TOPLINE:

U.S. adults with psychiatric illness experienced fewer disruptions in receiving psychotherapy following the transition to virtual psychiatric care that accompanied the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large study has shown.

METHODOLOGY:

• Retrospective study using electronic health records and insurance claims data from three large U.S. health systems.
• Sample included 110,089 patients with mental health conditions who attended at least two psychotherapy visits during the 9 months before and 9 months after the onset of COVID-19, defined in this study as March 14, 2020.
• Outcome was disruption in psychotherapy, defined as a gap of more than 45 days between visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Before the pandemic, 96.9% of psychotherapy visits were in person and 35.4% were followed by a gap of more than 45 days.
• After the onset of the pandemic, more than half of visits (51.8%) were virtual, and only 17.9% were followed by a gap of more than 45 days.
• Prior to the pandemic, the median time between visits was 27 days, and after the pandemic, it dropped to 14 days, suggesting individuals were more likely to return for additional psychotherapy after the widespread shift to virtual care.
• Over the entire study period, individuals with depressive, anxiety, or bipolar disorders were more likely to maintain consistent psychotherapy visits, whereas those with schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, conduct or disruptive disorders, dementia, or personality disorders were more likely to have a disruption in their visits.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support continued use of virtual psychotherapy as an option for care when appropriate infrastructure is in place. In addition, these findings support the continuation of policies that provide access to and coverage for virtual psychotherapy,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Brian K. Ahmedani, PhD, with the Center for Health Policy and Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, was published online  in Psychiatric Services.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted in three large health systems with virtual care infrastructure already in place. Researchers did not examine use of virtual care for medication management or for types of care other than psychotherapy, which may present different challenges.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

U.S. adults with psychiatric illness experienced fewer disruptions in receiving psychotherapy following the transition to virtual psychiatric care that accompanied the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large study has shown.

METHODOLOGY:

• Retrospective study using electronic health records and insurance claims data from three large U.S. health systems.
• Sample included 110,089 patients with mental health conditions who attended at least two psychotherapy visits during the 9 months before and 9 months after the onset of COVID-19, defined in this study as March 14, 2020.
• Outcome was disruption in psychotherapy, defined as a gap of more than 45 days between visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Before the pandemic, 96.9% of psychotherapy visits were in person and 35.4% were followed by a gap of more than 45 days.
• After the onset of the pandemic, more than half of visits (51.8%) were virtual, and only 17.9% were followed by a gap of more than 45 days.
• Prior to the pandemic, the median time between visits was 27 days, and after the pandemic, it dropped to 14 days, suggesting individuals were more likely to return for additional psychotherapy after the widespread shift to virtual care.
• Over the entire study period, individuals with depressive, anxiety, or bipolar disorders were more likely to maintain consistent psychotherapy visits, whereas those with schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, conduct or disruptive disorders, dementia, or personality disorders were more likely to have a disruption in their visits.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support continued use of virtual psychotherapy as an option for care when appropriate infrastructure is in place. In addition, these findings support the continuation of policies that provide access to and coverage for virtual psychotherapy,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Brian K. Ahmedani, PhD, with the Center for Health Policy and Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, was published online  in Psychiatric Services.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted in three large health systems with virtual care infrastructure already in place. Researchers did not examine use of virtual care for medication management or for types of care other than psychotherapy, which may present different challenges.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

U.S. adults with psychiatric illness experienced fewer disruptions in receiving psychotherapy following the transition to virtual psychiatric care that accompanied the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large study has shown.

METHODOLOGY:

• Retrospective study using electronic health records and insurance claims data from three large U.S. health systems.
• Sample included 110,089 patients with mental health conditions who attended at least two psychotherapy visits during the 9 months before and 9 months after the onset of COVID-19, defined in this study as March 14, 2020.
• Outcome was disruption in psychotherapy, defined as a gap of more than 45 days between visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Before the pandemic, 96.9% of psychotherapy visits were in person and 35.4% were followed by a gap of more than 45 days.
• After the onset of the pandemic, more than half of visits (51.8%) were virtual, and only 17.9% were followed by a gap of more than 45 days.
• Prior to the pandemic, the median time between visits was 27 days, and after the pandemic, it dropped to 14 days, suggesting individuals were more likely to return for additional psychotherapy after the widespread shift to virtual care.
• Over the entire study period, individuals with depressive, anxiety, or bipolar disorders were more likely to maintain consistent psychotherapy visits, whereas those with schizophrenia, ADHD, autism, conduct or disruptive disorders, dementia, or personality disorders were more likely to have a disruption in their visits.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support continued use of virtual psychotherapy as an option for care when appropriate infrastructure is in place. In addition, these findings support the continuation of policies that provide access to and coverage for virtual psychotherapy,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Brian K. Ahmedani, PhD, with the Center for Health Policy and Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, was published online  in Psychiatric Services.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted in three large health systems with virtual care infrastructure already in place. Researchers did not examine use of virtual care for medication management or for types of care other than psychotherapy, which may present different challenges.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.

Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.¹

Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.³ In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.⁴ Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.⁵

World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.⁶ In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.⁷ An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.⁸

Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.⁹ In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.¹⁰ Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.⁹

What can we learn from these findings?

First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.¹¹

Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.¹²

The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.

Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.¹

Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.³ In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.⁴ Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.⁵

World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.⁶ In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.⁷ An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.⁸

Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.⁹ In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.¹⁰ Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.⁹

What can we learn from these findings?

First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.¹¹

Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.¹²

The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.

Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.¹

Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.³ In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.⁴ Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.⁵

World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.⁶ In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.⁷ An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.⁸

Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.⁹ In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.¹⁰ Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.⁹

What can we learn from these findings?

First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.¹¹

Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.¹²

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects individuals worldwide.¹ Although AD previously was commonly described as a skin-limited disease of childhood characterized by eczema in the flexural folds and pruritus, our current understanding supports a more heterogeneous condition.² We review the wide range of cutaneous presentations of AD with a focus on clinical and morphological presentations across diverse skin types—commonly referred to as skin of color (SOC).

Defining SOC in Relation to AD

The terms SOC, race, and ethnicity are used interchangeably, but their true meanings are distinct. Traditionally, race has been defined as a biological concept, grouping cohorts of individuals with a large degree of shared ancestry and genetic similarities,³ and ethnicity as a social construct, grouping individuals with common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural backgrounds.⁴ In practice, both concepts can broadly be envisioned as mixed social, political, and economic constructs, as no one gene or biologic characteristic distinguishes one racial or ethnic group from another.⁵

The US Census Bureau recognizes 5 racial groupings: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.⁶ Hispanic or Latinx origin is considered an ethnicity. It is important to note the limitations of these labels, as they do not completely encapsulate the heterogeneity of the US population. Overgeneralization of racial and ethnic categories may dull or obscure true differences among populations.⁷

From an evolutionary perspective, skin pigmentation represents the product of 2 opposing clines produced by natural selection in response to both need for and protection from UV radiation across lattitudes.⁸ Defining SOC is not quite as simple. Skin of color often is equated with certain racial/ethnic groups, or even binary categories of Black vs non-Black or White vs non-White. Others may use the Fitzpatrick scale to discuss SOC, though this scale was originally created to measure the response of skin to UVA radiation exposure.⁹ The reality is that SOC is a complex term that cannot simply be defined by a certain group of skin tones, races, ethnicities, and/or Fitzpatrick skin types. With this in mind, SOC in the context of this article will often refer to non-White individuals based on the investigators’ terminology, but this definition is not all-encompassing.

Historically in medicine, racial/ethnic differences in outcomes have been equated to differences in biology/genetics without consideration of many external factors.¹⁰ The effects of racism, economic stability, health care access, environment, and education quality rarely are discussed, though they have a major impact on health and may better define associations with race or an SOC population. A discussion of the structural and social determinants of health contributing to disease outcomes should accompany any race-based guidelines to prevent inaccurately pathologizing race or SOC.¹⁰

Within the scope of AD, social determinants of health play an important role in contributing to disease morbidity. Environmental factors, including tobacco smoke, climate, pollutants, water hardness, und urban living, are related to AD prevalence and severity.¹¹ Higher socioeconomic status is associated with increased AD rates,¹² yet lower socioeconomic status is associated with more severe disease.¹³ Barriers to health care access and suboptimal care drive worse AD outcomes.¹⁴ Underrepresentation in clinical trials prevents the generalizability and safety of AD treatments.¹⁵ Disparities in these health determinants associated with AD likely are among the most important drivers of observed differences in disease presentation, severity, burden, and even prevalence—more so than genetics or ancestry alone¹⁶—yet this relationship is poorly understood and often presented as a consequence of race. It is critical to redefine the narrative when considering the heterogeneous presentations of AD in patients with SOC and acknowledge the limitations of current terminology when attempting to capture clinical diversity in AD, including in this review, where published findings often are limited by race-based analysis.

Epidemiology

The prevalence of AD has been increasing over the last few decades, and rates vary by region. In the United States, the prevalence of childhood and adult AD is 13% and 7%, respectively.^17,18 Globally, higher rates of pediatric AD are seen in Africa, Oceania, Southeast Asia (SEA), and Latin America compared to South Asia, Northern Europe, and Eastern Europe.¹⁹ The prevalence of AD varies widely within the same continent and country; for example, throughout Africa, prevalence was found to be anywhere between 4.7% and 23.3%.²⁰

 

 

Lesion Morphology

Although AD lesions often are described as pruritic erythematous papules and plaques, other common morphologies in SOC populations include prurigo nodules, lichenoid papules, perifollicular papules, nummular lesions, and psoriasiform lesions (Table). Instead of applying normative terms such as classic vs atypical to AD morphology, we urge clinicians to be familiar with the full spectrum of AD skin signs.

Prurigo Nodules—Prurigo nodules are hyperkeratotic or erosive nodules with severe pruritus, often grouped symmetrically on the extensor surfaces of the arms, legs, and trunk (Figure 1).^14,21 The skin between lesions usually is unaffected but can be dry or lichenified or display postinflammatory pigmentary changes.¹⁴ Prurigo nodules are common. In a study of a cohort of patients with prurigo nodularis (N=108), nearly half (46.3%) were determined to have either an atopic predisposition or underlying AD as a contributing cause of the lesions.²¹

Prurigo nodules as a phenotype of AD may be more common in certain SOC populations. Studies from SEA have reported a higher prevalence of prurigo nodules among patients with AD.²⁸ Although there are limited formal studies assessing the true prevalence of this lesion type in African American AD patients in the United States, clinical evidence supports more frequent appearance of prurigo nodules in non-White patients.²⁹ Contributing factors include suboptimal care for AD in SOC populations and/or barriers to health care access, resulting in more severe disease that increases the risk for this lesion type.¹⁴

Lichenoid Papules—Papular lichenoid lesions often present on the extensor surfaces of the arms and legs in AD (Figure 2).²² In a study of Nigerian patients with AD (N=1019), 54.1% had lichenoid papules.²⁴ A systematic review of AD characteristics by region similarly reported an increased prevalence of this lesion type in African studies.²⁸ Lichenoid variants of AD have been well described in SOC patients in the United States.²³ In contrast to the lesions of lichen planus, the lichenoid papules of AD usually are round, rarely display koebnerization, do not have Wickham striae, and predominantly are located on extensor surfaces.

Perifollicular Papules—Perifollicular accentuation—dermatitis enhanced around hair follicles—is a well-described lesional morphology of AD that is noted in all racial/ethnic groups (Figure 3).²² In fact, perifollicular accentuation is included as one of the Hanifin and Rajka minor criteria for AD.³⁰ Studies performed in Nigeria and India showed perifollicular accentuation in up to 70% of AD patients.^24,31 In a study of adult Thai patients (N=56), follicular lesions were found more frequently in intrinsic AD (29%) compared with extrinsic AD (12%).³²

Nummular and Psoriasiform Lesions—Nummular lesions may be red, oozing, excoriated, studded with pustules and/or present on the extensor extremities (Figure 4). In SOC patients, these lesions often occur in areas where hyperpigmentation is noted.²² Studies in the United States and Mexico demonstrated that 15% to 17% of AD patients displayed nummular lesions.^23,33 Similar to follicular papules, nummular lesions were linked to intrinsic AD in a study of adult Thai patients.³²

Psoriasiform lesions show prominent scaling, lichenification, and clear demarcation.²⁵ It has been reported that the psoriasiform phenotype of AD is more common in Asian patients,²⁵ though this is likely an oversimplification. The participants in these studies were of Japanese and Korean ancestry, which covers a broad geographic region, and the grouping of individuals under a heterogeneous Asian category is unlikely to convey generalizable biologic or clinical information. Unsurprisingly, a systematic review of AD characteristics by region noted considerable phenotypical differences among patients in SEA, East Asia, Iran, and India.²⁸

Disease Severity

Several factors contribute to AD disease severity,³⁴ including objective assessments of inflammation, such as erythema and lichenification (Table), as well as subjective measures of symptoms, such as itch. The severity of AD is exacerbated by the social determinants of health, and a lower socioeconomic status, lower household income, lower parental education level and health, dilapidated housing, and presence of garbage on the street are among factors linked to worse AD disease severity.^13,17 Although non-White individuals with AD often are reported to have more severe disease than their White counterparts,³⁵ these types of health determinants may be the most relevant causes of observed differences.

Erythema—Erythema is a feature of inflammation used in the AD severity assessment. Erythema may appear in shades beyond red, including maroon, violaceous, or brown, in patients with darker pigmented skin, which may contribute to diagnosis of AD at a later disease stage.²⁶ Multiple AD severity scoring tools, such as the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis and Eczema Area and Severity Index, include erythema as a measure, which can lead to underestimation of AD severity in SOC populations. After adjusting for erythema score, one study found that Black children with AD had a risk for severe disease that was 6-times higher than White children.³⁶ Dermatological training must adequately teach physicians to recognize erythema across all skin tones.³⁷

Erythroderma (also known as exfoliative dermatitis) is rapidly spreading erythema on at least 90% of the total body surface area, often sparing the palms and soles.³² Erythroderma is a potentially life-threatening manifestation of severe AD. Although erythroderma may have many underlying causes, AD has been reported to be the cause in 5% to 24% of cases,³⁸ and compared to studies in Europe, the prevalence of erythroderma was higher in East Asian studies of AD.²⁸

Excoriation and Pruritus—Pruritus is a defining characteristic of AD, and the resulting excoriations often are predominant on physical examination, which is a key part of severity scores. Itch is the most prevalent symptom among patients with AD, and a greater itch severity has been linked to decreased health-related quality of life, increased mental health symptoms, impaired sleep, and decreased daily function.^39,40 The burden of itch may be greater in SOC populations. The impact of itch on quality of life among US military veterans was significantly higher in those who identified as non-White (P=.05).⁴¹ In another study of US military veterans, African American individuals reported a significantly higher emotional impact from itch (P<.05).⁴²

Lichenification—Lichenification is thickening of the skin due to chronic rubbing and scratching that causes a leathery elevated appearance with exaggerated skin lines.²⁷ Lichenification is included as a factor in common clinical scoring tools, with greater lichenification indicating greater disease severity. Studies from SEA and Africa suggested a higher prevalence of lichenification in AD patients.²⁸ A greater itch burden and thus increased rubbing/scratching in these populations may contribute to some of these findings.^42,43

Xerosis—Xerosis (or dry skin) is a common finding in AD that results from increased transepidermal water loss due to a dysfunctional epidermal barrier.⁴⁴ In a systematic review of AD characteristics by region, xerosis was among the top 5 most reported AD features globally in all regions except SEA.²⁸ Xerosis may be more stigmatizing in SOC populations because of the greater visibility of scaling and dryness on darker skin tones.¹

Postinflammatory Dyspigmentation—Postinflammatory pigment alteration may be a consequence of AD lesions, resulting in hyperpigmented and hypopigmented macules and patches. Patients with AD with darker skin tones are more likely to develop postinflammatory dyspigmentation.²⁶ A study of AD patients in Nigeria found that 63% displayed postinflammatory dyspigmentation.⁴⁵ Dyschromia, including postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, is one of the most common reasons for SOC patients to seek dermatologic care.⁴⁶ Postinflammatory pigment alteration can cause severe distress in patients, even more so than the cutaneous findings of AD. Although altered skin pigmentation usually returns to normal over weeks to months, skin depigmentation from chronic excoriation may be permanent.²⁶ Appropriately treating hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation in SOC populations can greatly improve quality of life.⁴⁷

Conclusion

Atopic dermatitis is a cutaneous inflammatory disease that presents with many clinical phenotypes. Dermatologists should be trained to recognize the heterogeneous signs of AD present across the diverse skin types in SOC patients. Future research should move away from race-based analyses and focus on the complex interplay of environmental factors, social determinants of health, and skin pigmentation, as well as how these factors drive variations in AD lesional morphology and inflammation.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects individuals worldwide.¹ Although AD previously was commonly described as a skin-limited disease of childhood characterized by eczema in the flexural folds and pruritus, our current understanding supports a more heterogeneous condition.² We review the wide range of cutaneous presentations of AD with a focus on clinical and morphological presentations across diverse skin types—commonly referred to as skin of color (SOC).

Defining SOC in Relation to AD

The terms SOC, race, and ethnicity are used interchangeably, but their true meanings are distinct. Traditionally, race has been defined as a biological concept, grouping cohorts of individuals with a large degree of shared ancestry and genetic similarities,³ and ethnicity as a social construct, grouping individuals with common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural backgrounds.⁴ In practice, both concepts can broadly be envisioned as mixed social, political, and economic constructs, as no one gene or biologic characteristic distinguishes one racial or ethnic group from another.⁵

The US Census Bureau recognizes 5 racial groupings: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.⁶ Hispanic or Latinx origin is considered an ethnicity. It is important to note the limitations of these labels, as they do not completely encapsulate the heterogeneity of the US population. Overgeneralization of racial and ethnic categories may dull or obscure true differences among populations.⁷

From an evolutionary perspective, skin pigmentation represents the product of 2 opposing clines produced by natural selection in response to both need for and protection from UV radiation across lattitudes.⁸ Defining SOC is not quite as simple. Skin of color often is equated with certain racial/ethnic groups, or even binary categories of Black vs non-Black or White vs non-White. Others may use the Fitzpatrick scale to discuss SOC, though this scale was originally created to measure the response of skin to UVA radiation exposure.⁹ The reality is that SOC is a complex term that cannot simply be defined by a certain group of skin tones, races, ethnicities, and/or Fitzpatrick skin types. With this in mind, SOC in the context of this article will often refer to non-White individuals based on the investigators’ terminology, but this definition is not all-encompassing.

Historically in medicine, racial/ethnic differences in outcomes have been equated to differences in biology/genetics without consideration of many external factors.¹⁰ The effects of racism, economic stability, health care access, environment, and education quality rarely are discussed, though they have a major impact on health and may better define associations with race or an SOC population. A discussion of the structural and social determinants of health contributing to disease outcomes should accompany any race-based guidelines to prevent inaccurately pathologizing race or SOC.¹⁰

Within the scope of AD, social determinants of health play an important role in contributing to disease morbidity. Environmental factors, including tobacco smoke, climate, pollutants, water hardness, und urban living, are related to AD prevalence and severity.¹¹ Higher socioeconomic status is associated with increased AD rates,¹² yet lower socioeconomic status is associated with more severe disease.¹³ Barriers to health care access and suboptimal care drive worse AD outcomes.¹⁴ Underrepresentation in clinical trials prevents the generalizability and safety of AD treatments.¹⁵ Disparities in these health determinants associated with AD likely are among the most important drivers of observed differences in disease presentation, severity, burden, and even prevalence—more so than genetics or ancestry alone¹⁶—yet this relationship is poorly understood and often presented as a consequence of race. It is critical to redefine the narrative when considering the heterogeneous presentations of AD in patients with SOC and acknowledge the limitations of current terminology when attempting to capture clinical diversity in AD, including in this review, where published findings often are limited by race-based analysis.

Epidemiology

The prevalence of AD has been increasing over the last few decades, and rates vary by region. In the United States, the prevalence of childhood and adult AD is 13% and 7%, respectively.^17,18 Globally, higher rates of pediatric AD are seen in Africa, Oceania, Southeast Asia (SEA), and Latin America compared to South Asia, Northern Europe, and Eastern Europe.¹⁹ The prevalence of AD varies widely within the same continent and country; for example, throughout Africa, prevalence was found to be anywhere between 4.7% and 23.3%.²⁰

 

 

Lesion Morphology

Although AD lesions often are described as pruritic erythematous papules and plaques, other common morphologies in SOC populations include prurigo nodules, lichenoid papules, perifollicular papules, nummular lesions, and psoriasiform lesions (Table). Instead of applying normative terms such as classic vs atypical to AD morphology, we urge clinicians to be familiar with the full spectrum of AD skin signs.

Prurigo Nodules—Prurigo nodules are hyperkeratotic or erosive nodules with severe pruritus, often grouped symmetrically on the extensor surfaces of the arms, legs, and trunk (Figure 1).^14,21 The skin between lesions usually is unaffected but can be dry or lichenified or display postinflammatory pigmentary changes.¹⁴ Prurigo nodules are common. In a study of a cohort of patients with prurigo nodularis (N=108), nearly half (46.3%) were determined to have either an atopic predisposition or underlying AD as a contributing cause of the lesions.²¹

Prurigo nodules as a phenotype of AD may be more common in certain SOC populations. Studies from SEA have reported a higher prevalence of prurigo nodules among patients with AD.²⁸ Although there are limited formal studies assessing the true prevalence of this lesion type in African American AD patients in the United States, clinical evidence supports more frequent appearance of prurigo nodules in non-White patients.²⁹ Contributing factors include suboptimal care for AD in SOC populations and/or barriers to health care access, resulting in more severe disease that increases the risk for this lesion type.¹⁴

Lichenoid Papules—Papular lichenoid lesions often present on the extensor surfaces of the arms and legs in AD (Figure 2).²² In a study of Nigerian patients with AD (N=1019), 54.1% had lichenoid papules.²⁴ A systematic review of AD characteristics by region similarly reported an increased prevalence of this lesion type in African studies.²⁸ Lichenoid variants of AD have been well described in SOC patients in the United States.²³ In contrast to the lesions of lichen planus, the lichenoid papules of AD usually are round, rarely display koebnerization, do not have Wickham striae, and predominantly are located on extensor surfaces.

Perifollicular Papules—Perifollicular accentuation—dermatitis enhanced around hair follicles—is a well-described lesional morphology of AD that is noted in all racial/ethnic groups (Figure 3).²² In fact, perifollicular accentuation is included as one of the Hanifin and Rajka minor criteria for AD.³⁰ Studies performed in Nigeria and India showed perifollicular accentuation in up to 70% of AD patients.^24,31 In a study of adult Thai patients (N=56), follicular lesions were found more frequently in intrinsic AD (29%) compared with extrinsic AD (12%).³²

Nummular and Psoriasiform Lesions—Nummular lesions may be red, oozing, excoriated, studded with pustules and/or present on the extensor extremities (Figure 4). In SOC patients, these lesions often occur in areas where hyperpigmentation is noted.²² Studies in the United States and Mexico demonstrated that 15% to 17% of AD patients displayed nummular lesions.^23,33 Similar to follicular papules, nummular lesions were linked to intrinsic AD in a study of adult Thai patients.³²

Psoriasiform lesions show prominent scaling, lichenification, and clear demarcation.²⁵ It has been reported that the psoriasiform phenotype of AD is more common in Asian patients,²⁵ though this is likely an oversimplification. The participants in these studies were of Japanese and Korean ancestry, which covers a broad geographic region, and the grouping of individuals under a heterogeneous Asian category is unlikely to convey generalizable biologic or clinical information. Unsurprisingly, a systematic review of AD characteristics by region noted considerable phenotypical differences among patients in SEA, East Asia, Iran, and India.²⁸

Disease Severity

Several factors contribute to AD disease severity,³⁴ including objective assessments of inflammation, such as erythema and lichenification (Table), as well as subjective measures of symptoms, such as itch. The severity of AD is exacerbated by the social determinants of health, and a lower socioeconomic status, lower household income, lower parental education level and health, dilapidated housing, and presence of garbage on the street are among factors linked to worse AD disease severity.^13,17 Although non-White individuals with AD often are reported to have more severe disease than their White counterparts,³⁵ these types of health determinants may be the most relevant causes of observed differences.

Erythema—Erythema is a feature of inflammation used in the AD severity assessment. Erythema may appear in shades beyond red, including maroon, violaceous, or brown, in patients with darker pigmented skin, which may contribute to diagnosis of AD at a later disease stage.²⁶ Multiple AD severity scoring tools, such as the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis and Eczema Area and Severity Index, include erythema as a measure, which can lead to underestimation of AD severity in SOC populations. After adjusting for erythema score, one study found that Black children with AD had a risk for severe disease that was 6-times higher than White children.³⁶ Dermatological training must adequately teach physicians to recognize erythema across all skin tones.³⁷

Erythroderma (also known as exfoliative dermatitis) is rapidly spreading erythema on at least 90% of the total body surface area, often sparing the palms and soles.³² Erythroderma is a potentially life-threatening manifestation of severe AD. Although erythroderma may have many underlying causes, AD has been reported to be the cause in 5% to 24% of cases,³⁸ and compared to studies in Europe, the prevalence of erythroderma was higher in East Asian studies of AD.²⁸

Excoriation and Pruritus—Pruritus is a defining characteristic of AD, and the resulting excoriations often are predominant on physical examination, which is a key part of severity scores. Itch is the most prevalent symptom among patients with AD, and a greater itch severity has been linked to decreased health-related quality of life, increased mental health symptoms, impaired sleep, and decreased daily function.^39,40 The burden of itch may be greater in SOC populations. The impact of itch on quality of life among US military veterans was significantly higher in those who identified as non-White (P=.05).⁴¹ In another study of US military veterans, African American individuals reported a significantly higher emotional impact from itch (P<.05).⁴²

Lichenification—Lichenification is thickening of the skin due to chronic rubbing and scratching that causes a leathery elevated appearance with exaggerated skin lines.²⁷ Lichenification is included as a factor in common clinical scoring tools, with greater lichenification indicating greater disease severity. Studies from SEA and Africa suggested a higher prevalence of lichenification in AD patients.²⁸ A greater itch burden and thus increased rubbing/scratching in these populations may contribute to some of these findings.^42,43

Xerosis—Xerosis (or dry skin) is a common finding in AD that results from increased transepidermal water loss due to a dysfunctional epidermal barrier.⁴⁴ In a systematic review of AD characteristics by region, xerosis was among the top 5 most reported AD features globally in all regions except SEA.²⁸ Xerosis may be more stigmatizing in SOC populations because of the greater visibility of scaling and dryness on darker skin tones.¹

Postinflammatory Dyspigmentation—Postinflammatory pigment alteration may be a consequence of AD lesions, resulting in hyperpigmented and hypopigmented macules and patches. Patients with AD with darker skin tones are more likely to develop postinflammatory dyspigmentation.²⁶ A study of AD patients in Nigeria found that 63% displayed postinflammatory dyspigmentation.⁴⁵ Dyschromia, including postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, is one of the most common reasons for SOC patients to seek dermatologic care.⁴⁶ Postinflammatory pigment alteration can cause severe distress in patients, even more so than the cutaneous findings of AD. Although altered skin pigmentation usually returns to normal over weeks to months, skin depigmentation from chronic excoriation may be permanent.²⁶ Appropriately treating hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation in SOC populations can greatly improve quality of life.⁴⁷

Conclusion

Atopic dermatitis is a cutaneous inflammatory disease that presents with many clinical phenotypes. Dermatologists should be trained to recognize the heterogeneous signs of AD present across the diverse skin types in SOC patients. Future research should move away from race-based analyses and focus on the complex interplay of environmental factors, social determinants of health, and skin pigmentation, as well as how these factors drive variations in AD lesional morphology and inflammation.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects individuals worldwide.¹ Although AD previously was commonly described as a skin-limited disease of childhood characterized by eczema in the flexural folds and pruritus, our current understanding supports a more heterogeneous condition.² We review the wide range of cutaneous presentations of AD with a focus on clinical and morphological presentations across diverse skin types—commonly referred to as skin of color (SOC).

Defining SOC in Relation to AD

The terms SOC, race, and ethnicity are used interchangeably, but their true meanings are distinct. Traditionally, race has been defined as a biological concept, grouping cohorts of individuals with a large degree of shared ancestry and genetic similarities,³ and ethnicity as a social construct, grouping individuals with common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural backgrounds.⁴ In practice, both concepts can broadly be envisioned as mixed social, political, and economic constructs, as no one gene or biologic characteristic distinguishes one racial or ethnic group from another.⁵

The US Census Bureau recognizes 5 racial groupings: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.⁶ Hispanic or Latinx origin is considered an ethnicity. It is important to note the limitations of these labels, as they do not completely encapsulate the heterogeneity of the US population. Overgeneralization of racial and ethnic categories may dull or obscure true differences among populations.⁷

From an evolutionary perspective, skin pigmentation represents the product of 2 opposing clines produced by natural selection in response to both need for and protection from UV radiation across lattitudes.⁸ Defining SOC is not quite as simple. Skin of color often is equated with certain racial/ethnic groups, or even binary categories of Black vs non-Black or White vs non-White. Others may use the Fitzpatrick scale to discuss SOC, though this scale was originally created to measure the response of skin to UVA radiation exposure.⁹ The reality is that SOC is a complex term that cannot simply be defined by a certain group of skin tones, races, ethnicities, and/or Fitzpatrick skin types. With this in mind, SOC in the context of this article will often refer to non-White individuals based on the investigators’ terminology, but this definition is not all-encompassing.

Historically in medicine, racial/ethnic differences in outcomes have been equated to differences in biology/genetics without consideration of many external factors.¹⁰ The effects of racism, economic stability, health care access, environment, and education quality rarely are discussed, though they have a major impact on health and may better define associations with race or an SOC population. A discussion of the structural and social determinants of health contributing to disease outcomes should accompany any race-based guidelines to prevent inaccurately pathologizing race or SOC.¹⁰

Within the scope of AD, social determinants of health play an important role in contributing to disease morbidity. Environmental factors, including tobacco smoke, climate, pollutants, water hardness, und urban living, are related to AD prevalence and severity.¹¹ Higher socioeconomic status is associated with increased AD rates,¹² yet lower socioeconomic status is associated with more severe disease.¹³ Barriers to health care access and suboptimal care drive worse AD outcomes.¹⁴ Underrepresentation in clinical trials prevents the generalizability and safety of AD treatments.¹⁵ Disparities in these health determinants associated with AD likely are among the most important drivers of observed differences in disease presentation, severity, burden, and even prevalence—more so than genetics or ancestry alone¹⁶—yet this relationship is poorly understood and often presented as a consequence of race. It is critical to redefine the narrative when considering the heterogeneous presentations of AD in patients with SOC and acknowledge the limitations of current terminology when attempting to capture clinical diversity in AD, including in this review, where published findings often are limited by race-based analysis.

Epidemiology

The prevalence of AD has been increasing over the last few decades, and rates vary by region. In the United States, the prevalence of childhood and adult AD is 13% and 7%, respectively.^17,18 Globally, higher rates of pediatric AD are seen in Africa, Oceania, Southeast Asia (SEA), and Latin America compared to South Asia, Northern Europe, and Eastern Europe.¹⁹ The prevalence of AD varies widely within the same continent and country; for example, throughout Africa, prevalence was found to be anywhere between 4.7% and 23.3%.²⁰

 

 

Lesion Morphology

Although AD lesions often are described as pruritic erythematous papules and plaques, other common morphologies in SOC populations include prurigo nodules, lichenoid papules, perifollicular papules, nummular lesions, and psoriasiform lesions (Table). Instead of applying normative terms such as classic vs atypical to AD morphology, we urge clinicians to be familiar with the full spectrum of AD skin signs.

Prurigo Nodules—Prurigo nodules are hyperkeratotic or erosive nodules with severe pruritus, often grouped symmetrically on the extensor surfaces of the arms, legs, and trunk (Figure 1).^14,21 The skin between lesions usually is unaffected but can be dry or lichenified or display postinflammatory pigmentary changes.¹⁴ Prurigo nodules are common. In a study of a cohort of patients with prurigo nodularis (N=108), nearly half (46.3%) were determined to have either an atopic predisposition or underlying AD as a contributing cause of the lesions.²¹

Prurigo nodules as a phenotype of AD may be more common in certain SOC populations. Studies from SEA have reported a higher prevalence of prurigo nodules among patients with AD.²⁸ Although there are limited formal studies assessing the true prevalence of this lesion type in African American AD patients in the United States, clinical evidence supports more frequent appearance of prurigo nodules in non-White patients.²⁹ Contributing factors include suboptimal care for AD in SOC populations and/or barriers to health care access, resulting in more severe disease that increases the risk for this lesion type.¹⁴

Lichenoid Papules—Papular lichenoid lesions often present on the extensor surfaces of the arms and legs in AD (Figure 2).²² In a study of Nigerian patients with AD (N=1019), 54.1% had lichenoid papules.²⁴ A systematic review of AD characteristics by region similarly reported an increased prevalence of this lesion type in African studies.²⁸ Lichenoid variants of AD have been well described in SOC patients in the United States.²³ In contrast to the lesions of lichen planus, the lichenoid papules of AD usually are round, rarely display koebnerization, do not have Wickham striae, and predominantly are located on extensor surfaces.

Perifollicular Papules—Perifollicular accentuation—dermatitis enhanced around hair follicles—is a well-described lesional morphology of AD that is noted in all racial/ethnic groups (Figure 3).²² In fact, perifollicular accentuation is included as one of the Hanifin and Rajka minor criteria for AD.³⁰ Studies performed in Nigeria and India showed perifollicular accentuation in up to 70% of AD patients.^24,31 In a study of adult Thai patients (N=56), follicular lesions were found more frequently in intrinsic AD (29%) compared with extrinsic AD (12%).³²

Nummular and Psoriasiform Lesions—Nummular lesions may be red, oozing, excoriated, studded with pustules and/or present on the extensor extremities (Figure 4). In SOC patients, these lesions often occur in areas where hyperpigmentation is noted.²² Studies in the United States and Mexico demonstrated that 15% to 17% of AD patients displayed nummular lesions.^23,33 Similar to follicular papules, nummular lesions were linked to intrinsic AD in a study of adult Thai patients.³²

Psoriasiform lesions show prominent scaling, lichenification, and clear demarcation.²⁵ It has been reported that the psoriasiform phenotype of AD is more common in Asian patients,²⁵ though this is likely an oversimplification. The participants in these studies were of Japanese and Korean ancestry, which covers a broad geographic region, and the grouping of individuals under a heterogeneous Asian category is unlikely to convey generalizable biologic or clinical information. Unsurprisingly, a systematic review of AD characteristics by region noted considerable phenotypical differences among patients in SEA, East Asia, Iran, and India.²⁸

Disease Severity

Several factors contribute to AD disease severity,³⁴ including objective assessments of inflammation, such as erythema and lichenification (Table), as well as subjective measures of symptoms, such as itch. The severity of AD is exacerbated by the social determinants of health, and a lower socioeconomic status, lower household income, lower parental education level and health, dilapidated housing, and presence of garbage on the street are among factors linked to worse AD disease severity.^13,17 Although non-White individuals with AD often are reported to have more severe disease than their White counterparts,³⁵ these types of health determinants may be the most relevant causes of observed differences.

Erythema—Erythema is a feature of inflammation used in the AD severity assessment. Erythema may appear in shades beyond red, including maroon, violaceous, or brown, in patients with darker pigmented skin, which may contribute to diagnosis of AD at a later disease stage.²⁶ Multiple AD severity scoring tools, such as the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis and Eczema Area and Severity Index, include erythema as a measure, which can lead to underestimation of AD severity in SOC populations. After adjusting for erythema score, one study found that Black children with AD had a risk for severe disease that was 6-times higher than White children.³⁶ Dermatological training must adequately teach physicians to recognize erythema across all skin tones.³⁷

Erythroderma (also known as exfoliative dermatitis) is rapidly spreading erythema on at least 90% of the total body surface area, often sparing the palms and soles.³² Erythroderma is a potentially life-threatening manifestation of severe AD. Although erythroderma may have many underlying causes, AD has been reported to be the cause in 5% to 24% of cases,³⁸ and compared to studies in Europe, the prevalence of erythroderma was higher in East Asian studies of AD.²⁸

Excoriation and Pruritus—Pruritus is a defining characteristic of AD, and the resulting excoriations often are predominant on physical examination, which is a key part of severity scores. Itch is the most prevalent symptom among patients with AD, and a greater itch severity has been linked to decreased health-related quality of life, increased mental health symptoms, impaired sleep, and decreased daily function.^39,40 The burden of itch may be greater in SOC populations. The impact of itch on quality of life among US military veterans was significantly higher in those who identified as non-White (P=.05).⁴¹ In another study of US military veterans, African American individuals reported a significantly higher emotional impact from itch (P<.05).⁴²

Lichenification—Lichenification is thickening of the skin due to chronic rubbing and scratching that causes a leathery elevated appearance with exaggerated skin lines.²⁷ Lichenification is included as a factor in common clinical scoring tools, with greater lichenification indicating greater disease severity. Studies from SEA and Africa suggested a higher prevalence of lichenification in AD patients.²⁸ A greater itch burden and thus increased rubbing/scratching in these populations may contribute to some of these findings.^42,43

Xerosis—Xerosis (or dry skin) is a common finding in AD that results from increased transepidermal water loss due to a dysfunctional epidermal barrier.⁴⁴ In a systematic review of AD characteristics by region, xerosis was among the top 5 most reported AD features globally in all regions except SEA.²⁸ Xerosis may be more stigmatizing in SOC populations because of the greater visibility of scaling and dryness on darker skin tones.¹

Postinflammatory Dyspigmentation—Postinflammatory pigment alteration may be a consequence of AD lesions, resulting in hyperpigmented and hypopigmented macules and patches. Patients with AD with darker skin tones are more likely to develop postinflammatory dyspigmentation.²⁶ A study of AD patients in Nigeria found that 63% displayed postinflammatory dyspigmentation.⁴⁵ Dyschromia, including postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, is one of the most common reasons for SOC patients to seek dermatologic care.⁴⁶ Postinflammatory pigment alteration can cause severe distress in patients, even more so than the cutaneous findings of AD. Although altered skin pigmentation usually returns to normal over weeks to months, skin depigmentation from chronic excoriation may be permanent.²⁶ Appropriately treating hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation in SOC populations can greatly improve quality of life.⁴⁷

Conclusion

Atopic dermatitis is a cutaneous inflammatory disease that presents with many clinical phenotypes. Dermatologists should be trained to recognize the heterogeneous signs of AD present across the diverse skin types in SOC patients. Future research should move away from race-based analyses and focus on the complex interplay of environmental factors, social determinants of health, and skin pigmentation, as well as how these factors drive variations in AD lesional morphology and inflammation.

A Canadian systematic review of 28 observational studies has identified 10 strong predictors of fatal and nonfatal prescription opioid overdose.

Published in CMAJ, the analysis found the risk of fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose was notably tied to such factors as high-dose and fentanyl prescriptions, multiple opioid prescribers or pharmacies, and several mental health issues. High-certainty evidence from 14 studies involving more than a million patients showed a linear dose-response relationship with opioid overdose.

“Our findings suggest that awareness of, and attention to, several patient and prescription characteristics may help reduce the risk of opioid overdose among people living with chronic pain,” wrote a research team led by Li Wang, PhD, a researcher at the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care and the department of anesthesia at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

Predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose

Reporting on studies of 103 possible predictors in a pooled cohort of almost 24 million patients, the review found moderate- to high-certainty evidence for large relative associations with the following 10 criteria:

• A history of overdose (odds ratio, 5.85; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-9.04).
• A higher opioid dosage (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment).
• Three or more prescribers (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 3.57-6.12).
• Four or more dispensing pharmacies (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 4.35-5.57).
• Prescription for fentanyl (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.30-3.41).
• Current substance use disorder (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.09-3.27).
• Any mental health diagnosis (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.73-2.61).
• Depression (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.57-314).
• Bipolar disorder (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.77-2.41).
• Pancreatitis (OR, 2.00; 95% CI,1.52-2.64).

Absolute risks in patients with the predictor ranged from 2 to 6 per 1,000 for fatal overdose and 4 to 12 per 1,000 for nonfatal overdose.

The authors noted that chronic pain affects 20% of the world’s population worldwide, and a 2021 meta-analysis of 60 observational studies revealed that opioids are prescribed for 27% of adults living with chronic pain, with a higher prevalence of prescribing in North America than in Europe.
 

International review

A total of 28 observational studies comprising 23,963,716 patients (52% female) with mean age of 52 years were enrolled. All used administrative databases. Twenty-four studies were conducted in the United States, three in Canada, and one in the United Kingdom. Twenty-one studies included only patients with noncancer chronic pain, while seven included patients with either cancer-related or noncancer chronic pain. Twenty-two studies accepted patients with previous or current substance use disorder and three excluded patients with comorbid substance use disorder. Twenty-three studies included patients with comorbid mental illness and five exclusively recruited veterans.

The median sample size was 43,885. As a limitation, 25 studies (89%) were at high risk of bias for at least one criterion, the authors acknowledged. Moderate-certainty evidence showed the pooled prevalence of fatal opioid overdose after prescription for chronic pain was 1.3 per 1,000 (95% CI, 0.6-2.3 per 1,000) for fatal overdose and 3.2 per 1,000 (95% CI, 2.0-4.7 per 1,000) for nonfatal overdose.

“Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and may inform harm-reduction strategies,” Dr. Wang and associates wrote.

This study was supported by a grant from Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program. Coauthor Dr. Corey Hayes was supported by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development and the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Dr. Jason Busse is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. David Juurlink has received travel support for presentations from the CIHR, Stanford University, and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

A Canadian systematic review of 28 observational studies has identified 10 strong predictors of fatal and nonfatal prescription opioid overdose.

Published in CMAJ, the analysis found the risk of fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose was notably tied to such factors as high-dose and fentanyl prescriptions, multiple opioid prescribers or pharmacies, and several mental health issues. High-certainty evidence from 14 studies involving more than a million patients showed a linear dose-response relationship with opioid overdose.

“Our findings suggest that awareness of, and attention to, several patient and prescription characteristics may help reduce the risk of opioid overdose among people living with chronic pain,” wrote a research team led by Li Wang, PhD, a researcher at the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care and the department of anesthesia at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

Predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose

Reporting on studies of 103 possible predictors in a pooled cohort of almost 24 million patients, the review found moderate- to high-certainty evidence for large relative associations with the following 10 criteria:

• A history of overdose (odds ratio, 5.85; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-9.04).
• A higher opioid dosage (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment).
• Three or more prescribers (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 3.57-6.12).
• Four or more dispensing pharmacies (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 4.35-5.57).
• Prescription for fentanyl (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.30-3.41).
• Current substance use disorder (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.09-3.27).
• Any mental health diagnosis (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.73-2.61).
• Depression (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.57-314).
• Bipolar disorder (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.77-2.41).
• Pancreatitis (OR, 2.00; 95% CI,1.52-2.64).

Absolute risks in patients with the predictor ranged from 2 to 6 per 1,000 for fatal overdose and 4 to 12 per 1,000 for nonfatal overdose.

The authors noted that chronic pain affects 20% of the world’s population worldwide, and a 2021 meta-analysis of 60 observational studies revealed that opioids are prescribed for 27% of adults living with chronic pain, with a higher prevalence of prescribing in North America than in Europe.
 

International review

A total of 28 observational studies comprising 23,963,716 patients (52% female) with mean age of 52 years were enrolled. All used administrative databases. Twenty-four studies were conducted in the United States, three in Canada, and one in the United Kingdom. Twenty-one studies included only patients with noncancer chronic pain, while seven included patients with either cancer-related or noncancer chronic pain. Twenty-two studies accepted patients with previous or current substance use disorder and three excluded patients with comorbid substance use disorder. Twenty-three studies included patients with comorbid mental illness and five exclusively recruited veterans.

The median sample size was 43,885. As a limitation, 25 studies (89%) were at high risk of bias for at least one criterion, the authors acknowledged. Moderate-certainty evidence showed the pooled prevalence of fatal opioid overdose after prescription for chronic pain was 1.3 per 1,000 (95% CI, 0.6-2.3 per 1,000) for fatal overdose and 3.2 per 1,000 (95% CI, 2.0-4.7 per 1,000) for nonfatal overdose.

“Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and may inform harm-reduction strategies,” Dr. Wang and associates wrote.

This study was supported by a grant from Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program. Coauthor Dr. Corey Hayes was supported by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development and the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Dr. Jason Busse is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. David Juurlink has received travel support for presentations from the CIHR, Stanford University, and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

A Canadian systematic review of 28 observational studies has identified 10 strong predictors of fatal and nonfatal prescription opioid overdose.

Published in CMAJ, the analysis found the risk of fatal and nonfatal opioid overdose was notably tied to such factors as high-dose and fentanyl prescriptions, multiple opioid prescribers or pharmacies, and several mental health issues. High-certainty evidence from 14 studies involving more than a million patients showed a linear dose-response relationship with opioid overdose.

“Our findings suggest that awareness of, and attention to, several patient and prescription characteristics may help reduce the risk of opioid overdose among people living with chronic pain,” wrote a research team led by Li Wang, PhD, a researcher at the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care and the department of anesthesia at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

Predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose

Reporting on studies of 103 possible predictors in a pooled cohort of almost 24 million patients, the review found moderate- to high-certainty evidence for large relative associations with the following 10 criteria:

• A history of overdose (odds ratio, 5.85; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-9.04).
• A higher opioid dosage (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment).
• Three or more prescribers (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 3.57-6.12).
• Four or more dispensing pharmacies (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 4.35-5.57).
• Prescription for fentanyl (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.30-3.41).
• Current substance use disorder (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.09-3.27).
• Any mental health diagnosis (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.73-2.61).
• Depression (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.57-314).
• Bipolar disorder (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.77-2.41).
• Pancreatitis (OR, 2.00; 95% CI,1.52-2.64).

Absolute risks in patients with the predictor ranged from 2 to 6 per 1,000 for fatal overdose and 4 to 12 per 1,000 for nonfatal overdose.

The authors noted that chronic pain affects 20% of the world’s population worldwide, and a 2021 meta-analysis of 60 observational studies revealed that opioids are prescribed for 27% of adults living with chronic pain, with a higher prevalence of prescribing in North America than in Europe.
 

International review

A total of 28 observational studies comprising 23,963,716 patients (52% female) with mean age of 52 years were enrolled. All used administrative databases. Twenty-four studies were conducted in the United States, three in Canada, and one in the United Kingdom. Twenty-one studies included only patients with noncancer chronic pain, while seven included patients with either cancer-related or noncancer chronic pain. Twenty-two studies accepted patients with previous or current substance use disorder and three excluded patients with comorbid substance use disorder. Twenty-three studies included patients with comorbid mental illness and five exclusively recruited veterans.

The median sample size was 43,885. As a limitation, 25 studies (89%) were at high risk of bias for at least one criterion, the authors acknowledged. Moderate-certainty evidence showed the pooled prevalence of fatal opioid overdose after prescription for chronic pain was 1.3 per 1,000 (95% CI, 0.6-2.3 per 1,000) for fatal overdose and 3.2 per 1,000 (95% CI, 2.0-4.7 per 1,000) for nonfatal overdose.

“Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and may inform harm-reduction strategies,” Dr. Wang and associates wrote.

This study was supported by a grant from Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program. Coauthor Dr. Corey Hayes was supported by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development and the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Dr. Jason Busse is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. David Juurlink has received travel support for presentations from the CIHR, Stanford University, and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

NEW YORK – In the last 25 years, major advances in treating multiple myeloma (MM) have doubled survival rates, yet the still incurable disease often requires lifelong maintenance therapy. Since CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a viable strategy to prolong survival and deepen response in relapsed or refractory (RR) patients, the question arises: Should CAR T replace autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in earlier lines of treatment?

courtesy MSKCC

“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.

Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.

Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.

Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.

Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.

“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.

A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”

Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.

NEW YORK – In the last 25 years, major advances in treating multiple myeloma (MM) have doubled survival rates, yet the still incurable disease often requires lifelong maintenance therapy. Since CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a viable strategy to prolong survival and deepen response in relapsed or refractory (RR) patients, the question arises: Should CAR T replace autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in earlier lines of treatment?

courtesy MSKCC

“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.

Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.

Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.

Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.

Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.

“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.

A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”

Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.

NEW YORK – In the last 25 years, major advances in treating multiple myeloma (MM) have doubled survival rates, yet the still incurable disease often requires lifelong maintenance therapy. Since CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a viable strategy to prolong survival and deepen response in relapsed or refractory (RR) patients, the question arises: Should CAR T replace autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in earlier lines of treatment?

courtesy MSKCC

“In an otherwise healthy treatment-naive patient with multiple myeloma, to ensure the best chances of overall survival, I would always recommend standard of care consolidation therapy of chemotherapy + ASCT,” said Sergio Giralt, MD, of New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, debating the merits of ASCT versus CAR T as consolidation therapy at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma (LLM) Congress 2023 in New York.

Final results from the phase II GRIFFIN trial highlight the benchmarks that CAR T-cell therapy would need to reach to achieve equivalence with ASCT. At a 4-year follow-up, newly diagnosed MM patients who received daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) followed by ASCT + D-RVd consolidation, and daratumumab maintenance, had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 87.3%, 92.7% overall survival (OS) rate, and 50% achieved minimal residual disease negativity.

Dr. Adriana Rossi, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, cited a convergence of evidence suggesting that CAR T could achieve impressive results as a consolidation therapy in fit patients with MM, including: CARTITUDE 1 and CARTITUDE 4, which studied CAR T in RR MM patients. However, due to the fact that no head-to-head study of CAR T vs. ASCT as consolidation therapy in otherwise healthy MM patients exists, “There is not enough long-term data to support the equivalence CAR T with ASCT,” Dr. Giralt concluded.

Dr. Rossi further advocated for considering CAR T as a consolidation treatment because of the risks of secondary malignancies associated with ACST maintenance regimens.

Dr. Giralt rebutted this argument by citing data about averse events (AE) in studies of CAR-T therapies in RR MM patients like KarMMa-2, in which grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 94.6%, 45.9%, and 37.8% of patients respectively. Furthermore, 2 of 37 patients in KarMMA died (1 pneumonia, 1 pseudomonal sepsis), while rates of death from AEs related to ASCT occur in less than 1% of patients, according to Dr. Giralt.

Beyond a dearth of evidence thus far about the long term PFS, OS, and safety profile superiority of CAR-T therapies, compared with ASCT in treatment-naive MM patients, Dr. Giralt also noted the facts that CAR T-cell therapies are expensive and require manufacturing infrastructure also demonstrate that they cannot be easily adopted everywhere, even as a third-line therapy.

“In many places like Morocco, where I practice, we do not have access to CAR-T therapies,” said Sadia Zafad, MD, of the Clinique Al Madina Hematology and Oncology Center in Casablanca, Morocco. Dr. Zafad attended the debate.

A lack of access to CAR T is also a problem in the United States, where wait times for the therapy can stretch up to 6 months, getting insurance approval is challenging, and many patients simply don’t live near a center where CAR T-cell therapy is available. Citing all these factors, Dr. Giralt concluded: “Even if CAR T can be shown to have the same results as transplant, it is much more resource-intensive than transplant, and insurers are going to start saying there’s no necessary benefit. We have yet to use value as a primary end point, but as cancer care gets more and more expensive, that’s going to come up more, for CAR T and other novel therapies.”

Dr. Giralt reported relationships with Actinuum, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Crisper, J&J, Jazz, Kite, Miltenyi, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Rossi disclosed ties with Adaptive, BMS, Celgene, JNJ, Sanofi & Genzyme. Dr. Zafad reported no disclosures.

More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.

Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?

Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.

We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.

But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
 

Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?

A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.

However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
 

Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?

A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.

Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?

A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.

For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.

I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
 

Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?

A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
 

Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?

 A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *  

Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?

A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.

The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.

There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
 

Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?

A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
 

Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?

A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.

There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.

My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.

*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
 

More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.

Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?

Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.

We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.

But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
 

Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?

A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.

However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
 

Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?

A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.

Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?

A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.

For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.

I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
 

Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?

A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
 

Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?

 A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *  

Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?

A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.

The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.

There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
 

Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?

A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
 

Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?

A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.

There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.

My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.

*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
 

More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.

Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?

Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.

We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.

But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
 

Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?

A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.

However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
 

Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?

A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.

Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?

A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.

For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.

I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
 

Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?

A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
 

Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?

 A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *  

Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?

A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.

The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.

There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
 

Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?

A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
 

Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?

A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.

There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.

My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.

*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
 

TOPLINE:

New Canadian guidelines for the management of high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD) include 15 recommendations on screening, diagnosis, withdrawal management, and ongoing treatment including psychosocial interventions, drug therapies, and community-based programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse convened a 36-member committee of clinicians, researchers, people with personal experience of alcohol use, and Indigenous or Métis individuals to develop the guidelines, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument.
• Risk assessment was based on Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption scores.
• The definition of AUD was based on patients experiencing “clinically significant impairment or distress” from their alcohol use, with severity being mild, moderate, or severe.

TAKEAWAY:

• All adult and youth patients at moderate or high risk for AUD should be screened annually for alcohol use, and those screening positive should receive a diagnostic interview for AUD and an individualized treatment plan.
• Assessment of severe alcohol withdrawal complications should include clinical parameters such as past seizures or delirium tremens and the Prediction of Alcohol Withdrawal Severity Scale, with treatment including nonbenzodiazepine medications for low-risk patients and a short-term benzodiazepine prescription for high-risk patients, ideally in an inpatient setting.
• All patients with AUD should be referred for psychosocial treatment, and those with moderate to severe AUD should be offered naltrexone, acamprosate, topiramate, or gabapentin, depending on contraindications and effectiveness.
• Antipsychotics or SSRI antidepressants have little benefit and may worsen outcomes and should not be prescribed for AUD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors noted that more than half of people aged 15 years or older in Canada drink more than the recommended amount, and about 18% meet the definition for AUD. “The aim of this guideline is to support primary care providers and services to offer more effective treatments routinely to patients with AUD as the standard of practice, with resulting improvements in health as well as potential for considerable cost savings in health and social systems,” the investigators write. They also note that policy makers can substantially improve standards of care by promoting adoption of the guideline and its recommendations.

SOURCE:

The article was written by Evan Wood, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues. It was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The guideline was published more than 3 years after the initial literature search in September 2020 and did not include comprehensive guidance for AUD with co-occurring substance use disorders or with severe mental health conditions. Certain groups, including immigrant and refugee populations, were not represented.

DISCLOSURES:

Development of the guideline received support from Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and BC Centre on Substance Use. No committee members disclosed direct monetary or nonmonetary support from alcohol or pharmaceutical industry sources within the past 5 years, or that their clinical revenue would be influenced by the guideline recommendations.

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

TOPLINE:

New Canadian guidelines for the management of high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD) include 15 recommendations on screening, diagnosis, withdrawal management, and ongoing treatment including psychosocial interventions, drug therapies, and community-based programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse convened a 36-member committee of clinicians, researchers, people with personal experience of alcohol use, and Indigenous or Métis individuals to develop the guidelines, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument.
• Risk assessment was based on Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption scores.
• The definition of AUD was based on patients experiencing “clinically significant impairment or distress” from their alcohol use, with severity being mild, moderate, or severe.

TAKEAWAY:

• All adult and youth patients at moderate or high risk for AUD should be screened annually for alcohol use, and those screening positive should receive a diagnostic interview for AUD and an individualized treatment plan.
• Assessment of severe alcohol withdrawal complications should include clinical parameters such as past seizures or delirium tremens and the Prediction of Alcohol Withdrawal Severity Scale, with treatment including nonbenzodiazepine medications for low-risk patients and a short-term benzodiazepine prescription for high-risk patients, ideally in an inpatient setting.
• All patients with AUD should be referred for psychosocial treatment, and those with moderate to severe AUD should be offered naltrexone, acamprosate, topiramate, or gabapentin, depending on contraindications and effectiveness.
• Antipsychotics or SSRI antidepressants have little benefit and may worsen outcomes and should not be prescribed for AUD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors noted that more than half of people aged 15 years or older in Canada drink more than the recommended amount, and about 18% meet the definition for AUD. “The aim of this guideline is to support primary care providers and services to offer more effective treatments routinely to patients with AUD as the standard of practice, with resulting improvements in health as well as potential for considerable cost savings in health and social systems,” the investigators write. They also note that policy makers can substantially improve standards of care by promoting adoption of the guideline and its recommendations.

SOURCE:

The article was written by Evan Wood, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues. It was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The guideline was published more than 3 years after the initial literature search in September 2020 and did not include comprehensive guidance for AUD with co-occurring substance use disorders or with severe mental health conditions. Certain groups, including immigrant and refugee populations, were not represented.

DISCLOSURES:

Development of the guideline received support from Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and BC Centre on Substance Use. No committee members disclosed direct monetary or nonmonetary support from alcohol or pharmaceutical industry sources within the past 5 years, or that their clinical revenue would be influenced by the guideline recommendations.

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

TOPLINE:

New Canadian guidelines for the management of high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder (AUD) include 15 recommendations on screening, diagnosis, withdrawal management, and ongoing treatment including psychosocial interventions, drug therapies, and community-based programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse convened a 36-member committee of clinicians, researchers, people with personal experience of alcohol use, and Indigenous or Métis individuals to develop the guidelines, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument.
• Risk assessment was based on Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption scores.
• The definition of AUD was based on patients experiencing “clinically significant impairment or distress” from their alcohol use, with severity being mild, moderate, or severe.

TAKEAWAY:

• All adult and youth patients at moderate or high risk for AUD should be screened annually for alcohol use, and those screening positive should receive a diagnostic interview for AUD and an individualized treatment plan.
• Assessment of severe alcohol withdrawal complications should include clinical parameters such as past seizures or delirium tremens and the Prediction of Alcohol Withdrawal Severity Scale, with treatment including nonbenzodiazepine medications for low-risk patients and a short-term benzodiazepine prescription for high-risk patients, ideally in an inpatient setting.
• All patients with AUD should be referred for psychosocial treatment, and those with moderate to severe AUD should be offered naltrexone, acamprosate, topiramate, or gabapentin, depending on contraindications and effectiveness.
• Antipsychotics or SSRI antidepressants have little benefit and may worsen outcomes and should not be prescribed for AUD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors noted that more than half of people aged 15 years or older in Canada drink more than the recommended amount, and about 18% meet the definition for AUD. “The aim of this guideline is to support primary care providers and services to offer more effective treatments routinely to patients with AUD as the standard of practice, with resulting improvements in health as well as potential for considerable cost savings in health and social systems,” the investigators write. They also note that policy makers can substantially improve standards of care by promoting adoption of the guideline and its recommendations.

SOURCE:

The article was written by Evan Wood, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues. It was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The guideline was published more than 3 years after the initial literature search in September 2020 and did not include comprehensive guidance for AUD with co-occurring substance use disorders or with severe mental health conditions. Certain groups, including immigrant and refugee populations, were not represented.

DISCLOSURES:

Development of the guideline received support from Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and BC Centre on Substance Use. No committee members disclosed direct monetary or nonmonetary support from alcohol or pharmaceutical industry sources within the past 5 years, or that their clinical revenue would be influenced by the guideline recommendations.

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

The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) was associated with both improved progression-free survival and better safety than standard chemotherapy for patients with metastatic HER-2 negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.

At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
 

Different ADC, same target

Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.

Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).

Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.

In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
 

Efficacy results

In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.

At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.

As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001)­­­.

The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.­

Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).

Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
 

­Safety results

“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.

Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.

There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.

Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.

The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
 

Good, but we can do better

ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.

“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.

“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.

In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.

“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.

“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.

The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.

The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) was associated with both improved progression-free survival and better safety than standard chemotherapy for patients with metastatic HER-2 negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.

At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
 

Different ADC, same target

Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.

Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).

Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.

In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
 

Efficacy results

In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.

At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.

As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001)­­­.

The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.­

Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).

Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
 

­Safety results

“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.

Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.

There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.

Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.

The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
 

Good, but we can do better

ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.

“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.

“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.

In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.

“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.

“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.

The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.

The investigational anti-body drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) was associated with both improved progression-free survival and better safety than standard chemotherapy for patients with metastatic HER-2 negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy, data from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial showed.

At a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months for patients randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months for the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with either eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine. This difference translated into a 37% reduction in risk of disease progression with the ADC, reported Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

Patients who received Dato-DXd had less than half the number of grade 3 or greater toxicities and fewer dose reductions or interruptions than patients who received chemotherapy, he noted in an oral abstract session at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“Overall, results support Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,” he said.
 

Different ADC, same target

Dr. Bardia noted that there is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer who experience disease progression after endocrine therapy and at least one line of systemic therapy.

Although chemotherapy is widely used in this population, it’s associated with low response rates, poor prognosis, and significant toxicities, including hematologic and neurologic adverse events (AEs).

Dato-DXd is composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

Dr. Bardia explained that Dato-DXd has four properties that distinguish it from other TROP2-directed ADCs: an optimized drug to antibody ratio of 4, a stable linker-payload, tumor-selective cleavable linker, both of which reduce off-target toxicities, and a bystander antitumor effect that can target TROP2-expressing cells in the tumor microenvironment.

In the phase I TROPION-PanTumor01 trial, Dato-DXd had promising anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer, paving the way for the TROPION-Breast01 study reported here.
 

Efficacy results

In the Breast01 trial, 732 patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy that had progressed on endocrine therapy were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, geographic region, and prior CDK4/6 inhibitor status, and then randomized to either Dato-DXd 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle (365 patients) or to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (367 patients). According to the protocol, chemotherapy could be eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine delivered via IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, or oral capecitabine on days 1 through 14 of every 3-week cycle.

At the time of data cutoff, 93 patients assigned to the ADC and 39 assigned to chemotherapy were still on treatment.

As noted before, median PFS by blinded independent central review, one of two primary endpoints, was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd, compared with 4.9 months with chemotherapy, translating into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.63 (P < .0001)­­­.

The benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups except among patients who had not previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and patients who had received a prior anthracycline but not a taxane.­

Objective response rates (ORR) were 36.4% with Dato-DXd (99.5% partial and .5% complete response), compared with 22.9% with chemotherapy (all partial responses; P values not reported).

Overall survival data, the other primary endpoint, were not mature at a median OS follow-up of 9.7 months, and will be reported at a later date.
 

­Safety results

“In terms of safety, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs in the Dato-DXd arm was less as compared to investigator choice of chemotherapy. This is a bit different from most of the studies; in general we see that the rate of adverse events is higher in the intervention arm as compared to the control arm,” Dr. Bardia commented.

Rates of dose reductions and dose interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were also lower with the ADC.

There were no patient deaths associated with Dato-DXd. One patient assigned to chemotherapy died from a complication associated with febrile neutropenia.

Most treatment-related AEs occurring in 15% of patients and AEs of special interest were of grade 1 and manageable.

The most common toxicities seen with the ADC were oral mucositis and dry eye. The most common side effects with chemotherapy were neutropenia and anemia, “the usual side effects you would expect with chemotherapy,” Dr. Bardia said, pointing out that the rate of grade 3 neutropenia was 31% with standard chemotherapy, compared with 1% with Dato-DXd.
 

Good, but we can do better

ESMO invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented that while the trial data showed superior efficacy and safety with Dato-DXd, compared with standard chemotherapy, it’s still unclear how it and other ADCs on the market and in the research pipeline may be used in therapy for this patient population.

“Would I rather prescribe Dato-DXd or more chemo after 1 to 2 lines of chemo in unselected HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer? The answer is Dato-DXd, but it leaves several unanswered questions for us,” he said.

“First, we have two ADCs approved in HR-positive breast cancer: another TROP2 ADC sacituzumab [govitecan] and a HER2 ADC trastuzumab deruxtecan. Would I rather give Dato over one of these? I don’t have an answer,” he added.

In addition, it’s unknown whether these drugs, which have the same topoisomerase-targeted payload, could be given in sequence, and there are as yet no clear answers as to whether patients might do better with Dato-DXd or with a PIK3ca inhibitor.

“I would say that the elephant in the room is really another question, and that is, ‘Is Dato-DXd in this context delivering on the promise of an ADC?’ ” Dr. Chandarlapaty said.

“I think translational research is urgently needed if we’re ultimately to deliver on the promise of these agents in the clinic,” he concluded.

The TROPION-Breast01 study is sponsored AstraZeneca, which is collaborating with Daiichi-Sankyo on global development and commercialization of Dato-DXd. Dr. Bardia disclosed advisory board activities and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo and others. Dr. Chandarlapaty disclosed research funding from both companies, and advisory board activities for AstraZeneca and others.