respond to tsunamis and earthquakes,” said Cdr. Blevins, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist who served as director of medical services for the mission.
Between March 29 and May 15, about 1,071 medical personnel aboard the Mercy cared for 77 patients with an average age of 53 years who were referred from 11 Los Angeles area hospitals.
Care aboard the ship ranged from basic medical and surgical care to critical care and trauma. The most common procedures were cholecystectomies and orthopedic procedures, and the average length of stay was 4-5 days, according to Cdr. Blevins. Over the course of the mission, the medical professionals conducted 36 surgeries, 77 x-ray exams, 26 CT scans, and administered hundreds of ancillary studies ranging from routine labs to high-end x-rays and blood transfusion support. Special Feature.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
First reported U.S. case of COVID-19 linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome
The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.
Physicians in China reported the first case that initially presented as acute GBS. Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.
“This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted. Read more.
Five healthy lifestyle choices tied to dramatic cut in dementia risk
Combining four of five healthy lifestyle choices has been linked to up to a 60% reduced risk for Alzheimer’s dementia in new research that strengthens ties between healthy behaviors and lower dementia risk. “I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise; light to moderate alcohol consumption; consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities.
“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD. Read more.
Marijuana for migraine? Some tentative evidence
Medical marijuana may have promise for managing headache pain, according to results from a small study conducted at the Jefferson Headache Center at Thomas Jefferson University. The researchers found general satisfaction with medical marijuana, more frequent use as an abortive medication rather than a preventative, and more than two-thirds using the inhaled form rather than oral.
“A lot of patients are interested in medical marijuana but don’t know how to integrate it into the therapy plan they already have – whether it should be just to treat bad headaches when they happen, or is it meant to be a preventive medicine they use every day? We have some data out there that it can be helpful, but not a lot of specific information to guide your recommendations,” said Jefferson headache fellow Claire Ceriani, MD, in an interview. Read more.
Inside Mercy’s mission to care for non-COVID patients in Los Angeles
When the hospital ship USNS Mercy departed San Diego’s Naval Station North Island on March 23, 2020, to support the Department of Defense efforts in Los Angeles during the coronavirus outbreak, Commander Erin Blevins remembers the crew’s excitement was palpable. “We normally do partnerships abroad and respond to tsunamis and earthquakes,” said Cdr. Blevins, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist who served as director of medical services for the mission.
Between March 29 and May 15, about 1,071 medical personnel aboard the Mercy cared for 77 patients with an average age of 53 years who were referred from 11 Los Angeles area hospitals.
Care aboard the ship ranged from basic medical and surgical care to critical care and trauma. The most common procedures were cholecystectomies and orthopedic procedures, and the average length of stay was 4-5 days, according to Cdr. Blevins. Over the course of the mission, the medical professionals conducted 36 surgeries, 77 x-ray exams, 26 CT scans, and administered hundreds of ancillary studies ranging from routine labs to high-end x-rays and blood transfusion support. Special Feature.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.