Nonmenstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study.

The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.

The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.

They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.

About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.

Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Nonmenstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study.

The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.

The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.

They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.

About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.

Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Nonmenstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study.

The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.

The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.

They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.

About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.

Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Despite recent strides in the management and treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD), persistent misconceptions and ongoing issues – such as low utilization of important new therapies – reveal a pressing need to better inform both clinicians and patients about this condition.

Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.

Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.

To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.

And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.

However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
 

Myths and truths

To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:

courtesy University of Illinois

Pain level

Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.

Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”

Blacks only

Myth: SCD only affects Black people.

Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.

“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.

In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”

Parental link

Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.

Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”

Effects beyond pain

Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.

Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”

“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
 

Consult guidelines

One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.

Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.

Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.

“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.

He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”

Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
 

Despite recent strides in the management and treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD), persistent misconceptions and ongoing issues – such as low utilization of important new therapies – reveal a pressing need to better inform both clinicians and patients about this condition.

Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.

Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.

To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.

And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.

However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
 

Myths and truths

To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:

courtesy University of Illinois

Pain level

Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.

Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”

Blacks only

Myth: SCD only affects Black people.

Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.

“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.

In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”

Parental link

Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.

Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”

Effects beyond pain

Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.

Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”

“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
 

Consult guidelines

One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.

Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.

Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.

“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.

He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”

Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
 

Despite recent strides in the management and treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD), persistent misconceptions and ongoing issues – such as low utilization of important new therapies – reveal a pressing need to better inform both clinicians and patients about this condition.

Affecting more than 20 million people globally and 100,000 people nationwide, SCD is the most common inherited blood disorder in the United States. It occurs largely but not exclusively among people of African descent.

Patients with SCD develop crescent-shaped or “sickled” red blood cells that, unlike normally round cells, can potentially block blood flow and thus cause a host of problems ranging from a risk of stroke or infections to sometimes severe pain crises, called vaso-occlusive episodes.

To help ward off such complications, some key preventative measures and an array of therapies have become available in recent years: Newborn screening and prophylaxis, including the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines, have substantially reduced rates of invasive pneumococcal infection, which previously accounted for 32% of all causes of death in patients with SCD under the age of 20.

And while hydroxyurea was the only medication from 1998 to 2017 to alleviate acute pain episodes in SCD, newer options have become available in recent years, with l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab gaining FDA approval to further help prevent the episodes.

However, studies show that many if not most patients fail to receive adequate treatment, with one recent report indicating that, between 2016 and 2020, hydroxyurea was prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients with SCD, and fewer than 4% of people with the disease who experience chronic pain episodes had prescriptions for the newer FDA-approved drugs.
 

Myths and truths

To help clarify some common misconceptions that contribute to the problems, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, detailed some of the most prevalent and persistent myths among clinicians about SCD:

courtesy University of Illinois

Pain level

Myths: Firstly, that sickle cell pain is not that bad, and patients therefore don’t really need opioid pain treatment, and secondly, that sickle cell pain is measurable by lab tests, such as the number of sickled red blood cells on a blood smear, reticulocytes, or hemoglobin level.

Truths: “Sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain can be very severe – a 10 on a scale of 10 – but the pain is usually only known by subjective report,” said Dr. Hsu, a pediatric hematologist who serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“No lab test can be used to measure pain,” he said. “Other lab tests can be abnormal, and some have statistical correlation with lifetime severity of disease course, but the lab tests are not for determination of acute level of pain or absence of pain.”

Blacks only

Myth: SCD only affects Black people.

Truth: People who have sickle cell disease from many ethnic backgrounds and skin colors.

“Around the Mediterranean, there are sickle cell patients from Greece, Turkey, Italy, and Spain. Some are blond and blue-eyed. People in India and Pakistan have sickle cell disease,” Dr. Hsu explained.

In addition, “people from the Arabian Peninsula have sickle cell disease; some Malaysians have sickle cell disease; one child who is about third generation in Hong Kong has sickle cell disease.”

Parental link

Myth: Sickle cell disease only occurs in individuals both of whose parents have the sickle gene.

Truth: “There are types of sickle cell disease [involving] a sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for hemoglobin C from the other parent,” Dr. Hsu noted. “Others inherited one sickle gene [from one parent] and inherited from the other parent a gene for beta thalassemia. Others involve an inherited sickle gene and hemoglobin E; others have inherited one sickle gene and inherited a gene for hemoglobin D-Punjab, while others have sickle and hemoglobin O-Arab.”

Effects beyond pain

Myth: A person who is not having sickle cell pain is otherwise not significantly affected by their disease.

Truth: “Organs can be damaged silently every day,” Dr. Hsu said. “Kidney failure, retina damage, and pulmonary hypertension are the most notable of organ systems that can suffer damage for a long time without symptoms, then develop symptoms when it is too late to intervene.”

“For this reason, individuals with sickle cell disease should have regular expert care for health maintenance that is disease specific,” Dr. Hsu added.
 

Consult guidelines

One final concern is a basic failure to utilize critical information sources and guidelines, especially by primary care providers and/or other nonspecialists from whom patients with SCD may often seek treatment. “Awareness of these guidelines is low,” Dr. Hsu said.

Key resources that can be helpful include evidence-based guidelines developed by an expert panel of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Society of Hematology has a Pocket Guide app on management of sickle cell disease.

Another key resource being highlighted in September, which is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, is the NHLBI’s comprehensive website, providing information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with SCD.

“We are trying to bring more sickle cell information and case studies into medical school curricula, nursing curricula, social workers and community health workers awareness, [and] apps and online guidelines are proliferating,” Dr. Hsu says.

He goes on to say, “We need more recognition and resources from insurance providers that quality care for sickle cell disease is measured and rewarded.”

Dr. Hsu coauthored “Hope and Destiny: The Patient and Parent’s Guide to Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.” He reported relationships with Novartis, Emmaus, Forma Therapeutic, Dupont/Nemours Children’s Hospital, Hilton Publishing, Asklepion, Bayer, CRISPR/Vertex, Cyclerion, Pfizer, and Aruvant.
 

TOPLINE:

Ultrasonography may serve as an alternative to radiography for diagnosing pediatric forearm fractures, thus reducing the number of children undergoing radiography at initial emergency department presentation, as well as their waiting time in ED.

METHODOLOGY:

• After the World Health Organization reported a lack of access to any diagnostic imaging in approximately two-thirds of the world population in 2010, ultrasonography has gained popularity in low- and middle-income countries.
• The initial use of ultrasonography is in accordance with the principle of maintaining radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable.
• The BUCKLED trial was conducted, including 270 pediatric patients (age, 5-15 years) who presented to the ED with isolated, acute, clinically nondeformed distal forearm fractures.
• The participants were randomly assigned to receive initial point-of-care ultrasonography (n = 135) or radiography (n = 135) in the ED.
• The primary outcome was the physical function of the affected arm at 4 weeks evaluated using the Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 4 weeks, mean PROMIS scores were 36.4 and 36.3 points in ultrasonography and radiography groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% confidence interval, − 1.3 to 1.4), indicating noninferiority of ultrasonography over radiography.
• Ultrasonography and radiography groups showed similar efficacy in terms of PROMIS scores at 1 week (MD, 0.7 points; 95% CI, − 1.4 to 2.8) and 8 weeks (MD, 0.1 points; 95% CI, − 0.5 to 0.7).
• Participants in the ultrasonography group had a shorter length of stay in the ED (median difference, 15 minutes; 95% CI, 1-29) and a shorter treatment time (median difference, 28 minutes; 95% CI, 17-40) than those in the radiography group.
• No important fractures were missed with ultrasonography, and no significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events or unplanned returns to the ED between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Noting the benefit-risk profile of an ultrasound-first approach in an ED setting, the lead author, Peter J. Snelling, MB, BS, MPH&TM, from Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia, said: “It is highly unlikely that any important fractures would be missed using the protocol that we trained clinicians. The risk is low and the benefit is moderate, such as reducing length of stay and increased level of patient satisfaction.”

He further added that, “with an ultrasound-first approach, clinicians can scan the patient at time of review and may even be able to discharge them immediately (two-thirds of instances in our NEJM trial). This places the patient at the center of care being provided.”
 

SOURCE: 

Authors from the BUCKLED Trial Group published their study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

PROMIS scores may have been affected by variations in subsequent therapeutic interventions rather than the initial diagnostic method. PROMIS tool was not validated in children younger than 5 years of age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others. The authors have declared no relevant interests to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

Ultrasonography may serve as an alternative to radiography for diagnosing pediatric forearm fractures, thus reducing the number of children undergoing radiography at initial emergency department presentation, as well as their waiting time in ED.

METHODOLOGY:

• After the World Health Organization reported a lack of access to any diagnostic imaging in approximately two-thirds of the world population in 2010, ultrasonography has gained popularity in low- and middle-income countries.
• The initial use of ultrasonography is in accordance with the principle of maintaining radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable.
• The BUCKLED trial was conducted, including 270 pediatric patients (age, 5-15 years) who presented to the ED with isolated, acute, clinically nondeformed distal forearm fractures.
• The participants were randomly assigned to receive initial point-of-care ultrasonography (n = 135) or radiography (n = 135) in the ED.
• The primary outcome was the physical function of the affected arm at 4 weeks evaluated using the Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 4 weeks, mean PROMIS scores were 36.4 and 36.3 points in ultrasonography and radiography groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% confidence interval, − 1.3 to 1.4), indicating noninferiority of ultrasonography over radiography.
• Ultrasonography and radiography groups showed similar efficacy in terms of PROMIS scores at 1 week (MD, 0.7 points; 95% CI, − 1.4 to 2.8) and 8 weeks (MD, 0.1 points; 95% CI, − 0.5 to 0.7).
• Participants in the ultrasonography group had a shorter length of stay in the ED (median difference, 15 minutes; 95% CI, 1-29) and a shorter treatment time (median difference, 28 minutes; 95% CI, 17-40) than those in the radiography group.
• No important fractures were missed with ultrasonography, and no significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events or unplanned returns to the ED between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Noting the benefit-risk profile of an ultrasound-first approach in an ED setting, the lead author, Peter J. Snelling, MB, BS, MPH&TM, from Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia, said: “It is highly unlikely that any important fractures would be missed using the protocol that we trained clinicians. The risk is low and the benefit is moderate, such as reducing length of stay and increased level of patient satisfaction.”

He further added that, “with an ultrasound-first approach, clinicians can scan the patient at time of review and may even be able to discharge them immediately (two-thirds of instances in our NEJM trial). This places the patient at the center of care being provided.”
 

SOURCE: 

Authors from the BUCKLED Trial Group published their study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

PROMIS scores may have been affected by variations in subsequent therapeutic interventions rather than the initial diagnostic method. PROMIS tool was not validated in children younger than 5 years of age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others. The authors have declared no relevant interests to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

Ultrasonography may serve as an alternative to radiography for diagnosing pediatric forearm fractures, thus reducing the number of children undergoing radiography at initial emergency department presentation, as well as their waiting time in ED.

METHODOLOGY:

• After the World Health Organization reported a lack of access to any diagnostic imaging in approximately two-thirds of the world population in 2010, ultrasonography has gained popularity in low- and middle-income countries.
• The initial use of ultrasonography is in accordance with the principle of maintaining radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable.
• The BUCKLED trial was conducted, including 270 pediatric patients (age, 5-15 years) who presented to the ED with isolated, acute, clinically nondeformed distal forearm fractures.
• The participants were randomly assigned to receive initial point-of-care ultrasonography (n = 135) or radiography (n = 135) in the ED.
• The primary outcome was the physical function of the affected arm at 4 weeks evaluated using the Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 4 weeks, mean PROMIS scores were 36.4 and 36.3 points in ultrasonography and radiography groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% confidence interval, − 1.3 to 1.4), indicating noninferiority of ultrasonography over radiography.
• Ultrasonography and radiography groups showed similar efficacy in terms of PROMIS scores at 1 week (MD, 0.7 points; 95% CI, − 1.4 to 2.8) and 8 weeks (MD, 0.1 points; 95% CI, − 0.5 to 0.7).
• Participants in the ultrasonography group had a shorter length of stay in the ED (median difference, 15 minutes; 95% CI, 1-29) and a shorter treatment time (median difference, 28 minutes; 95% CI, 17-40) than those in the radiography group.
• No important fractures were missed with ultrasonography, and no significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events or unplanned returns to the ED between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Noting the benefit-risk profile of an ultrasound-first approach in an ED setting, the lead author, Peter J. Snelling, MB, BS, MPH&TM, from Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia, said: “It is highly unlikely that any important fractures would be missed using the protocol that we trained clinicians. The risk is low and the benefit is moderate, such as reducing length of stay and increased level of patient satisfaction.”

He further added that, “with an ultrasound-first approach, clinicians can scan the patient at time of review and may even be able to discharge them immediately (two-thirds of instances in our NEJM trial). This places the patient at the center of care being provided.”
 

SOURCE: 

Authors from the BUCKLED Trial Group published their study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

PROMIS scores may have been affected by variations in subsequent therapeutic interventions rather than the initial diagnostic method. PROMIS tool was not validated in children younger than 5 years of age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others. The authors have declared no relevant interests to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

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

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

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

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly three-quarters of adults with alopecia areata (AA) were not receiving treatment 1 year after diagnosis, according to a retrospective cohort study using data from more than 45,000 individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population included 45,483 adults aged 18 years and older with new diagnoses of AA between Oct. 15, 2015, and Feb. 28, 2020. Data were from a large U.S. health care database that included medical and pharmacy claims.
• The mean age of the participants was 43.8 years, and 65.7% were female.
• The researchers measured variables that might relate to AA and its treatment patterns within 1 year of starting the study and during the first year of the study, with data collected at 1, 42, 84, and 365 days after study entry.

TAKEAWAYS:

• During the first year after diagnosis, 66.4% of patients received at least one treatment for AA at one or more time points.
• At 1 year, 71.8% of patients were not receiving any active treatment for AA.
• Among those who received treatment, intralesional injections were the most often prescribed therapy (41.8% of patients), followed by topical corticosteroids (40.9%), intramuscular corticosteroids (38.1%), and oral corticosteroids (20.6%).
• Patients diagnosed with either alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis were significantly less likely to receive intralesional steroids and significantly more likely to receive topical corticosteroids than those without these diagnoses (11.1% vs. 44.1% and 25.4% vs. 42.1, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The results highlight the need to determine why so many alopecia patients with AA were no longer on treatment after 1 year, although treatment trends may change with the emergence of new therapies, such as JAK inhibitors and others, according to the authors.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Hemin Lee, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of insurance claims data did not allow analysis of over-the-counter medications and treatments, and the lack of a single ICD-10 code for defining AA could have resulted in misclassification of outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding, and Dr. Lee had no disclosures. One author had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Concert outside of the submitted study and participating in alopecia-related trials with Lilly, Concert, Aclaris, and Incyte. Another author’s disclosures included receiving personal fees from companies that included Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and AbbVie. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly three-quarters of adults with alopecia areata (AA) were not receiving treatment 1 year after diagnosis, according to a retrospective cohort study using data from more than 45,000 individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population included 45,483 adults aged 18 years and older with new diagnoses of AA between Oct. 15, 2015, and Feb. 28, 2020. Data were from a large U.S. health care database that included medical and pharmacy claims.
• The mean age of the participants was 43.8 years, and 65.7% were female.
• The researchers measured variables that might relate to AA and its treatment patterns within 1 year of starting the study and during the first year of the study, with data collected at 1, 42, 84, and 365 days after study entry.

TAKEAWAYS:

• During the first year after diagnosis, 66.4% of patients received at least one treatment for AA at one or more time points.
• At 1 year, 71.8% of patients were not receiving any active treatment for AA.
• Among those who received treatment, intralesional injections were the most often prescribed therapy (41.8% of patients), followed by topical corticosteroids (40.9%), intramuscular corticosteroids (38.1%), and oral corticosteroids (20.6%).
• Patients diagnosed with either alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis were significantly less likely to receive intralesional steroids and significantly more likely to receive topical corticosteroids than those without these diagnoses (11.1% vs. 44.1% and 25.4% vs. 42.1, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The results highlight the need to determine why so many alopecia patients with AA were no longer on treatment after 1 year, although treatment trends may change with the emergence of new therapies, such as JAK inhibitors and others, according to the authors.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Hemin Lee, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of insurance claims data did not allow analysis of over-the-counter medications and treatments, and the lack of a single ICD-10 code for defining AA could have resulted in misclassification of outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding, and Dr. Lee had no disclosures. One author had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Concert outside of the submitted study and participating in alopecia-related trials with Lilly, Concert, Aclaris, and Incyte. Another author’s disclosures included receiving personal fees from companies that included Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and AbbVie. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly three-quarters of adults with alopecia areata (AA) were not receiving treatment 1 year after diagnosis, according to a retrospective cohort study using data from more than 45,000 individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population included 45,483 adults aged 18 years and older with new diagnoses of AA between Oct. 15, 2015, and Feb. 28, 2020. Data were from a large U.S. health care database that included medical and pharmacy claims.
• The mean age of the participants was 43.8 years, and 65.7% were female.
• The researchers measured variables that might relate to AA and its treatment patterns within 1 year of starting the study and during the first year of the study, with data collected at 1, 42, 84, and 365 days after study entry.

TAKEAWAYS:

• During the first year after diagnosis, 66.4% of patients received at least one treatment for AA at one or more time points.
• At 1 year, 71.8% of patients were not receiving any active treatment for AA.
• Among those who received treatment, intralesional injections were the most often prescribed therapy (41.8% of patients), followed by topical corticosteroids (40.9%), intramuscular corticosteroids (38.1%), and oral corticosteroids (20.6%).
• Patients diagnosed with either alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis were significantly less likely to receive intralesional steroids and significantly more likely to receive topical corticosteroids than those without these diagnoses (11.1% vs. 44.1% and 25.4% vs. 42.1, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The results highlight the need to determine why so many alopecia patients with AA were no longer on treatment after 1 year, although treatment trends may change with the emergence of new therapies, such as JAK inhibitors and others, according to the authors.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Hemin Lee, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of insurance claims data did not allow analysis of over-the-counter medications and treatments, and the lack of a single ICD-10 code for defining AA could have resulted in misclassification of outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding, and Dr. Lee had no disclosures. One author had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Concert outside of the submitted study and participating in alopecia-related trials with Lilly, Concert, Aclaris, and Incyte. Another author’s disclosures included receiving personal fees from companies that included Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and AbbVie. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients older than age 70 years have a 23% lower risk of a first major vascular events with each 1 mmol/L lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is similar to the benefit seen among younger patients in primary prevention, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using various cross-linked Danish registries, researchers analyzed 65,190 participants aged 50 years and older (49,155 aged 50-69 and 16,035 aged 70+) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who initiated new lipid-lowering treatment and had a baseline LDL cholesterol measurement and a subsequent measurement within a year.
• The primary outcome was hospitalization for a major vascular event, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual cardiovascular components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 626 older (70 years and over) and 1,123 younger (aged 50-69) participants had a major vascular event, with crude incidence rates of 13.4 and 7.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively.
• After adjustment for potential confounders, each 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people aged 70 and older was associated with a significant 23% lower risk for major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83), similar to results for those younger than 70 (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80; P value for the difference between the age groups, 0.79).
• Results across all cardiovascular secondary analyses supported the main findings, and there was no significant difference between older and younger participants across all subgroup analyses, including using 75 years as the age cutoff.
• There was no association with all-cause mortality for either the older (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) or younger (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.06) groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results, based on a substantial sample size representative of a contemporary general population, may contribute to informing future guideline recommendations,” and to discussions with older patients about the benefits of LDL lowering therapy, the authors wrote. They stressed that any potential benefits should be balanced against potential harms in this population, as these individuals may have comorbidities and may be taking multiple medications.

In an accompanying editorial, Safi U. Khan, MD, from the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, said the study “contributes valuable insights regarding the effects of LDL-C-lowering therapy, especially as the burgeoning aging population faces escalating burden of ASCVD,” and added future research “should focus on corroborating these findings and addressing the safety of lipid-lowering treatments in older individuals.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, department of epidemiology research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, and colleagues. It was published online Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not apply to individuals without LDL monitoring when receiving lipid-lowering treatment. Outcomes relied on the validity of recorded diagnostic codes in the registries, and medical record review of cases was not done. Residual confounding can’t be ruled out, in part because data on potentially important risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index weren’t available. The results may not generalize to clinical scenarios or subpopulations not directly studied.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Andersson has no relevant conflicts of interest. Author Tine Lovsø Dohlmann, PhD, was employed by Statens Serum Institut during the study, but has been employed by Novo Nordisk since January 2023. All other study authors and the editorialist Dr. Khan have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging in early breast cancer, but previous studies have shown that removal of axillary lymph nodes has no therapeutic effect.

The finding raises a question: Is SLNB even necessary when preoperative axillary imaging is negative?

A new randomized trial addresses the question and brings much “welcome clarity” to the issue, Seema Khan, MD, a surgical oncologist and breast cancer researcher at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an editorial to the trial, both of which were published in JAMA Oncology.

In short, European investigators found that it’s safe to skip SLNBs in women with breast cancers no larger than 2 cm if preoperative ultrasounds of the axilla show no evidence of nodal disease.

At a median of follow-up of 5.7 years, distant disease-free survival and other outcomes were essentially equivalent between 708 women randomized to SLNB followed by full axillary dissection if nodes are positive and 697 other women randomized to observation without SLNB.

Adjuvant therapies were not significantly different between the two groups largely because adjuvant decisions were driven by tumor characteristics, not axillary studies.

The results support “the argument that sentinel node positivity is not, in and of itself, a critical parameter that determines therapeutic plans and outcomes in patients with stage I breast cancer. This is a major accomplishment of the SOUND [Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound] trial, which will be strengthened when longer-term data become available” at 10-year follow up, Dr. Khan said.

Investigators led by Oreste Davide Gentilini, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at San Raffaele Scientific and Research Hospital, Milan, estimated that, of the 2.3 million breast cancers diagnosed globally each year, the study suggests “that approximately 500,000 patients might be able to take advantage of the total omission of axillary surgery,” sparing women lymphedema and other serious side effects and saving health care systems substantial dollars.
 

A case-by-case decision

The study included women of all ages, with a median age of 60 years.

Subjects had a single tumor 0.8-1.5 cm across with negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography. Almost 90% had estrogen receptor ERBB2 (formerly HER2) positive tumors. Almost all of the subjects had radiotherapy, and about 20% of women in each arm also had chemotherapy.

The trial was conducted in 18 sites, most in Italy with other sites in Switzerland, Spain, and Chile.

Overall, 13.7% of women in the SLNB group turned out to have positive axillary nodes, with 0.6% having four or more positive nodes.

However, it didn’t seem to make a difference in the overall study results.

Five-year distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98% in the observation arm (P for noninferiority = .02).

Secondary outcomes were also essentially identical, including local/regional relapse (1.7% with SLNB versus 1.6% without); distant metastases (1.8% vs. 2%), and death from breast cancer (1% vs. 0.6%). The cumulative incidence of axillary lymph node recurrences in the observation arm was just 0.4%.

“These findings suggest that patients with BC of a diameter equal to or smaller than 2 cm and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan,” Dr. Gentilini and associates concluded.

The team cautioned that decision to forgo SLNB must be made on a case-by-case basis in a multidisciplinary setting because there are still situations where nodal pathology is relevant, for instance when deciding to add chemotherapy to endocrine treatments in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive disease.

Only about 20% of the subjects were under 50 years old and the team didn’t break down their results by age, which makes it difficult to apply their results to the situation.

The work was funded by the European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Khan didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Gentilini reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BD, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Two other investigators also reported personal fees from those and/or other companies.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging in early breast cancer, but previous studies have shown that removal of axillary lymph nodes has no therapeutic effect.

The finding raises a question: Is SLNB even necessary when preoperative axillary imaging is negative?

A new randomized trial addresses the question and brings much “welcome clarity” to the issue, Seema Khan, MD, a surgical oncologist and breast cancer researcher at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an editorial to the trial, both of which were published in JAMA Oncology.

In short, European investigators found that it’s safe to skip SLNBs in women with breast cancers no larger than 2 cm if preoperative ultrasounds of the axilla show no evidence of nodal disease.

At a median of follow-up of 5.7 years, distant disease-free survival and other outcomes were essentially equivalent between 708 women randomized to SLNB followed by full axillary dissection if nodes are positive and 697 other women randomized to observation without SLNB.

Adjuvant therapies were not significantly different between the two groups largely because adjuvant decisions were driven by tumor characteristics, not axillary studies.

The results support “the argument that sentinel node positivity is not, in and of itself, a critical parameter that determines therapeutic plans and outcomes in patients with stage I breast cancer. This is a major accomplishment of the SOUND [Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound] trial, which will be strengthened when longer-term data become available” at 10-year follow up, Dr. Khan said.

Investigators led by Oreste Davide Gentilini, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at San Raffaele Scientific and Research Hospital, Milan, estimated that, of the 2.3 million breast cancers diagnosed globally each year, the study suggests “that approximately 500,000 patients might be able to take advantage of the total omission of axillary surgery,” sparing women lymphedema and other serious side effects and saving health care systems substantial dollars.
 

A case-by-case decision

The study included women of all ages, with a median age of 60 years.

Subjects had a single tumor 0.8-1.5 cm across with negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography. Almost 90% had estrogen receptor ERBB2 (formerly HER2) positive tumors. Almost all of the subjects had radiotherapy, and about 20% of women in each arm also had chemotherapy.

The trial was conducted in 18 sites, most in Italy with other sites in Switzerland, Spain, and Chile.

Overall, 13.7% of women in the SLNB group turned out to have positive axillary nodes, with 0.6% having four or more positive nodes.

However, it didn’t seem to make a difference in the overall study results.

Five-year distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98% in the observation arm (P for noninferiority = .02).

Secondary outcomes were also essentially identical, including local/regional relapse (1.7% with SLNB versus 1.6% without); distant metastases (1.8% vs. 2%), and death from breast cancer (1% vs. 0.6%). The cumulative incidence of axillary lymph node recurrences in the observation arm was just 0.4%.

“These findings suggest that patients with BC of a diameter equal to or smaller than 2 cm and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan,” Dr. Gentilini and associates concluded.

The team cautioned that decision to forgo SLNB must be made on a case-by-case basis in a multidisciplinary setting because there are still situations where nodal pathology is relevant, for instance when deciding to add chemotherapy to endocrine treatments in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive disease.

Only about 20% of the subjects were under 50 years old and the team didn’t break down their results by age, which makes it difficult to apply their results to the situation.

The work was funded by the European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Khan didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Gentilini reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BD, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Two other investigators also reported personal fees from those and/or other companies.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging in early breast cancer, but previous studies have shown that removal of axillary lymph nodes has no therapeutic effect.

The finding raises a question: Is SLNB even necessary when preoperative axillary imaging is negative?

A new randomized trial addresses the question and brings much “welcome clarity” to the issue, Seema Khan, MD, a surgical oncologist and breast cancer researcher at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an editorial to the trial, both of which were published in JAMA Oncology.

In short, European investigators found that it’s safe to skip SLNBs in women with breast cancers no larger than 2 cm if preoperative ultrasounds of the axilla show no evidence of nodal disease.

At a median of follow-up of 5.7 years, distant disease-free survival and other outcomes were essentially equivalent between 708 women randomized to SLNB followed by full axillary dissection if nodes are positive and 697 other women randomized to observation without SLNB.

Adjuvant therapies were not significantly different between the two groups largely because adjuvant decisions were driven by tumor characteristics, not axillary studies.

The results support “the argument that sentinel node positivity is not, in and of itself, a critical parameter that determines therapeutic plans and outcomes in patients with stage I breast cancer. This is a major accomplishment of the SOUND [Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound] trial, which will be strengthened when longer-term data become available” at 10-year follow up, Dr. Khan said.

Investigators led by Oreste Davide Gentilini, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at San Raffaele Scientific and Research Hospital, Milan, estimated that, of the 2.3 million breast cancers diagnosed globally each year, the study suggests “that approximately 500,000 patients might be able to take advantage of the total omission of axillary surgery,” sparing women lymphedema and other serious side effects and saving health care systems substantial dollars.
 

A case-by-case decision

The study included women of all ages, with a median age of 60 years.

Subjects had a single tumor 0.8-1.5 cm across with negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography. Almost 90% had estrogen receptor ERBB2 (formerly HER2) positive tumors. Almost all of the subjects had radiotherapy, and about 20% of women in each arm also had chemotherapy.

The trial was conducted in 18 sites, most in Italy with other sites in Switzerland, Spain, and Chile.

Overall, 13.7% of women in the SLNB group turned out to have positive axillary nodes, with 0.6% having four or more positive nodes.

However, it didn’t seem to make a difference in the overall study results.

Five-year distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98% in the observation arm (P for noninferiority = .02).

Secondary outcomes were also essentially identical, including local/regional relapse (1.7% with SLNB versus 1.6% without); distant metastases (1.8% vs. 2%), and death from breast cancer (1% vs. 0.6%). The cumulative incidence of axillary lymph node recurrences in the observation arm was just 0.4%.

“These findings suggest that patients with BC of a diameter equal to or smaller than 2 cm and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan,” Dr. Gentilini and associates concluded.

The team cautioned that decision to forgo SLNB must be made on a case-by-case basis in a multidisciplinary setting because there are still situations where nodal pathology is relevant, for instance when deciding to add chemotherapy to endocrine treatments in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive disease.

Only about 20% of the subjects were under 50 years old and the team didn’t break down their results by age, which makes it difficult to apply their results to the situation.

The work was funded by the European Institute of Oncology. Dr. Khan didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Gentilini reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BD, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Two other investigators also reported personal fees from those and/or other companies.

To address this gap in knowledge, Möller and colleagues compared the effectiveness of the first bDMARD in patients with PsA with low vs high joint counts (LJC and HJC, respectively). Using the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry for rheumatic diseases, they obtained data on 387 patients with PsA who had either LJC (n = 197) or HJC (n = 190) and received bDMARD. As expected, patients with HJC had a higher burden of disease. Despite the higher burden, patients in both groups showed similar treatment efficacy in terms of drug retention. Consistent with previous reports, female sex was associated with lower treatment persistence, whereas concomitant treatment with conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) was associated with longer bDMARD persistence. Thus, baseline joint counts may not be a good criterion for choosing who should be treated with bDMARD. The presence of active disease and lack of response to prior csDMARD is sufficient.

Persistence with therapy is an important indicator of drug effectiveness in the real world. A recent report from the CorEvitas registry by Mease and colleagues demonstrated that nearly 80% of patients with PsA persisted with guselkumab (an interleukin [IL]–23 inhibitor) treatment for 6 months and showed improvements in peripheral joint and skin symptoms. This study evaluated 114 patients with active PsA,  > 90% of whom were previously treated with b- and tsDMARD. The mean scores for clinical Disease Activity Index in PsA, overall joint and skin activity, patient-reported pain, and body surface area with psoriasis improved significantly.

Choosing the next therapy after lack of success with treatment with a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and an IL-17A inhibitor is difficult. One question is whether one should try another IL-17A inhibitor or move to another class of therapy. Hansen and colleagues tried to address this question by analyses of data from the Danish Rheumatology Registry. Patients with PsA who underwent prior treatment with one or more TNF inhibitor and switched to either first-line (n = 534) or second-line (n = 102) IL-17A inhibitors (ixekizumab or secukinumab) were included. Similar persistence with therapy was observed between first-line and second-line IL-17A inhibitor switchers and between second-line secukinumab and second-line ixekizumab switchers. Withdrawal reasons were similar for both first-line and second-line switchers when considering adverse events; however, withdrawal due to lack of successful therapy was higher for the first-line vs second-line switchers (34% vs 18%). An important piece of information missing in the report was whether the lack of successful treatment with first-line therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor was primary (no response at all) or secondary (initial response and later failure). One presumes that patients with primary failures are less likely to respond to another IL-17A inhibitor compared with patients with secondary failures. Nevertheless, this large population-based study suggests that the failure of first-line IL-17A inhibitor therapy should not deter treatment with second-line IL-17A inhibitors.

Finally, Schett and colleagues looked at serum cytokine changes after treatment with guselkumab in patients with PsA with inadequate response to TNF inhibitor (TNFI-IR). Using clinical data and biosamples from patients enrolled in the COSMOS study, which included patients with active PsA and TNFI-IR who were randomly assigned to receive either guselkumab (n = 189) or placebo (n = 96), they showed that the serum levels of IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-22, and serum amyloid A were reduced significantly by week 4 and were sustained through week 48 in the guselkumab group vs the placebo group. Patients who achieved a clinical response to guselkumab at week 24 showed higher baseline IL-22 and interferon-γ levels as well as a significant reduction in IL-6 levels at week 4 compared with nonresponders. These markers are candidates for predictors for response to guselkumab in this population.

To address this gap in knowledge, Möller and colleagues compared the effectiveness of the first bDMARD in patients with PsA with low vs high joint counts (LJC and HJC, respectively). Using the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry for rheumatic diseases, they obtained data on 387 patients with PsA who had either LJC (n = 197) or HJC (n = 190) and received bDMARD. As expected, patients with HJC had a higher burden of disease. Despite the higher burden, patients in both groups showed similar treatment efficacy in terms of drug retention. Consistent with previous reports, female sex was associated with lower treatment persistence, whereas concomitant treatment with conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) was associated with longer bDMARD persistence. Thus, baseline joint counts may not be a good criterion for choosing who should be treated with bDMARD. The presence of active disease and lack of response to prior csDMARD is sufficient.

Persistence with therapy is an important indicator of drug effectiveness in the real world. A recent report from the CorEvitas registry by Mease and colleagues demonstrated that nearly 80% of patients with PsA persisted with guselkumab (an interleukin [IL]–23 inhibitor) treatment for 6 months and showed improvements in peripheral joint and skin symptoms. This study evaluated 114 patients with active PsA,  > 90% of whom were previously treated with b- and tsDMARD. The mean scores for clinical Disease Activity Index in PsA, overall joint and skin activity, patient-reported pain, and body surface area with psoriasis improved significantly.

Choosing the next therapy after lack of success with treatment with a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and an IL-17A inhibitor is difficult. One question is whether one should try another IL-17A inhibitor or move to another class of therapy. Hansen and colleagues tried to address this question by analyses of data from the Danish Rheumatology Registry. Patients with PsA who underwent prior treatment with one or more TNF inhibitor and switched to either first-line (n = 534) or second-line (n = 102) IL-17A inhibitors (ixekizumab or secukinumab) were included. Similar persistence with therapy was observed between first-line and second-line IL-17A inhibitor switchers and between second-line secukinumab and second-line ixekizumab switchers. Withdrawal reasons were similar for both first-line and second-line switchers when considering adverse events; however, withdrawal due to lack of successful therapy was higher for the first-line vs second-line switchers (34% vs 18%). An important piece of information missing in the report was whether the lack of successful treatment with first-line therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor was primary (no response at all) or secondary (initial response and later failure). One presumes that patients with primary failures are less likely to respond to another IL-17A inhibitor compared with patients with secondary failures. Nevertheless, this large population-based study suggests that the failure of first-line IL-17A inhibitor therapy should not deter treatment with second-line IL-17A inhibitors.

Finally, Schett and colleagues looked at serum cytokine changes after treatment with guselkumab in patients with PsA with inadequate response to TNF inhibitor (TNFI-IR). Using clinical data and biosamples from patients enrolled in the COSMOS study, which included patients with active PsA and TNFI-IR who were randomly assigned to receive either guselkumab (n = 189) or placebo (n = 96), they showed that the serum levels of IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-22, and serum amyloid A were reduced significantly by week 4 and were sustained through week 48 in the guselkumab group vs the placebo group. Patients who achieved a clinical response to guselkumab at week 24 showed higher baseline IL-22 and interferon-γ levels as well as a significant reduction in IL-6 levels at week 4 compared with nonresponders. These markers are candidates for predictors for response to guselkumab in this population.

To address this gap in knowledge, Möller and colleagues compared the effectiveness of the first bDMARD in patients with PsA with low vs high joint counts (LJC and HJC, respectively). Using the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry for rheumatic diseases, they obtained data on 387 patients with PsA who had either LJC (n = 197) or HJC (n = 190) and received bDMARD. As expected, patients with HJC had a higher burden of disease. Despite the higher burden, patients in both groups showed similar treatment efficacy in terms of drug retention. Consistent with previous reports, female sex was associated with lower treatment persistence, whereas concomitant treatment with conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) was associated with longer bDMARD persistence. Thus, baseline joint counts may not be a good criterion for choosing who should be treated with bDMARD. The presence of active disease and lack of response to prior csDMARD is sufficient.

Persistence with therapy is an important indicator of drug effectiveness in the real world. A recent report from the CorEvitas registry by Mease and colleagues demonstrated that nearly 80% of patients with PsA persisted with guselkumab (an interleukin [IL]–23 inhibitor) treatment for 6 months and showed improvements in peripheral joint and skin symptoms. This study evaluated 114 patients with active PsA,  > 90% of whom were previously treated with b- and tsDMARD. The mean scores for clinical Disease Activity Index in PsA, overall joint and skin activity, patient-reported pain, and body surface area with psoriasis improved significantly.

Choosing the next therapy after lack of success with treatment with a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and an IL-17A inhibitor is difficult. One question is whether one should try another IL-17A inhibitor or move to another class of therapy. Hansen and colleagues tried to address this question by analyses of data from the Danish Rheumatology Registry. Patients with PsA who underwent prior treatment with one or more TNF inhibitor and switched to either first-line (n = 534) or second-line (n = 102) IL-17A inhibitors (ixekizumab or secukinumab) were included. Similar persistence with therapy was observed between first-line and second-line IL-17A inhibitor switchers and between second-line secukinumab and second-line ixekizumab switchers. Withdrawal reasons were similar for both first-line and second-line switchers when considering adverse events; however, withdrawal due to lack of successful therapy was higher for the first-line vs second-line switchers (34% vs 18%). An important piece of information missing in the report was whether the lack of successful treatment with first-line therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor was primary (no response at all) or secondary (initial response and later failure). One presumes that patients with primary failures are less likely to respond to another IL-17A inhibitor compared with patients with secondary failures. Nevertheless, this large population-based study suggests that the failure of first-line IL-17A inhibitor therapy should not deter treatment with second-line IL-17A inhibitors.

Finally, Schett and colleagues looked at serum cytokine changes after treatment with guselkumab in patients with PsA with inadequate response to TNF inhibitor (TNFI-IR). Using clinical data and biosamples from patients enrolled in the COSMOS study, which included patients with active PsA and TNFI-IR who were randomly assigned to receive either guselkumab (n = 189) or placebo (n = 96), they showed that the serum levels of IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-22, and serum amyloid A were reduced significantly by week 4 and were sustained through week 48 in the guselkumab group vs the placebo group. Patients who achieved a clinical response to guselkumab at week 24 showed higher baseline IL-22 and interferon-γ levels as well as a significant reduction in IL-6 levels at week 4 compared with nonresponders. These markers are candidates for predictors for response to guselkumab in this population.

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

Having grown up with sickle cell disease (SCD), Titilope Fasipe, MD, PhD, codirector of the sickle cell program at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, knows firsthand the physical pain, mental anguish, and dread that have long accompanied this condition. So few child patients lived to reach adulthood that until recently, SCD was considered a pediatric disease.

These days, thanks to transformative advances in treating SCD that have substantially improved survival, Dr. Fasipe’s mission for a new generation of patients and their families is to replace their pain and fear with relief and hope.

Courtesy Racheal Adetayo Artistry

“If you grow up thinking that you’re going to die when you’re 18, it changes your world and your viewpoints, and it impacts your mental health,” she told this news organization.

“We are trying to make sure our children and their families know that there is a new story for sickle cell disease, and you don’t have to use any age as your prediction marker for your lifespan,” Dr. Fasipe said.

SCD, which affects about 100,000 people nationwide, is an inherited blood disorder, with the majority of patients – but not all – being of African descent. This condition is characterized by pain crises, or vaso-occlusive episodes, triggered when cells that are sickled get stuck and impede blood flow. These crises can come on suddenly and range from mild to severe.

Dr. Fasipe was born in Nigeria, where rates of SCD are among the world’s highest. She attended elementary school in the United States, where her father was studying theology, before returning to Nigeria with her family at age 11.

Back in those days, in both nations only about 50% of children with SCD lived beyond their 18th birthday. The survival rates in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa countries continue to be poor. In some more developed regions elsewhere, advances such as universal newborn screening, penicillin prophylaxis, pneumococcal vaccination, stroke screening, and hydroxyurea therapy have yielded substantial improvements, with 95% or more patients with SCD reaching their 18th birthday.

“With measures such as newborn screening, we can immediately start prevention measures in sickle cell disease, such as prevention of infection, which was the number one reason why children were dying,” Dr. Fasipe explained. “With global initiatives, we want that story to be the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.”
 

Cousin’s early death inspires medical studies

In an essay published by Texas Medical Center that describes her childhood experiences, Dr. Fasipe recounts a pivotal event in her life: The heartbreaking death of her beloved cousin at the age of just 17, from a complication of SCD. This bereavement fueled Dr. Fasipe’s determination to pursue a medical career, to do all that she could to prevent such losses.

“Having sickle cell disease myself wasn’t the trigger that made me become a doctor. But when Femi [her cousin] died, I thought: ‘This shouldn’t happen,’ ” Dr. Fasipe wrote.

When she applied to medical school back in the United States, she declared in her application essay: “I want to cure sickle cell.”

By the time Dr. Fasipe was ready to undertake residency and fellowship applications, her essay had shifted to focus on pediatrics “specifically because I want to reach sickle cell patients before they’ve defined how their lives are going to be,” she said. “I want to give them hope.”
 

Hope for a cure

Fast-forwarding to this point in Dr. Fasipe’s career, she noted that her dream of a cure for SCD is no longer a distant aspiration, thanks to the advent of stem cell transplantation and more recently, gene therapy. These advancements have elevated her hope for a cure to an entirely new level.

Each new treatment comes with caveats. Stem cell transplantation requires a matching donor, leaving the majority of patients ineligible. And while gene therapy eliminates the need for a donor, treatment can reportedly cost nearly $3 million. Nevertheless, Dr. Fasipe emphasized the promise that these new advancements represent.

“The scientists that work in these spaces do appreciate these [accessibility barriers], and the expectation is these therapies will be more accessible with time and effort,” she said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, and it’s exciting that they’re making these early successes.”
 

Advice for clinicians

With firsthand knowledge of how it feels to be the patient, as well as on the clinician side of SCD treatment, Dr. Fasipe advises colleagues on some ways that they can improve care while boosting their patients’ hope:

Speak with empathy

Acknowledge the ‘elephant in the room’; the pain that patients with SCD can experience is real.

“When I’m managing any patient with pain, I first acknowledge the suffering because while we may not understand what that person is going through, acknowledgment is part of showing empathy,” she explains.

Seek out resources

Patients with SCD may typically seek treatment in primary care, where expertise in the disease may be lacking, and general practitioners may feel frustrated that there are limited treatment options.

“If you do find yourself treating a sickle cell disease patient, you may not have all of the answers, but there are good resources, whether it’s a nearby sickle cell disease centers or national guidelines,” Dr. Fasipe said.

Access to treatment

With research, including a recent study, showing that only about 25% of patients with SCD are prescribed hydroxyurea and even fewer – only about 5% – receive more recently approved SCD treatments, clinicians should be proactive by making sure that patients receive needed treatments.

“Clearly medicines like hydroxyurea are not as optimized in this community space as they should be, and then there are newer therapies that families, patients, and even providers may not be aware of, so it is important to be informed of the guidelines and provide all patients with comprehensive, high-quality care,” Dr. Fasipe said.

In the ED, patients with SCD are ‘care-seeking,’ not drug-seeking

Due to the sometimes rapid onset of severe pain symptoms, patients with SCD commonly wind up in the emergency department. In this time of an opioid epidemic, patients too often are suspected of merely seeking drugs.

“Sickle cell disease tends to get lumped into a category of a disease of pain, but pain is subjective and it is difficult to quantify, so unfortunately, patients can be labeled as potentially drug-seeking,” Dr. Fasipe explained, citing an article that detailed this problem.

Consequently, patients may have particularly negative experiences in the emergency department, but the use of resources such as a sickle cell disease point-of-care tool developed by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Hematology can help improve care for those patients.

“One of the [point-of-care recommendations] before even managing the pain is that physicians show compassion by acknowledging the patient’s pain and that they understand why pain with sickle cell disease might look different than other types of pain,” Dr. Fasipe said.
 

Building trust

Encounters such as negative emergency department experiences can perpetuate a deeper issue of distrust between those with SCD and the medical community, which originated in long-held, well-documented racial disparities in health care.

“We know historically and even today that there are difficulties facing our families who are impacted by sickle cell disease, and they are related to structural racism and socioeconomic barriers,” Dr. Fasipe explained.

With these issues in mind, she said, “I refer to sickle cell disease as the medical representation of the Black experience in America.” However, she added, the good news is “we are now doing our best now to improve that.”

Among key efforts in building trust is the inclusion of patients with SCD and their families in as many aspects of research and clinical care as possible.

“In the global health care community, it is imperative to invite people with sickle cell disease and from the community to the decision-making table,” she noted.

“Now, when we’re talking about research for therapies, their expectation is that research trials and other initiatives for sickle cell disease must have input from the community; there are no initiatives for sickle cell disease that do not have input from the community.

“The patients and community members may not be experts on the science of sickle cell, but they’re experts on the lived experience and that’s very important when you’re thinking about new bringing in a new therapy.”
 

Forward momentum

Meanwhile, Dr. Fasipe observed, with the collective, advocacy-driven, forward momentum of the SCD community as a whole, things should only continue to improve.

“Because of the various barriers, some progress may not be immediately around the corner, but I do have confidence that this current generation of children with sickle cell will have improved health equity by the time they reach adulthood,” she said.

“I believe in this future, so I’m doing the work now, and it’s a promise I tell parents: I want your future adult child to live their best life, and we’re working hard to ensure that that becomes their future reality.”
 

Sickle cell disease awareness

September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers a comprehensive website that clinicians can pass along to their patients, with information ranging from fact sheets on the disease and treatments to social media resources and inspiring stories of people with the disease.

In a comment, Lewis Hsu, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, underscored the uniquely important contributions of people like Dr. Fasipe, in providing inspiration to patients and clinicians alike.

“I have worked with several physicians, nurses, psychologists, and public health specialists who have sickle cell disease,” said Dr. Hsu, who is a pediatric hematologist who also serves as director of the Sickle Cell Center and professor of pediatrics for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“They are ambassadors who have the trust of both patients and healthcare providers,” Dr. Hsu said.

In addition to providing inspiration of resilience, such care providers can serve as “communication bridges,” he explained.

“When they are conference speakers, everybody wants to hear them; when they sit on advisory committees or focus groups, they can help find the compromise or set the priorities.”

“Their impact on the whole sickle cell community is very large,” Dr. Hsu said.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.