As we greet our new CHEST President, Clayton T. Cowl, MD, MS, FCCP, we asked him for a few thoughts about his upcoming presidential year. He kindly offered these responses:

As we greet our new CHEST President, Clayton T. Cowl, MD, MS, FCCP, we asked him for a few thoughts about his upcoming presidential year. He kindly offered these responses:

As we greet our new CHEST President, Clayton T. Cowl, MD, MS, FCCP, we asked him for a few thoughts about his upcoming presidential year. He kindly offered these responses:

Diversity

There is growing appreciation for diversity and inclusion (DI) as drivers of excellence in medicine. CHEST also promotes excellence in medicine. Therefore, it is intuitive that CHEST promote DI. Diversity encompasses differences in gender, race/ethnicity, vocational training, age, sexual orientation, thought processes, etc.

Academic medicine is rich with examples of how diversity is critical to the health of our nation:

– Diverse student populations have been shown to improve our learners’ satisfaction with their educational experience.

– Diverse teams have been shown to be more capable of solving complex problems than homogenous teams.

– Health care is moving toward a team-based, interprofessional model that values the contributions of a range of providers’ perspectives in improving patient outcomes.

– In biomedical research, investigators ask different research questions based on their own background and experiences. This implies that finding solutions to diseases that affect specific populations will require a diverse pool of biomedical researchers.

– Faculty diversity as a key component of excellence for medical education and research has been documented.

Diversity alone doesn’t drive inclusion. Noted diversity advocate, Verna Myers, stated, “Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.” In my opinion, diversity is the commencement of work, but inclusion helps complete the task.
 

Inclusion

An inclusive environment values the unique contributions all members bring. Teams with diversity of thought are more innovative as individual members with different backgrounds and points of view bring an extensive range of ideas and creativity to scientific discovery and decision-making processes. Inclusion leverages the power of our unique differences to accomplish our mutual goals. By valuing everyone’s perspective, we demonstrate excellence.

I recommend an article from the Harvard Business Review (HBR Feb 2017). The authors suggest several ways to promote inclusiveness: (1) ensuring team members speak up and are heard; (2) making it safe to propose novel ideas; (3) empowering team members to make decisions; (4) taking advice and implementing feedback; (5) giving actionable feedback; and ( 6) sharing credit for team success. If the team leader possesses at least three of these traits, 87% of team members say they feel welcome and included in their team; 87% say they feel free to express their views and opinions; and 74% say they feel that their ideas are heard and recognized. If the team leader possessed none of these traits, those percentages dropped to 51%, 46%, and 37%, respectively. I believe this concept is applicable in medicine also.

Sponsors

What can we do to advance diversity and inclusion individually and in our individual institutions? A sponsor is a senior level leader who advocates for key assignments, promotes for and puts his or her reputation on the line for the protégé’s advancement. This invigorates and drives engagement. One key to rising above the playing field for women and people of color is sponsorship. Being a sponsor does not mean one would recommend someone who is not qualified. It means one recommends or supports those who are capable of doing the job but would not otherwise be given the opportunity.

Ask yourself: Have I served as a sponsor? What would prevent me from being a sponsor? Do I believe in this concept?
 

Cause for Alarm

Numerous publications have recently discussed the crisis of the decline of black men entering medicine. In 1978, there were 1,410 black male applicants to medical school, and in 2014, there were 1,337. Additionally, the number of black male matriculants to medical school over more than 35 years has not surpassed the 1978 numbers. In 1978, there were 542 black male matriculants, and in 2014, there were 515 (J of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2017, 4:317-321). This report is thorough and insightful and illustrates the work that we must do to help improve this situation.

Dr. Marc Nivet, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Chief Diversity Officer, stated “No other minority group has experienced such declines. The inability to find, engage, and develop candidates for careers in medicine from all members of our society limits our ability to improve health care for all.” I recommend you read the 2015 AAMC publication entitled: Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine.
 

Health-care Disparities

Research suggests that the overall health of Americans has improved; however, disparities continue to persist among many populations within the United States. Racial and ethnic minority populations have poorer access to care and worse outcomes than their white counterparts. Approximately 20% of the nation living in rural areas is less likely than those living in urban areas to receive preventive care and more likely to experience language barriers.

Individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are likely to experience discrimination in health-care settings. These individuals often face insurance-based barriers and are less likely to have a usual source of care than patients who identify as straight.

A 2002 report by the Institute of Medicine entitled: Unequal Treatment: What Healthcare Providers Need to Know about Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare is revealing. Salient information reported is: It is generally accepted that a diverse workforce is a key component in the delivery of quality, competent care throughout the nation. Physicians from racial and ethnic backgrounds typically underrepresented in medicine are significantly more likely to practice primary care than white physicians and are more likely to practice in impoverished and medically underserved areas. Diversity in the physician workforce impacts the quality of care received by patients. Race concordance between patient and physician results in longer visits and increased patient satisfaction, and language concordance is positively associated with adherence to treatment among certain racial or ethnic groups.

Improving the patient experience or quality of care received also requires attention to education and training on cultural competence. By weaving together a diverse and culturally responsive pool of physicians working collaboratively with other health-care professionals, access and quality of care can improve throughout the nation.

CHEST cannot attain more racial diversity in our organization if we don’t have this diversity in medical education and training. This is why CHEST must be actively involved in addressing these issues.
 

Unconscious Bias

Despite many examples of how diversity enriches the quality of health care and health research, there is still much work to be done to address the human biases that impede our ability to benefit from diversity in medicine. While academic medicine has made progress toward addressing overt discrimination, unconscious bias (implicit bias) represents another threat. Unconscious bias describes the prejudices we don’t know we have. While unconscious biases vary from person to person, we all possess them. The existence of unconscious bias in academic medicine, while uncomfortable and unsettling, is a reality. The AAMC developed an unconscious bias learning lab for the health professions and produced an oft-cited video about addressing unconscious bias in the faculty advancement, promotion, and tenure process. We must consider this and other ways in which we can help promote the acknowledgment of unconscious bias. The CHEST staff have undergone unconscious bias training, and I recommend it for all faculty in academic medicine.
 

Summary

Diversity and inclusion in medicine is of paramount importance. It leads to better patient care and better trainee education and will decrease health-care disparities. Progress has been made, but there is more work to be done.

CHEST is supportive of these efforts and has worked on this previously and with a renewed push in the past 2 years with the DI Task Force initially and, now, the DI Roundtable, which has representatives from each of the standing committees, including the Board of Regents. This roundtable group will help advance the DI initiatives of the organization. I ask that each person reading this article consider what we as individuals can do in helping make DI in medicine a priority.



Dr. Haynes is Professor of Medicine at The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, MS. He is also the Executive Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine. At CHEST, he is a member of the training and transitions committee, executive scientific program committee, former chair of the diversity and inclusion task force, and is the current chair of the diversity and inclusion roundtable.
 

Diversity

There is growing appreciation for diversity and inclusion (DI) as drivers of excellence in medicine. CHEST also promotes excellence in medicine. Therefore, it is intuitive that CHEST promote DI. Diversity encompasses differences in gender, race/ethnicity, vocational training, age, sexual orientation, thought processes, etc.

Academic medicine is rich with examples of how diversity is critical to the health of our nation:

– Diverse student populations have been shown to improve our learners’ satisfaction with their educational experience.

– Diverse teams have been shown to be more capable of solving complex problems than homogenous teams.

– Health care is moving toward a team-based, interprofessional model that values the contributions of a range of providers’ perspectives in improving patient outcomes.

– In biomedical research, investigators ask different research questions based on their own background and experiences. This implies that finding solutions to diseases that affect specific populations will require a diverse pool of biomedical researchers.

– Faculty diversity as a key component of excellence for medical education and research has been documented.

Diversity alone doesn’t drive inclusion. Noted diversity advocate, Verna Myers, stated, “Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.” In my opinion, diversity is the commencement of work, but inclusion helps complete the task.
 

Inclusion

An inclusive environment values the unique contributions all members bring. Teams with diversity of thought are more innovative as individual members with different backgrounds and points of view bring an extensive range of ideas and creativity to scientific discovery and decision-making processes. Inclusion leverages the power of our unique differences to accomplish our mutual goals. By valuing everyone’s perspective, we demonstrate excellence.

I recommend an article from the Harvard Business Review (HBR Feb 2017). The authors suggest several ways to promote inclusiveness: (1) ensuring team members speak up and are heard; (2) making it safe to propose novel ideas; (3) empowering team members to make decisions; (4) taking advice and implementing feedback; (5) giving actionable feedback; and ( 6) sharing credit for team success. If the team leader possesses at least three of these traits, 87% of team members say they feel welcome and included in their team; 87% say they feel free to express their views and opinions; and 74% say they feel that their ideas are heard and recognized. If the team leader possessed none of these traits, those percentages dropped to 51%, 46%, and 37%, respectively. I believe this concept is applicable in medicine also.

Sponsors

What can we do to advance diversity and inclusion individually and in our individual institutions? A sponsor is a senior level leader who advocates for key assignments, promotes for and puts his or her reputation on the line for the protégé’s advancement. This invigorates and drives engagement. One key to rising above the playing field for women and people of color is sponsorship. Being a sponsor does not mean one would recommend someone who is not qualified. It means one recommends or supports those who are capable of doing the job but would not otherwise be given the opportunity.

Ask yourself: Have I served as a sponsor? What would prevent me from being a sponsor? Do I believe in this concept?
 

Cause for Alarm

Numerous publications have recently discussed the crisis of the decline of black men entering medicine. In 1978, there were 1,410 black male applicants to medical school, and in 2014, there were 1,337. Additionally, the number of black male matriculants to medical school over more than 35 years has not surpassed the 1978 numbers. In 1978, there were 542 black male matriculants, and in 2014, there were 515 (J of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2017, 4:317-321). This report is thorough and insightful and illustrates the work that we must do to help improve this situation.

Dr. Marc Nivet, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Chief Diversity Officer, stated “No other minority group has experienced such declines. The inability to find, engage, and develop candidates for careers in medicine from all members of our society limits our ability to improve health care for all.” I recommend you read the 2015 AAMC publication entitled: Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine.
 

Health-care Disparities

Research suggests that the overall health of Americans has improved; however, disparities continue to persist among many populations within the United States. Racial and ethnic minority populations have poorer access to care and worse outcomes than their white counterparts. Approximately 20% of the nation living in rural areas is less likely than those living in urban areas to receive preventive care and more likely to experience language barriers.

Individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are likely to experience discrimination in health-care settings. These individuals often face insurance-based barriers and are less likely to have a usual source of care than patients who identify as straight.

A 2002 report by the Institute of Medicine entitled: Unequal Treatment: What Healthcare Providers Need to Know about Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare is revealing. Salient information reported is: It is generally accepted that a diverse workforce is a key component in the delivery of quality, competent care throughout the nation. Physicians from racial and ethnic backgrounds typically underrepresented in medicine are significantly more likely to practice primary care than white physicians and are more likely to practice in impoverished and medically underserved areas. Diversity in the physician workforce impacts the quality of care received by patients. Race concordance between patient and physician results in longer visits and increased patient satisfaction, and language concordance is positively associated with adherence to treatment among certain racial or ethnic groups.

Improving the patient experience or quality of care received also requires attention to education and training on cultural competence. By weaving together a diverse and culturally responsive pool of physicians working collaboratively with other health-care professionals, access and quality of care can improve throughout the nation.

CHEST cannot attain more racial diversity in our organization if we don’t have this diversity in medical education and training. This is why CHEST must be actively involved in addressing these issues.
 

Unconscious Bias

Despite many examples of how diversity enriches the quality of health care and health research, there is still much work to be done to address the human biases that impede our ability to benefit from diversity in medicine. While academic medicine has made progress toward addressing overt discrimination, unconscious bias (implicit bias) represents another threat. Unconscious bias describes the prejudices we don’t know we have. While unconscious biases vary from person to person, we all possess them. The existence of unconscious bias in academic medicine, while uncomfortable and unsettling, is a reality. The AAMC developed an unconscious bias learning lab for the health professions and produced an oft-cited video about addressing unconscious bias in the faculty advancement, promotion, and tenure process. We must consider this and other ways in which we can help promote the acknowledgment of unconscious bias. The CHEST staff have undergone unconscious bias training, and I recommend it for all faculty in academic medicine.
 

Summary

Diversity and inclusion in medicine is of paramount importance. It leads to better patient care and better trainee education and will decrease health-care disparities. Progress has been made, but there is more work to be done.

CHEST is supportive of these efforts and has worked on this previously and with a renewed push in the past 2 years with the DI Task Force initially and, now, the DI Roundtable, which has representatives from each of the standing committees, including the Board of Regents. This roundtable group will help advance the DI initiatives of the organization. I ask that each person reading this article consider what we as individuals can do in helping make DI in medicine a priority.



Dr. Haynes is Professor of Medicine at The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, MS. He is also the Executive Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine. At CHEST, he is a member of the training and transitions committee, executive scientific program committee, former chair of the diversity and inclusion task force, and is the current chair of the diversity and inclusion roundtable.
 

Diversity

There is growing appreciation for diversity and inclusion (DI) as drivers of excellence in medicine. CHEST also promotes excellence in medicine. Therefore, it is intuitive that CHEST promote DI. Diversity encompasses differences in gender, race/ethnicity, vocational training, age, sexual orientation, thought processes, etc.

Academic medicine is rich with examples of how diversity is critical to the health of our nation:

– Diverse student populations have been shown to improve our learners’ satisfaction with their educational experience.

– Diverse teams have been shown to be more capable of solving complex problems than homogenous teams.

– Health care is moving toward a team-based, interprofessional model that values the contributions of a range of providers’ perspectives in improving patient outcomes.

– In biomedical research, investigators ask different research questions based on their own background and experiences. This implies that finding solutions to diseases that affect specific populations will require a diverse pool of biomedical researchers.

– Faculty diversity as a key component of excellence for medical education and research has been documented.

Diversity alone doesn’t drive inclusion. Noted diversity advocate, Verna Myers, stated, “Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.” In my opinion, diversity is the commencement of work, but inclusion helps complete the task.
 

Inclusion

An inclusive environment values the unique contributions all members bring. Teams with diversity of thought are more innovative as individual members with different backgrounds and points of view bring an extensive range of ideas and creativity to scientific discovery and decision-making processes. Inclusion leverages the power of our unique differences to accomplish our mutual goals. By valuing everyone’s perspective, we demonstrate excellence.

I recommend an article from the Harvard Business Review (HBR Feb 2017). The authors suggest several ways to promote inclusiveness: (1) ensuring team members speak up and are heard; (2) making it safe to propose novel ideas; (3) empowering team members to make decisions; (4) taking advice and implementing feedback; (5) giving actionable feedback; and ( 6) sharing credit for team success. If the team leader possesses at least three of these traits, 87% of team members say they feel welcome and included in their team; 87% say they feel free to express their views and opinions; and 74% say they feel that their ideas are heard and recognized. If the team leader possessed none of these traits, those percentages dropped to 51%, 46%, and 37%, respectively. I believe this concept is applicable in medicine also.

Sponsors

What can we do to advance diversity and inclusion individually and in our individual institutions? A sponsor is a senior level leader who advocates for key assignments, promotes for and puts his or her reputation on the line for the protégé’s advancement. This invigorates and drives engagement. One key to rising above the playing field for women and people of color is sponsorship. Being a sponsor does not mean one would recommend someone who is not qualified. It means one recommends or supports those who are capable of doing the job but would not otherwise be given the opportunity.

Ask yourself: Have I served as a sponsor? What would prevent me from being a sponsor? Do I believe in this concept?
 

Cause for Alarm

Numerous publications have recently discussed the crisis of the decline of black men entering medicine. In 1978, there were 1,410 black male applicants to medical school, and in 2014, there were 1,337. Additionally, the number of black male matriculants to medical school over more than 35 years has not surpassed the 1978 numbers. In 1978, there were 542 black male matriculants, and in 2014, there were 515 (J of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2017, 4:317-321). This report is thorough and insightful and illustrates the work that we must do to help improve this situation.

Dr. Marc Nivet, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Chief Diversity Officer, stated “No other minority group has experienced such declines. The inability to find, engage, and develop candidates for careers in medicine from all members of our society limits our ability to improve health care for all.” I recommend you read the 2015 AAMC publication entitled: Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine.
 

Health-care Disparities

Research suggests that the overall health of Americans has improved; however, disparities continue to persist among many populations within the United States. Racial and ethnic minority populations have poorer access to care and worse outcomes than their white counterparts. Approximately 20% of the nation living in rural areas is less likely than those living in urban areas to receive preventive care and more likely to experience language barriers.

Individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are likely to experience discrimination in health-care settings. These individuals often face insurance-based barriers and are less likely to have a usual source of care than patients who identify as straight.

A 2002 report by the Institute of Medicine entitled: Unequal Treatment: What Healthcare Providers Need to Know about Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare is revealing. Salient information reported is: It is generally accepted that a diverse workforce is a key component in the delivery of quality, competent care throughout the nation. Physicians from racial and ethnic backgrounds typically underrepresented in medicine are significantly more likely to practice primary care than white physicians and are more likely to practice in impoverished and medically underserved areas. Diversity in the physician workforce impacts the quality of care received by patients. Race concordance between patient and physician results in longer visits and increased patient satisfaction, and language concordance is positively associated with adherence to treatment among certain racial or ethnic groups.

Improving the patient experience or quality of care received also requires attention to education and training on cultural competence. By weaving together a diverse and culturally responsive pool of physicians working collaboratively with other health-care professionals, access and quality of care can improve throughout the nation.

CHEST cannot attain more racial diversity in our organization if we don’t have this diversity in medical education and training. This is why CHEST must be actively involved in addressing these issues.
 

Unconscious Bias

Despite many examples of how diversity enriches the quality of health care and health research, there is still much work to be done to address the human biases that impede our ability to benefit from diversity in medicine. While academic medicine has made progress toward addressing overt discrimination, unconscious bias (implicit bias) represents another threat. Unconscious bias describes the prejudices we don’t know we have. While unconscious biases vary from person to person, we all possess them. The existence of unconscious bias in academic medicine, while uncomfortable and unsettling, is a reality. The AAMC developed an unconscious bias learning lab for the health professions and produced an oft-cited video about addressing unconscious bias in the faculty advancement, promotion, and tenure process. We must consider this and other ways in which we can help promote the acknowledgment of unconscious bias. The CHEST staff have undergone unconscious bias training, and I recommend it for all faculty in academic medicine.
 

Summary

Diversity and inclusion in medicine is of paramount importance. It leads to better patient care and better trainee education and will decrease health-care disparities. Progress has been made, but there is more work to be done.

CHEST is supportive of these efforts and has worked on this previously and with a renewed push in the past 2 years with the DI Task Force initially and, now, the DI Roundtable, which has representatives from each of the standing committees, including the Board of Regents. This roundtable group will help advance the DI initiatives of the organization. I ask that each person reading this article consider what we as individuals can do in helping make DI in medicine a priority.



Dr. Haynes is Professor of Medicine at The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, MS. He is also the Executive Vice Chair of the Department of Medicine. At CHEST, he is a member of the training and transitions committee, executive scientific program committee, former chair of the diversity and inclusion task force, and is the current chair of the diversity and inclusion roundtable.
 

The CHEST Foundation was recently designated as a Combined Federal Campaign-approved charity! The federal campaign started on September 10 and runs through January 11, 2019. If you are a federal employee organizing your workplace giving, you can easily choose the CHEST Foundation as your designated charity! Simply list our CFC number when designating your selected charity! CFC Number: 24565

To set up your CFC account, follow these easy steps outlined below:

1. Visit https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/welcome

2. From the welcome page, select “sign up now,” and fill out the required information if you do not have an account. If you do have an account, simply log in using the email address tied to your CFC account and your password, and skip to step 6.

3. After your account is set up, the CFC will send you an email to the address you provided along with a verification pin number. Select the “CLICK HERE to enter your PIN” option from the verification email, and enter the provided pin on the page provided by the link.

4. On the next page, you will create your security questions to log back into your account, should you lose your password. Select “Save Changes” at the bottom of the page when you are ready to move on.

5. Next, you’ll be asked to fill out some personal information about yourself as a donor, such as your full name, and which department of the federal government you work for. Choose “Save Changes” at the bottom of the page when you are done.

6. Upon completing the profile page (or logging into your account), you will be directed to the welcome page. Select the “Pledge Now” button, located in the center of the page.

7. The next page will ask you questions about the charity you would like to support. Enter the CHEST Foundation’s CFC number: 24565, and click “Search for Charities” to be directed to the next page.

8. Select the “add” button next to the CHEST Foundation’s listing. Then click the “checkout” button that appears in the pop-up window.

9. Fill out the requested information regarding your pledge amount, your pledge frequency, and your annual pledge amount, then select the “Continue with your pledge” option at the bottom of the page.

10. On this final page, you can review your pledge amount and review a brief attestation agreement. After reviewing, check the “I confirm” checkbox, then click “submit pledge.”

That’s it!

Thank you for supporting the CHEST Foundation’s mission-based programming supporting patient education materials, clinical research grants, and community service initiatives.


 

The CHEST Foundation was recently designated as a Combined Federal Campaign-approved charity! The federal campaign started on September 10 and runs through January 11, 2019. If you are a federal employee organizing your workplace giving, you can easily choose the CHEST Foundation as your designated charity! Simply list our CFC number when designating your selected charity! CFC Number: 24565

To set up your CFC account, follow these easy steps outlined below:

1. Visit https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/welcome

2. From the welcome page, select “sign up now,” and fill out the required information if you do not have an account. If you do have an account, simply log in using the email address tied to your CFC account and your password, and skip to step 6.

3. After your account is set up, the CFC will send you an email to the address you provided along with a verification pin number. Select the “CLICK HERE to enter your PIN” option from the verification email, and enter the provided pin on the page provided by the link.

4. On the next page, you will create your security questions to log back into your account, should you lose your password. Select “Save Changes” at the bottom of the page when you are ready to move on.

5. Next, you’ll be asked to fill out some personal information about yourself as a donor, such as your full name, and which department of the federal government you work for. Choose “Save Changes” at the bottom of the page when you are done.

6. Upon completing the profile page (or logging into your account), you will be directed to the welcome page. Select the “Pledge Now” button, located in the center of the page.

7. The next page will ask you questions about the charity you would like to support. Enter the CHEST Foundation’s CFC number: 24565, and click “Search for Charities” to be directed to the next page.

8. Select the “add” button next to the CHEST Foundation’s listing. Then click the “checkout” button that appears in the pop-up window.

9. Fill out the requested information regarding your pledge amount, your pledge frequency, and your annual pledge amount, then select the “Continue with your pledge” option at the bottom of the page.

10. On this final page, you can review your pledge amount and review a brief attestation agreement. After reviewing, check the “I confirm” checkbox, then click “submit pledge.”

That’s it!

Thank you for supporting the CHEST Foundation’s mission-based programming supporting patient education materials, clinical research grants, and community service initiatives.


 

The CHEST Foundation was recently designated as a Combined Federal Campaign-approved charity! The federal campaign started on September 10 and runs through January 11, 2019. If you are a federal employee organizing your workplace giving, you can easily choose the CHEST Foundation as your designated charity! Simply list our CFC number when designating your selected charity! CFC Number: 24565

To set up your CFC account, follow these easy steps outlined below:

1. Visit https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/welcome

2. From the welcome page, select “sign up now,” and fill out the required information if you do not have an account. If you do have an account, simply log in using the email address tied to your CFC account and your password, and skip to step 6.

3. After your account is set up, the CFC will send you an email to the address you provided along with a verification pin number. Select the “CLICK HERE to enter your PIN” option from the verification email, and enter the provided pin on the page provided by the link.

4. On the next page, you will create your security questions to log back into your account, should you lose your password. Select “Save Changes” at the bottom of the page when you are ready to move on.

5. Next, you’ll be asked to fill out some personal information about yourself as a donor, such as your full name, and which department of the federal government you work for. Choose “Save Changes” at the bottom of the page when you are done.

6. Upon completing the profile page (or logging into your account), you will be directed to the welcome page. Select the “Pledge Now” button, located in the center of the page.

7. The next page will ask you questions about the charity you would like to support. Enter the CHEST Foundation’s CFC number: 24565, and click “Search for Charities” to be directed to the next page.

8. Select the “add” button next to the CHEST Foundation’s listing. Then click the “checkout” button that appears in the pop-up window.

9. Fill out the requested information regarding your pledge amount, your pledge frequency, and your annual pledge amount, then select the “Continue with your pledge” option at the bottom of the page.

10. On this final page, you can review your pledge amount and review a brief attestation agreement. After reviewing, check the “I confirm” checkbox, then click “submit pledge.”

That’s it!

Thank you for supporting the CHEST Foundation’s mission-based programming supporting patient education materials, clinical research grants, and community service initiatives.


 

Older men have a higher risk than women of sustaining secondary fractures within a few years of their first fracture, but moderate physical activity may improve bone strength, potentially reducing their risk of fractures, according to two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research in Montreal.

The first study, a matched historical cohort of 57,783 people aged 50 or older (40,062 women and 17,721 men) in Manitoba, Canada, found that men had a threefold higher risk of sustaining a secondary major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) within 1 year of a first fracture, compared with healthy controls. The risk for women, by comparison, was 1.8 times higher than in age-matched controls who did not experience a fracture. These risks declined over time but remained elevated even as much as 15-25 years after the index fracture, according to primary investigator Suzanne N. Morin, MD, of the department of medicine at McGill University in Montreal.

“Often, men and clinicians don’t think men have skeletal fragility – everybody thinks it’s a women’s disease,” Dr. Morin said. “It’s true that it’s more frequent in women, but men do have osteoporosis, and often when they have it, they tend to have more serious complications following the fractures.” This includes higher risk of subsequent fractures and higher mortality, she said. “If you see an older gentleman with a fracture, it really should be some kind of an alarm signal.”

Using administrative health care databases, Dr. Morin and her colleagues reviewed records of patients who had an index MOF between 1989 and 2006. They compared rates of subsequent MOFs until 2016 with those of age- and sex-matched controls (n = 165,965), allowing for between 10 and 25 years of follow-up.

Researchers identified 29,694 index MOF cases (11,028 to the wrist, 9,313 to the hip, 5,799 to the humerus, and 3,554 to the spine). The annual crude rate of subsequent MOFs per 1,000 person-years was 18.5 in men (95% confidence interval, 17.3-19.8) and 29.6 in women (95% CI, 28.8-30.4). The cumulative incidence of subsequent MOFs up to 25 years later was higher in cases versus controls for both sexes and across all ages except those over 80.

Hazard ratios for subsequent MOFs were higher in men than women, particularly in the first year following the index fracture and remained very high for men during the first 3 years of follow-up. Across all follow-up years, men who had fractures were 2.5 times more likely to experience a secondary MOF (95% CI, 2.3-2.7) and women who had fractures were 1.6 times more likely to experience a secondary MOF (95% CI, 1.6-1.7), compared with controls.

To prevent fractures, clinicians should consider gait or balance training for older men and women, especially those who already have experienced a fracture, Dr. Morin said. Physicians also should note any medications such as sedatives that put patients at higher risk for falls and consider medications like bisphosphonates to reduce fracture risk. Additionally, they should ensure there are no underlying causes for skeletal fragility, such as severe vitamin D deficiency or a hormonal imbalance, she said.
 

Physical activity could reduce risk

In a second, unrelated study, researchers found that moderate physical activity may have a modest effect on bone strength in older men, accounting for up to a 20% lower fracture risk, according to Lisa Langsetmo, PhD, primary investigator and a senior research associate at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She and her colleagues studied physical activity and bone strength in 994 older men (mean age 83.9) participating in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study, a longitudinal, observational study of musculoskeletal health in older American men that initially enrolled about 6,000 participants.

Participants wore armband activity monitors for 5 days during their year-7 and year-14 assessments; investigators averaged their physical activity over the two time points and used armband data along with factors like height, weight, and smoking status to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE), total steps per day, and level of activity, from sedentary to at least moderate. The men also underwent bone microarchitecture assessments of the distal radius and tibia using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), a technique that produces detailed pictures of the bones. Investigators used mathematical models to predict failure load, or the force required to break a bone – a predictor of osteoporotic fractures in men. They also computed total, cortical, and trabecular volumetric bone mineral density (BMD).

Overall, researchers found that time spent doing at least moderate activity versus time spent in sedentary activity was related to better bone strength at both sites, whereas time spent in light activity was not. The results suggest that at least moderate physical activity such as vigorous walking averaged over a period of time may have a modest effect on bone strength among older men, Dr. Langsetmo said.

“This is important for older men,” she said. “They may not be able to jog any more but they may be able to do more moderate activity.” Physicians should ask older male patients about their activity levels and any barriers to activity, or consider a referral to a physical therapist to keep them active, she said.

Higher TEE, step count, and peak 30-minute cadence (P30MC), a measure of vigorous activity, were each associated with higher failure load of the distal radius (effect size 0.08-0.13) but not higher volumetric or compartment-specific BMD. These measures also were associated with higher failure load of the distal tibia (effect size 0.19-0.21), higher volumetric BMD (effect size 0.08-0.15), higher trabecular BMD (effect size 0.07-0.11), and higher cortical BMD (0.09-0.13).

The first study was funded internally; Manitoba Health provided the data. The second study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Morin and Dr. Langsetmo reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Older men have a higher risk than women of sustaining secondary fractures within a few years of their first fracture, but moderate physical activity may improve bone strength, potentially reducing their risk of fractures, according to two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research in Montreal.

The first study, a matched historical cohort of 57,783 people aged 50 or older (40,062 women and 17,721 men) in Manitoba, Canada, found that men had a threefold higher risk of sustaining a secondary major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) within 1 year of a first fracture, compared with healthy controls. The risk for women, by comparison, was 1.8 times higher than in age-matched controls who did not experience a fracture. These risks declined over time but remained elevated even as much as 15-25 years after the index fracture, according to primary investigator Suzanne N. Morin, MD, of the department of medicine at McGill University in Montreal.

“Often, men and clinicians don’t think men have skeletal fragility – everybody thinks it’s a women’s disease,” Dr. Morin said. “It’s true that it’s more frequent in women, but men do have osteoporosis, and often when they have it, they tend to have more serious complications following the fractures.” This includes higher risk of subsequent fractures and higher mortality, she said. “If you see an older gentleman with a fracture, it really should be some kind of an alarm signal.”

Using administrative health care databases, Dr. Morin and her colleagues reviewed records of patients who had an index MOF between 1989 and 2006. They compared rates of subsequent MOFs until 2016 with those of age- and sex-matched controls (n = 165,965), allowing for between 10 and 25 years of follow-up.

Researchers identified 29,694 index MOF cases (11,028 to the wrist, 9,313 to the hip, 5,799 to the humerus, and 3,554 to the spine). The annual crude rate of subsequent MOFs per 1,000 person-years was 18.5 in men (95% confidence interval, 17.3-19.8) and 29.6 in women (95% CI, 28.8-30.4). The cumulative incidence of subsequent MOFs up to 25 years later was higher in cases versus controls for both sexes and across all ages except those over 80.

Hazard ratios for subsequent MOFs were higher in men than women, particularly in the first year following the index fracture and remained very high for men during the first 3 years of follow-up. Across all follow-up years, men who had fractures were 2.5 times more likely to experience a secondary MOF (95% CI, 2.3-2.7) and women who had fractures were 1.6 times more likely to experience a secondary MOF (95% CI, 1.6-1.7), compared with controls.

To prevent fractures, clinicians should consider gait or balance training for older men and women, especially those who already have experienced a fracture, Dr. Morin said. Physicians also should note any medications such as sedatives that put patients at higher risk for falls and consider medications like bisphosphonates to reduce fracture risk. Additionally, they should ensure there are no underlying causes for skeletal fragility, such as severe vitamin D deficiency or a hormonal imbalance, she said.
 

Physical activity could reduce risk

In a second, unrelated study, researchers found that moderate physical activity may have a modest effect on bone strength in older men, accounting for up to a 20% lower fracture risk, according to Lisa Langsetmo, PhD, primary investigator and a senior research associate at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She and her colleagues studied physical activity and bone strength in 994 older men (mean age 83.9) participating in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study, a longitudinal, observational study of musculoskeletal health in older American men that initially enrolled about 6,000 participants.

Participants wore armband activity monitors for 5 days during their year-7 and year-14 assessments; investigators averaged their physical activity over the two time points and used armband data along with factors like height, weight, and smoking status to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE), total steps per day, and level of activity, from sedentary to at least moderate. The men also underwent bone microarchitecture assessments of the distal radius and tibia using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), a technique that produces detailed pictures of the bones. Investigators used mathematical models to predict failure load, or the force required to break a bone – a predictor of osteoporotic fractures in men. They also computed total, cortical, and trabecular volumetric bone mineral density (BMD).

Overall, researchers found that time spent doing at least moderate activity versus time spent in sedentary activity was related to better bone strength at both sites, whereas time spent in light activity was not. The results suggest that at least moderate physical activity such as vigorous walking averaged over a period of time may have a modest effect on bone strength among older men, Dr. Langsetmo said.

“This is important for older men,” she said. “They may not be able to jog any more but they may be able to do more moderate activity.” Physicians should ask older male patients about their activity levels and any barriers to activity, or consider a referral to a physical therapist to keep them active, she said.

Higher TEE, step count, and peak 30-minute cadence (P30MC), a measure of vigorous activity, were each associated with higher failure load of the distal radius (effect size 0.08-0.13) but not higher volumetric or compartment-specific BMD. These measures also were associated with higher failure load of the distal tibia (effect size 0.19-0.21), higher volumetric BMD (effect size 0.08-0.15), higher trabecular BMD (effect size 0.07-0.11), and higher cortical BMD (0.09-0.13).

The first study was funded internally; Manitoba Health provided the data. The second study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Morin and Dr. Langsetmo reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Older men have a higher risk than women of sustaining secondary fractures within a few years of their first fracture, but moderate physical activity may improve bone strength, potentially reducing their risk of fractures, according to two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research in Montreal.

The first study, a matched historical cohort of 57,783 people aged 50 or older (40,062 women and 17,721 men) in Manitoba, Canada, found that men had a threefold higher risk of sustaining a secondary major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) within 1 year of a first fracture, compared with healthy controls. The risk for women, by comparison, was 1.8 times higher than in age-matched controls who did not experience a fracture. These risks declined over time but remained elevated even as much as 15-25 years after the index fracture, according to primary investigator Suzanne N. Morin, MD, of the department of medicine at McGill University in Montreal.

“Often, men and clinicians don’t think men have skeletal fragility – everybody thinks it’s a women’s disease,” Dr. Morin said. “It’s true that it’s more frequent in women, but men do have osteoporosis, and often when they have it, they tend to have more serious complications following the fractures.” This includes higher risk of subsequent fractures and higher mortality, she said. “If you see an older gentleman with a fracture, it really should be some kind of an alarm signal.”

Using administrative health care databases, Dr. Morin and her colleagues reviewed records of patients who had an index MOF between 1989 and 2006. They compared rates of subsequent MOFs until 2016 with those of age- and sex-matched controls (n = 165,965), allowing for between 10 and 25 years of follow-up.

Researchers identified 29,694 index MOF cases (11,028 to the wrist, 9,313 to the hip, 5,799 to the humerus, and 3,554 to the spine). The annual crude rate of subsequent MOFs per 1,000 person-years was 18.5 in men (95% confidence interval, 17.3-19.8) and 29.6 in women (95% CI, 28.8-30.4). The cumulative incidence of subsequent MOFs up to 25 years later was higher in cases versus controls for both sexes and across all ages except those over 80.

Hazard ratios for subsequent MOFs were higher in men than women, particularly in the first year following the index fracture and remained very high for men during the first 3 years of follow-up. Across all follow-up years, men who had fractures were 2.5 times more likely to experience a secondary MOF (95% CI, 2.3-2.7) and women who had fractures were 1.6 times more likely to experience a secondary MOF (95% CI, 1.6-1.7), compared with controls.

To prevent fractures, clinicians should consider gait or balance training for older men and women, especially those who already have experienced a fracture, Dr. Morin said. Physicians also should note any medications such as sedatives that put patients at higher risk for falls and consider medications like bisphosphonates to reduce fracture risk. Additionally, they should ensure there are no underlying causes for skeletal fragility, such as severe vitamin D deficiency or a hormonal imbalance, she said.
 

Physical activity could reduce risk

In a second, unrelated study, researchers found that moderate physical activity may have a modest effect on bone strength in older men, accounting for up to a 20% lower fracture risk, according to Lisa Langsetmo, PhD, primary investigator and a senior research associate at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She and her colleagues studied physical activity and bone strength in 994 older men (mean age 83.9) participating in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study, a longitudinal, observational study of musculoskeletal health in older American men that initially enrolled about 6,000 participants.

Participants wore armband activity monitors for 5 days during their year-7 and year-14 assessments; investigators averaged their physical activity over the two time points and used armband data along with factors like height, weight, and smoking status to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE), total steps per day, and level of activity, from sedentary to at least moderate. The men also underwent bone microarchitecture assessments of the distal radius and tibia using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), a technique that produces detailed pictures of the bones. Investigators used mathematical models to predict failure load, or the force required to break a bone – a predictor of osteoporotic fractures in men. They also computed total, cortical, and trabecular volumetric bone mineral density (BMD).

Overall, researchers found that time spent doing at least moderate activity versus time spent in sedentary activity was related to better bone strength at both sites, whereas time spent in light activity was not. The results suggest that at least moderate physical activity such as vigorous walking averaged over a period of time may have a modest effect on bone strength among older men, Dr. Langsetmo said.

“This is important for older men,” she said. “They may not be able to jog any more but they may be able to do more moderate activity.” Physicians should ask older male patients about their activity levels and any barriers to activity, or consider a referral to a physical therapist to keep them active, she said.

Higher TEE, step count, and peak 30-minute cadence (P30MC), a measure of vigorous activity, were each associated with higher failure load of the distal radius (effect size 0.08-0.13) but not higher volumetric or compartment-specific BMD. These measures also were associated with higher failure load of the distal tibia (effect size 0.19-0.21), higher volumetric BMD (effect size 0.08-0.15), higher trabecular BMD (effect size 0.07-0.11), and higher cortical BMD (0.09-0.13).

The first study was funded internally; Manitoba Health provided the data. The second study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Morin and Dr. Langsetmo reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Most obese adolescents first became obese between the ages of 2 and 6 years, based on data from approximately 50,000 children in Germany.

iStockphoto

Identifying periods of weight gain in childhood can help develop intervention and prevention strategies to reduce the risk of obesity in adolescence, wrote Mandy Geserick, MSc, of the University of Leipzig, Germany, and her colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To assess the timing of weight gain in early childhood, the researchers reviewed data from a German patient registry designed to monitor growth data. The study population included 51,505 children who had at least one visit to a pediatrician between birth and age 14 years and a second visit between age 15 and 19 years.

Overall, the probability of being overweight or obese in adolescence was 29% among children who gained more weight in the preschool years, between the ages of 2 and 6 years (defined as a change in body mass index [BMI] of 0.2 or more to less than 2.0), compared with 20% among children whose preschool weight remained stable (defined as a change in BMI of more than −0.2 to less than 0.2) – a relative risk of 1.43.

“A total of 83% of the children with obesity at the age of 4 were overweight or obese in adolescence, and only 17% returned to a normal weight,” they wrote. In addition, 44% of children who were born large for gestational age were overweight or obese in adolescence.

“A practical clinical implication of our study results would be surveillance for BMI acceleration, which should be recognized before 6 years of age, even in the absence of obesity,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the variation in the number of visits, the lack of data on many children beyond the age of 14 years, and the lack of data on parental weight and perinatal risk factors associated with obesity, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design, and support the study hypothesis that obesity develops in early childhood and, once present, persists into adolescence.

“The specific dynamics and patterns of BMI in this early childhood period, rather than the absolute BMI, appear to be important factors in identifying children at risk for obesity later in life,” the researchers wrote. “It is therefore important for health care professionals, educational staff, and parents to become more sensitive to this critical time period.”

The study was supported by the German Research Council for the Clinical Research Center; the Federal Ministry of Education and Research; and the University of Leipzig, which was supported by the European Union, the European Regional Development Fund, and the Free State of Saxony within the framework of the excellence initiative. The CrescNet registry infrastructure was supported by grants from Hexal, Novo Nordisk, Merck Serono, Lilly Deutschland, Pfizer, and Ipsen Pharma. Dr. Geserick had no financial conflicts to report.

SOURCE: Geserick M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803527.

Most obese adolescents first became obese between the ages of 2 and 6 years, based on data from approximately 50,000 children in Germany.

iStockphoto

Identifying periods of weight gain in childhood can help develop intervention and prevention strategies to reduce the risk of obesity in adolescence, wrote Mandy Geserick, MSc, of the University of Leipzig, Germany, and her colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To assess the timing of weight gain in early childhood, the researchers reviewed data from a German patient registry designed to monitor growth data. The study population included 51,505 children who had at least one visit to a pediatrician between birth and age 14 years and a second visit between age 15 and 19 years.

Overall, the probability of being overweight or obese in adolescence was 29% among children who gained more weight in the preschool years, between the ages of 2 and 6 years (defined as a change in body mass index [BMI] of 0.2 or more to less than 2.0), compared with 20% among children whose preschool weight remained stable (defined as a change in BMI of more than −0.2 to less than 0.2) – a relative risk of 1.43.

“A total of 83% of the children with obesity at the age of 4 were overweight or obese in adolescence, and only 17% returned to a normal weight,” they wrote. In addition, 44% of children who were born large for gestational age were overweight or obese in adolescence.

“A practical clinical implication of our study results would be surveillance for BMI acceleration, which should be recognized before 6 years of age, even in the absence of obesity,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the variation in the number of visits, the lack of data on many children beyond the age of 14 years, and the lack of data on parental weight and perinatal risk factors associated with obesity, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design, and support the study hypothesis that obesity develops in early childhood and, once present, persists into adolescence.

“The specific dynamics and patterns of BMI in this early childhood period, rather than the absolute BMI, appear to be important factors in identifying children at risk for obesity later in life,” the researchers wrote. “It is therefore important for health care professionals, educational staff, and parents to become more sensitive to this critical time period.”

The study was supported by the German Research Council for the Clinical Research Center; the Federal Ministry of Education and Research; and the University of Leipzig, which was supported by the European Union, the European Regional Development Fund, and the Free State of Saxony within the framework of the excellence initiative. The CrescNet registry infrastructure was supported by grants from Hexal, Novo Nordisk, Merck Serono, Lilly Deutschland, Pfizer, and Ipsen Pharma. Dr. Geserick had no financial conflicts to report.

SOURCE: Geserick M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803527.

Most obese adolescents first became obese between the ages of 2 and 6 years, based on data from approximately 50,000 children in Germany.

iStockphoto

Identifying periods of weight gain in childhood can help develop intervention and prevention strategies to reduce the risk of obesity in adolescence, wrote Mandy Geserick, MSc, of the University of Leipzig, Germany, and her colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To assess the timing of weight gain in early childhood, the researchers reviewed data from a German patient registry designed to monitor growth data. The study population included 51,505 children who had at least one visit to a pediatrician between birth and age 14 years and a second visit between age 15 and 19 years.

Overall, the probability of being overweight or obese in adolescence was 29% among children who gained more weight in the preschool years, between the ages of 2 and 6 years (defined as a change in body mass index [BMI] of 0.2 or more to less than 2.0), compared with 20% among children whose preschool weight remained stable (defined as a change in BMI of more than −0.2 to less than 0.2) – a relative risk of 1.43.

“A total of 83% of the children with obesity at the age of 4 were overweight or obese in adolescence, and only 17% returned to a normal weight,” they wrote. In addition, 44% of children who were born large for gestational age were overweight or obese in adolescence.

“A practical clinical implication of our study results would be surveillance for BMI acceleration, which should be recognized before 6 years of age, even in the absence of obesity,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the variation in the number of visits, the lack of data on many children beyond the age of 14 years, and the lack of data on parental weight and perinatal risk factors associated with obesity, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design, and support the study hypothesis that obesity develops in early childhood and, once present, persists into adolescence.

“The specific dynamics and patterns of BMI in this early childhood period, rather than the absolute BMI, appear to be important factors in identifying children at risk for obesity later in life,” the researchers wrote. “It is therefore important for health care professionals, educational staff, and parents to become more sensitive to this critical time period.”

The study was supported by the German Research Council for the Clinical Research Center; the Federal Ministry of Education and Research; and the University of Leipzig, which was supported by the European Union, the European Regional Development Fund, and the Free State of Saxony within the framework of the excellence initiative. The CrescNet registry infrastructure was supported by grants from Hexal, Novo Nordisk, Merck Serono, Lilly Deutschland, Pfizer, and Ipsen Pharma. Dr. Geserick had no financial conflicts to report.

SOURCE: Geserick M et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803527.

Recommended Resources:

• WomanLab.org
• Scientific Network on Female Sexual Health and Cancer

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Recommended Resources:

• WomanLab.org
• Scientific Network on Female Sexual Health and Cancer

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Recommended Resources:

• WomanLab.org
• Scientific Network on Female Sexual Health and Cancer

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Autologous treatment with injected platelet-rich plasma (PRP) yielded substantial improvement in hair count and shaft thickness in patients with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) after three monthly treatments, in a study that compared two treatment regimens.

PRP is gaining popularity because of its efficacy in stimulating fibroblast proliferation, triggering the production of collagen and elastin, and boosting the quantity and quality of the extracellular matrix, noted the investigators, Amelia K. Hausauer, MD, in private practice in Campbell, Calif., and Derek H. Jones, MD, in private practice in Los Angeles. Both are also with the department of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

They undertook this study to determine the optimal number and timing of treatments in patients with AGA, comparing two different injection protocols over a 6-month period. The study evaluated 40 healthy men (30) and women (10), whose mean age was 44 years, with AGA stages Norwood-Hamilton II-V (in men) and Ludwig I2-II1 (in women), recruited from a private practice in Los Angeles between November 2016 and January 2017. They were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: three monthly sessions followed by a fourth injection 3 months later (group 1), or two treatments, one at baseline and the second 3 months later (group 2). One of the men dropped out for reasons unrelated to the treatment.

Those with clinically stable effects of Food and Drug Administration–approved AGA treatments for 12 months were permitted to participate while continuing those treatments (topical minoxidil and/or oral finasteride), since PRP is often coadministered with other therapies. But additional products, devices, or medications used for hair regrowth were not allowed. The washout period for antiandrogen therapies was 90 days.

At 3 months, the mean increase in hair counts was significant in the first group only, but at 6 months, both groups experienced significant increases in hair count (P less than .001). However, those in the first group had superior results at 6 months, with a mean 30% increase in hair counts from baseline, compared with a 7% increase in the second group (P less than .001).

Both groups had significant increases in the mean hair shaft caliber at 3 and 6 months.

Overall, 82% of participants who completed treatment reported being satisfied or highly satisfied, and 72% expressed interest in continuing treatment after the study period; almost two-thirds considered the procedure “tolerable.”

While the authors stipulated that they did not undertake the study primarily to predict treatment response to PRP, they uncovered some significant trends that they said warranted further evaluation, including the finding that those who had experienced hair loss for less than 5-6 years were more likely to have rapid and pronounced treatment response.

Their overall findings correlated with those of previous studies supporting the increase in density of hair or hair numbers, but the existing literature draws from studies that have been open label or unblinded, which makes it difficult to evaluate them head to head. The novel, subdermal injection technique used in the study “allows for fewer, more widely spaced injection points than the traditional nappage procedure ... because PRP can diffuse further once in the deeper, subgaleal space,” they wrote. The investigators noted similar response between men and women, which is important given sparse data on the efficacy of PRP in women.

Weaknesses of the study included its small sample size and short follow-up period, the authors noted. Longer-duration studies have reported relapse between 3 and 12 months.

This study is the first of its kind to directly compare efficacy rates of two injection protocols, the authors wrote, cautioning that future studies are necessary to “fine-tune preparation methods, determine optimal maintenance schedule(s), and parse out clinical predictors of efficacy.”

Eclipse Aesthetics (the manufacturer of the PRP preparation kits) provided funding for this study, but the authors acknowledged no significant interest with commercial supporters.

SOURCE: Hausauer A et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Sep;44(9):1191-200.

Autologous treatment with injected platelet-rich plasma (PRP) yielded substantial improvement in hair count and shaft thickness in patients with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) after three monthly treatments, in a study that compared two treatment regimens.

PRP is gaining popularity because of its efficacy in stimulating fibroblast proliferation, triggering the production of collagen and elastin, and boosting the quantity and quality of the extracellular matrix, noted the investigators, Amelia K. Hausauer, MD, in private practice in Campbell, Calif., and Derek H. Jones, MD, in private practice in Los Angeles. Both are also with the department of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

They undertook this study to determine the optimal number and timing of treatments in patients with AGA, comparing two different injection protocols over a 6-month period. The study evaluated 40 healthy men (30) and women (10), whose mean age was 44 years, with AGA stages Norwood-Hamilton II-V (in men) and Ludwig I2-II1 (in women), recruited from a private practice in Los Angeles between November 2016 and January 2017. They were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: three monthly sessions followed by a fourth injection 3 months later (group 1), or two treatments, one at baseline and the second 3 months later (group 2). One of the men dropped out for reasons unrelated to the treatment.

Those with clinically stable effects of Food and Drug Administration–approved AGA treatments for 12 months were permitted to participate while continuing those treatments (topical minoxidil and/or oral finasteride), since PRP is often coadministered with other therapies. But additional products, devices, or medications used for hair regrowth were not allowed. The washout period for antiandrogen therapies was 90 days.

At 3 months, the mean increase in hair counts was significant in the first group only, but at 6 months, both groups experienced significant increases in hair count (P less than .001). However, those in the first group had superior results at 6 months, with a mean 30% increase in hair counts from baseline, compared with a 7% increase in the second group (P less than .001).

Both groups had significant increases in the mean hair shaft caliber at 3 and 6 months.

Overall, 82% of participants who completed treatment reported being satisfied or highly satisfied, and 72% expressed interest in continuing treatment after the study period; almost two-thirds considered the procedure “tolerable.”

While the authors stipulated that they did not undertake the study primarily to predict treatment response to PRP, they uncovered some significant trends that they said warranted further evaluation, including the finding that those who had experienced hair loss for less than 5-6 years were more likely to have rapid and pronounced treatment response.

Their overall findings correlated with those of previous studies supporting the increase in density of hair or hair numbers, but the existing literature draws from studies that have been open label or unblinded, which makes it difficult to evaluate them head to head. The novel, subdermal injection technique used in the study “allows for fewer, more widely spaced injection points than the traditional nappage procedure ... because PRP can diffuse further once in the deeper, subgaleal space,” they wrote. The investigators noted similar response between men and women, which is important given sparse data on the efficacy of PRP in women.

Weaknesses of the study included its small sample size and short follow-up period, the authors noted. Longer-duration studies have reported relapse between 3 and 12 months.

This study is the first of its kind to directly compare efficacy rates of two injection protocols, the authors wrote, cautioning that future studies are necessary to “fine-tune preparation methods, determine optimal maintenance schedule(s), and parse out clinical predictors of efficacy.”

Eclipse Aesthetics (the manufacturer of the PRP preparation kits) provided funding for this study, but the authors acknowledged no significant interest with commercial supporters.

SOURCE: Hausauer A et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Sep;44(9):1191-200.

Autologous treatment with injected platelet-rich plasma (PRP) yielded substantial improvement in hair count and shaft thickness in patients with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) after three monthly treatments, in a study that compared two treatment regimens.

PRP is gaining popularity because of its efficacy in stimulating fibroblast proliferation, triggering the production of collagen and elastin, and boosting the quantity and quality of the extracellular matrix, noted the investigators, Amelia K. Hausauer, MD, in private practice in Campbell, Calif., and Derek H. Jones, MD, in private practice in Los Angeles. Both are also with the department of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

They undertook this study to determine the optimal number and timing of treatments in patients with AGA, comparing two different injection protocols over a 6-month period. The study evaluated 40 healthy men (30) and women (10), whose mean age was 44 years, with AGA stages Norwood-Hamilton II-V (in men) and Ludwig I2-II1 (in women), recruited from a private practice in Los Angeles between November 2016 and January 2017. They were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: three monthly sessions followed by a fourth injection 3 months later (group 1), or two treatments, one at baseline and the second 3 months later (group 2). One of the men dropped out for reasons unrelated to the treatment.

Those with clinically stable effects of Food and Drug Administration–approved AGA treatments for 12 months were permitted to participate while continuing those treatments (topical minoxidil and/or oral finasteride), since PRP is often coadministered with other therapies. But additional products, devices, or medications used for hair regrowth were not allowed. The washout period for antiandrogen therapies was 90 days.

At 3 months, the mean increase in hair counts was significant in the first group only, but at 6 months, both groups experienced significant increases in hair count (P less than .001). However, those in the first group had superior results at 6 months, with a mean 30% increase in hair counts from baseline, compared with a 7% increase in the second group (P less than .001).

Both groups had significant increases in the mean hair shaft caliber at 3 and 6 months.

Overall, 82% of participants who completed treatment reported being satisfied or highly satisfied, and 72% expressed interest in continuing treatment after the study period; almost two-thirds considered the procedure “tolerable.”

While the authors stipulated that they did not undertake the study primarily to predict treatment response to PRP, they uncovered some significant trends that they said warranted further evaluation, including the finding that those who had experienced hair loss for less than 5-6 years were more likely to have rapid and pronounced treatment response.

Their overall findings correlated with those of previous studies supporting the increase in density of hair or hair numbers, but the existing literature draws from studies that have been open label or unblinded, which makes it difficult to evaluate them head to head. The novel, subdermal injection technique used in the study “allows for fewer, more widely spaced injection points than the traditional nappage procedure ... because PRP can diffuse further once in the deeper, subgaleal space,” they wrote. The investigators noted similar response between men and women, which is important given sparse data on the efficacy of PRP in women.

Weaknesses of the study included its small sample size and short follow-up period, the authors noted. Longer-duration studies have reported relapse between 3 and 12 months.

This study is the first of its kind to directly compare efficacy rates of two injection protocols, the authors wrote, cautioning that future studies are necessary to “fine-tune preparation methods, determine optimal maintenance schedule(s), and parse out clinical predictors of efficacy.”

Eclipse Aesthetics (the manufacturer of the PRP preparation kits) provided funding for this study, but the authors acknowledged no significant interest with commercial supporters.

SOURCE: Hausauer A et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Sep;44(9):1191-200.

Adolescents who use e-cigarettes are more likely to progress to smoking cigarettes, and are likely to continue using both products at once instead of substituting one for the other, according to research published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

“Our work provides more evidence that young people who use e-cigarettes progress to smoking cigarettes in the future,” Michael S. Dunbar, PhD, a behavioral scientist at the RAND Corp. stated in a press release. “This study also suggests that teens don’t substitute vaping products for cigarettes. Instead, they go on to use both products more frequently as they get older.”

Dr. Dunbar and his colleagues followed 2,039 adolescents aged 16-20 years who were originally enrolled in a Los Angeles–based substance use prevention program in sixth and seventh grade (2008) and completed annual Web-based surveys during 2015-2017 on their use of e-cigarettes (EC), cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. They also answered questions about their mental health with questions about anxiety and depression. The researchers used two models to measures associations between different factors.

The first model showed an association between EC and cigarette use. Then other factors, such as alcohol use, were introduced. Alcohol use was associated with increased cigarette use, and cigarette use was associated with increased use of alcohol. When introducing marijuana as a factor, associations remained between cigarette use and EC use, with higher EC use associated with greater marijuana use and vice versa. Greater cigarette use, however, was not predictive of later marijuana use. There was no association between EC use and mental health, but more cigarette use was associated with poorer mental health.

Under the second model, there was a moderate to strong association between EC use and cigarette use, and participants with greater EC use and greater cigarette use also reported higher alcohol use. There also was a significant between-person association with higher EC use, cigarette use, and marijuana use. There was a small negative association between mental health and cigarette use, but not with mental health and EC use,the researchers said.

“For young people, using these products may actually lead to more harm in the long run,” Dr. Dunbar said in the press release. “This highlights the importance of taking steps to prevent youth from vaping in the first place. One way to do this could be to limit e-cigarette and other tobacco advertising in kid-accessible spaces.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Dunbar MS et al. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Oct 3. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty179.

Adolescents who use e-cigarettes are more likely to progress to smoking cigarettes, and are likely to continue using both products at once instead of substituting one for the other, according to research published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

“Our work provides more evidence that young people who use e-cigarettes progress to smoking cigarettes in the future,” Michael S. Dunbar, PhD, a behavioral scientist at the RAND Corp. stated in a press release. “This study also suggests that teens don’t substitute vaping products for cigarettes. Instead, they go on to use both products more frequently as they get older.”

Dr. Dunbar and his colleagues followed 2,039 adolescents aged 16-20 years who were originally enrolled in a Los Angeles–based substance use prevention program in sixth and seventh grade (2008) and completed annual Web-based surveys during 2015-2017 on their use of e-cigarettes (EC), cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. They also answered questions about their mental health with questions about anxiety and depression. The researchers used two models to measures associations between different factors.

The first model showed an association between EC and cigarette use. Then other factors, such as alcohol use, were introduced. Alcohol use was associated with increased cigarette use, and cigarette use was associated with increased use of alcohol. When introducing marijuana as a factor, associations remained between cigarette use and EC use, with higher EC use associated with greater marijuana use and vice versa. Greater cigarette use, however, was not predictive of later marijuana use. There was no association between EC use and mental health, but more cigarette use was associated with poorer mental health.

Under the second model, there was a moderate to strong association between EC use and cigarette use, and participants with greater EC use and greater cigarette use also reported higher alcohol use. There also was a significant between-person association with higher EC use, cigarette use, and marijuana use. There was a small negative association between mental health and cigarette use, but not with mental health and EC use,the researchers said.

“For young people, using these products may actually lead to more harm in the long run,” Dr. Dunbar said in the press release. “This highlights the importance of taking steps to prevent youth from vaping in the first place. One way to do this could be to limit e-cigarette and other tobacco advertising in kid-accessible spaces.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Dunbar MS et al. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Oct 3. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty179.

Adolescents who use e-cigarettes are more likely to progress to smoking cigarettes, and are likely to continue using both products at once instead of substituting one for the other, according to research published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

“Our work provides more evidence that young people who use e-cigarettes progress to smoking cigarettes in the future,” Michael S. Dunbar, PhD, a behavioral scientist at the RAND Corp. stated in a press release. “This study also suggests that teens don’t substitute vaping products for cigarettes. Instead, they go on to use both products more frequently as they get older.”

Dr. Dunbar and his colleagues followed 2,039 adolescents aged 16-20 years who were originally enrolled in a Los Angeles–based substance use prevention program in sixth and seventh grade (2008) and completed annual Web-based surveys during 2015-2017 on their use of e-cigarettes (EC), cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. They also answered questions about their mental health with questions about anxiety and depression. The researchers used two models to measures associations between different factors.

The first model showed an association between EC and cigarette use. Then other factors, such as alcohol use, were introduced. Alcohol use was associated with increased cigarette use, and cigarette use was associated with increased use of alcohol. When introducing marijuana as a factor, associations remained between cigarette use and EC use, with higher EC use associated with greater marijuana use and vice versa. Greater cigarette use, however, was not predictive of later marijuana use. There was no association between EC use and mental health, but more cigarette use was associated with poorer mental health.

Under the second model, there was a moderate to strong association between EC use and cigarette use, and participants with greater EC use and greater cigarette use also reported higher alcohol use. There also was a significant between-person association with higher EC use, cigarette use, and marijuana use. There was a small negative association between mental health and cigarette use, but not with mental health and EC use,the researchers said.

“For young people, using these products may actually lead to more harm in the long run,” Dr. Dunbar said in the press release. “This highlights the importance of taking steps to prevent youth from vaping in the first place. One way to do this could be to limit e-cigarette and other tobacco advertising in kid-accessible spaces.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Dunbar MS et al. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Oct 3. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty179.

SAN DIEGO – The rule-in cutoff level for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin measures in the diagnosis of acute MI have been established by the European Society of Cardiology, but the value might not be applicable to a U.S. population.

In a video interview at the annual scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Richard M. Nowak, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, explains why the rule-in cutoff is not likely to apply to American patients and may be associated with a higher risk of false positives.

Since high-sensitivity troponin measures will soon be coming to every ED, each institution may have to arrive at their own rule-in cutoff value in order to diagnose acute MI with an acceptable number of false positives, he said. Dr. Nowak explains how to begin addressing that process.

SAN DIEGO – The rule-in cutoff level for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin measures in the diagnosis of acute MI have been established by the European Society of Cardiology, but the value might not be applicable to a U.S. population.

In a video interview at the annual scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Richard M. Nowak, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, explains why the rule-in cutoff is not likely to apply to American patients and may be associated with a higher risk of false positives.

Since high-sensitivity troponin measures will soon be coming to every ED, each institution may have to arrive at their own rule-in cutoff value in order to diagnose acute MI with an acceptable number of false positives, he said. Dr. Nowak explains how to begin addressing that process.

SAN DIEGO – The rule-in cutoff level for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin measures in the diagnosis of acute MI have been established by the European Society of Cardiology, but the value might not be applicable to a U.S. population.

In a video interview at the annual scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Richard M. Nowak, MD, of the department of emergency medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, explains why the rule-in cutoff is not likely to apply to American patients and may be associated with a higher risk of false positives.

Since high-sensitivity troponin measures will soon be coming to every ED, each institution may have to arrive at their own rule-in cutoff value in order to diagnose acute MI with an acceptable number of false positives, he said. Dr. Nowak explains how to begin addressing that process.

Proximal adenoma location did not predict high-grade dysplasia in a large registry study.

In fact, the odds of high-grade dysplasia were about 25% lower for proximal versus distal adenomas (odds ratio, 0.75), reported Thomas Rösch, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and his associates. A third of adenomas in the study lacked location data, but in sensitivity analyses, the odds of high-grade dysplasia fell to 0.72 when these lesions were assumed to be proximal and rose to 0.96 when they were assumed to be distal.

Interval colorectal cancers probably are more likely to be proximal than distal because of a “combination of endoscopy-related factors and biology,” not because of histologic differences alone, the researchers wrote. The report was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Interval cancers are more common in the right colon, as several studies have noted. However, it was unclear whether this phenomenon represented a higher miss rate, a lower rate of successful polypectomy, or an increased risk of malignant histology in the proximal colon, the researchers wrote. Accordingly, they analyzed data on 594,614 index adenomas detected during more than 2.5 million screening colonoscopies performed between 2007 and 2012 and entered into the German National Screening Colonoscopy Registry.

A total of 3.5% of index adenomas showed high-grade dysplasia, which correlated most strongly with larger size, said the researchers. In fact, the odds of high-grade dysplasia were 10-fold higher when index adenomas measured at least 1 cm than when they were smaller. High-grade dysplasia also was significantly more frequent when patients were older than 64 years, were male, and when they had pedunculated versus flat lesions. Given the large size of the dataset, all these associations were statistically significant.

Sessile lesions were slightly more likely to be high-grade compared with flat lesions, the investigators noted. Many proximal interval cancers arise from sessile serrated polyps, which may be subtle and difficult to detect or to resect completely, they continued. At the same time, colonoscopy also might be more likely to miss flat, serrated lesions when they are located proximally, and these lesions can become more aggressive over time. Thus, “[e]ndoscopist factors, such as missed lesions or incompletely removed lesions, may account for the predominance of proximal interval colorectal cancers.”

Like other registry studies, this study lacked uniform histopathologic definitions or central histopathology review. The dataset also covered only the largest or most histologically remarkable adenoma for each patient. However, the study findings did not change substantially after the researchers controlled for patients with missing location data, which presumably included patients with multiple polyps in both proximal and distal locations.

The researchers did not disclose external funding sources. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rösch T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.05.043.

Proximal adenoma location did not predict high-grade dysplasia in a large registry study.

In fact, the odds of high-grade dysplasia were about 25% lower for proximal versus distal adenomas (odds ratio, 0.75), reported Thomas Rösch, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and his associates. A third of adenomas in the study lacked location data, but in sensitivity analyses, the odds of high-grade dysplasia fell to 0.72 when these lesions were assumed to be proximal and rose to 0.96 when they were assumed to be distal.

Interval colorectal cancers probably are more likely to be proximal than distal because of a “combination of endoscopy-related factors and biology,” not because of histologic differences alone, the researchers wrote. The report was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Interval cancers are more common in the right colon, as several studies have noted. However, it was unclear whether this phenomenon represented a higher miss rate, a lower rate of successful polypectomy, or an increased risk of malignant histology in the proximal colon, the researchers wrote. Accordingly, they analyzed data on 594,614 index adenomas detected during more than 2.5 million screening colonoscopies performed between 2007 and 2012 and entered into the German National Screening Colonoscopy Registry.

A total of 3.5% of index adenomas showed high-grade dysplasia, which correlated most strongly with larger size, said the researchers. In fact, the odds of high-grade dysplasia were 10-fold higher when index adenomas measured at least 1 cm than when they were smaller. High-grade dysplasia also was significantly more frequent when patients were older than 64 years, were male, and when they had pedunculated versus flat lesions. Given the large size of the dataset, all these associations were statistically significant.

Sessile lesions were slightly more likely to be high-grade compared with flat lesions, the investigators noted. Many proximal interval cancers arise from sessile serrated polyps, which may be subtle and difficult to detect or to resect completely, they continued. At the same time, colonoscopy also might be more likely to miss flat, serrated lesions when they are located proximally, and these lesions can become more aggressive over time. Thus, “[e]ndoscopist factors, such as missed lesions or incompletely removed lesions, may account for the predominance of proximal interval colorectal cancers.”

Like other registry studies, this study lacked uniform histopathologic definitions or central histopathology review. The dataset also covered only the largest or most histologically remarkable adenoma for each patient. However, the study findings did not change substantially after the researchers controlled for patients with missing location data, which presumably included patients with multiple polyps in both proximal and distal locations.

The researchers did not disclose external funding sources. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rösch T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.05.043.

Proximal adenoma location did not predict high-grade dysplasia in a large registry study.

In fact, the odds of high-grade dysplasia were about 25% lower for proximal versus distal adenomas (odds ratio, 0.75), reported Thomas Rösch, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and his associates. A third of adenomas in the study lacked location data, but in sensitivity analyses, the odds of high-grade dysplasia fell to 0.72 when these lesions were assumed to be proximal and rose to 0.96 when they were assumed to be distal.

Interval colorectal cancers probably are more likely to be proximal than distal because of a “combination of endoscopy-related factors and biology,” not because of histologic differences alone, the researchers wrote. The report was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Interval cancers are more common in the right colon, as several studies have noted. However, it was unclear whether this phenomenon represented a higher miss rate, a lower rate of successful polypectomy, or an increased risk of malignant histology in the proximal colon, the researchers wrote. Accordingly, they analyzed data on 594,614 index adenomas detected during more than 2.5 million screening colonoscopies performed between 2007 and 2012 and entered into the German National Screening Colonoscopy Registry.

A total of 3.5% of index adenomas showed high-grade dysplasia, which correlated most strongly with larger size, said the researchers. In fact, the odds of high-grade dysplasia were 10-fold higher when index adenomas measured at least 1 cm than when they were smaller. High-grade dysplasia also was significantly more frequent when patients were older than 64 years, were male, and when they had pedunculated versus flat lesions. Given the large size of the dataset, all these associations were statistically significant.

Sessile lesions were slightly more likely to be high-grade compared with flat lesions, the investigators noted. Many proximal interval cancers arise from sessile serrated polyps, which may be subtle and difficult to detect or to resect completely, they continued. At the same time, colonoscopy also might be more likely to miss flat, serrated lesions when they are located proximally, and these lesions can become more aggressive over time. Thus, “[e]ndoscopist factors, such as missed lesions or incompletely removed lesions, may account for the predominance of proximal interval colorectal cancers.”

Like other registry studies, this study lacked uniform histopathologic definitions or central histopathology review. The dataset also covered only the largest or most histologically remarkable adenoma for each patient. However, the study findings did not change substantially after the researchers controlled for patients with missing location data, which presumably included patients with multiple polyps in both proximal and distal locations.

The researchers did not disclose external funding sources. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rösch T et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.05.043.