User login
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone
In 1982, I went to my first concert. It was Rush, on their “Signals” tour, and I loved it. In fact, I went back and saw them again about a year later. I bought a concert T-shirt at the first one. I still have it somewhere, though I am pretty sure it hasn’t fit me in years.
I loved their music before the concert, enjoyed it even more afterwards, and still do. Their albums are all on my computer and phone, and part of the daily soundtrack of my life when working at my desk, driving, and walking (I’m trying to fit back in the shirt).
On Jan. 7, 2020, Neil Peart, the trio’s remarkably gifted drummer, died of a neurologic disease.
According to the news, he had a glioblastoma multiforme, a tumor terrifying for its aggressiveness, difficulty of treatment, and lack of preventable risk factors.
The cost of neurologic disease is terrible. Glioblastoma multiforme, unfortunately, is far from rare, nor is it the only one. In recent times, entertainers afflicted with neurologic disease have included Neil Diamond, Linda Ronstadt, Peter Falk, Glen Campbell, Charlton Heston, Gene Siskel, Michael J. Fox, Stephen Hillenburg, Teri Garr, Annette Funicello, Robin Williams, Dudley Moore, and most recently Ozzy Osbourne.
That’s a pretty short list, too, far from all-encompassing. The majority of people with these disorders won’t be in the news. Their everyday struggles, stories, and losses are known only to family, friends, and the medical team doing its best to help.
Medical technology advances every year. In the 22 years since I began practicing, we’ve made remarkable strides in some areas – multiple sclerosis, for example. But our work in so many other areas is nowhere close. The increasing knowledge as to the mechanisms and causes of Alzheimer’s disease have, to date, failed to translate into treatment success.
That’s not to say we should give up. Far from it. Our species has gotten where we are by always wanting to get over the next hill. Initial failures will always outnumber successes. But when you’re a doctor dealing with the very real human cost of neurologic disease, that’s not much consolation. And it’s far less so for the patients and families affected who come to us for help.
We use terms like “burden” or “cost” to discuss the financial aspects of illness, but they often don’t seem adequate to describe the real effects. The emotional damages. The gifted musicians and loved family members lost. Family members struggling with the difficult role of being care givers.
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone, regardless of age, fame, or talent. I’ll stay here and do my best for all of them who come to me. I’m certainly not on the front line of research. That’s incredibly important, but I’ll leave it to others. My work is where the patients are every day.
Thank you for the music, Neil.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In 1982, I went to my first concert. It was Rush, on their “Signals” tour, and I loved it. In fact, I went back and saw them again about a year later. I bought a concert T-shirt at the first one. I still have it somewhere, though I am pretty sure it hasn’t fit me in years.
I loved their music before the concert, enjoyed it even more afterwards, and still do. Their albums are all on my computer and phone, and part of the daily soundtrack of my life when working at my desk, driving, and walking (I’m trying to fit back in the shirt).
On Jan. 7, 2020, Neil Peart, the trio’s remarkably gifted drummer, died of a neurologic disease.
According to the news, he had a glioblastoma multiforme, a tumor terrifying for its aggressiveness, difficulty of treatment, and lack of preventable risk factors.
The cost of neurologic disease is terrible. Glioblastoma multiforme, unfortunately, is far from rare, nor is it the only one. In recent times, entertainers afflicted with neurologic disease have included Neil Diamond, Linda Ronstadt, Peter Falk, Glen Campbell, Charlton Heston, Gene Siskel, Michael J. Fox, Stephen Hillenburg, Teri Garr, Annette Funicello, Robin Williams, Dudley Moore, and most recently Ozzy Osbourne.
That’s a pretty short list, too, far from all-encompassing. The majority of people with these disorders won’t be in the news. Their everyday struggles, stories, and losses are known only to family, friends, and the medical team doing its best to help.
Medical technology advances every year. In the 22 years since I began practicing, we’ve made remarkable strides in some areas – multiple sclerosis, for example. But our work in so many other areas is nowhere close. The increasing knowledge as to the mechanisms and causes of Alzheimer’s disease have, to date, failed to translate into treatment success.
That’s not to say we should give up. Far from it. Our species has gotten where we are by always wanting to get over the next hill. Initial failures will always outnumber successes. But when you’re a doctor dealing with the very real human cost of neurologic disease, that’s not much consolation. And it’s far less so for the patients and families affected who come to us for help.
We use terms like “burden” or “cost” to discuss the financial aspects of illness, but they often don’t seem adequate to describe the real effects. The emotional damages. The gifted musicians and loved family members lost. Family members struggling with the difficult role of being care givers.
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone, regardless of age, fame, or talent. I’ll stay here and do my best for all of them who come to me. I’m certainly not on the front line of research. That’s incredibly important, but I’ll leave it to others. My work is where the patients are every day.
Thank you for the music, Neil.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In 1982, I went to my first concert. It was Rush, on their “Signals” tour, and I loved it. In fact, I went back and saw them again about a year later. I bought a concert T-shirt at the first one. I still have it somewhere, though I am pretty sure it hasn’t fit me in years.
I loved their music before the concert, enjoyed it even more afterwards, and still do. Their albums are all on my computer and phone, and part of the daily soundtrack of my life when working at my desk, driving, and walking (I’m trying to fit back in the shirt).
On Jan. 7, 2020, Neil Peart, the trio’s remarkably gifted drummer, died of a neurologic disease.
According to the news, he had a glioblastoma multiforme, a tumor terrifying for its aggressiveness, difficulty of treatment, and lack of preventable risk factors.
The cost of neurologic disease is terrible. Glioblastoma multiforme, unfortunately, is far from rare, nor is it the only one. In recent times, entertainers afflicted with neurologic disease have included Neil Diamond, Linda Ronstadt, Peter Falk, Glen Campbell, Charlton Heston, Gene Siskel, Michael J. Fox, Stephen Hillenburg, Teri Garr, Annette Funicello, Robin Williams, Dudley Moore, and most recently Ozzy Osbourne.
That’s a pretty short list, too, far from all-encompassing. The majority of people with these disorders won’t be in the news. Their everyday struggles, stories, and losses are known only to family, friends, and the medical team doing its best to help.
Medical technology advances every year. In the 22 years since I began practicing, we’ve made remarkable strides in some areas – multiple sclerosis, for example. But our work in so many other areas is nowhere close. The increasing knowledge as to the mechanisms and causes of Alzheimer’s disease have, to date, failed to translate into treatment success.
That’s not to say we should give up. Far from it. Our species has gotten where we are by always wanting to get over the next hill. Initial failures will always outnumber successes. But when you’re a doctor dealing with the very real human cost of neurologic disease, that’s not much consolation. And it’s far less so for the patients and families affected who come to us for help.
We use terms like “burden” or “cost” to discuss the financial aspects of illness, but they often don’t seem adequate to describe the real effects. The emotional damages. The gifted musicians and loved family members lost. Family members struggling with the difficult role of being care givers.
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone, regardless of age, fame, or talent. I’ll stay here and do my best for all of them who come to me. I’m certainly not on the front line of research. That’s incredibly important, but I’ll leave it to others. My work is where the patients are every day.
Thank you for the music, Neil.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The suicide wars
Topic of suicide prevention causing divisions within psychiatry
At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.
It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.
Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.
The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.
We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.
Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.
Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”
Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.
I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.
In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.
The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”
If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.
If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.
Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.
Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
Topic of suicide prevention causing divisions within psychiatry
Topic of suicide prevention causing divisions within psychiatry
At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.
It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.
Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.
The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.
We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.
Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.
Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”
Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.
I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.
In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.
The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”
If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.
If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.
Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.
Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.
It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.
Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.
The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.
We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.
Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.
Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”
Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.
I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.
In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.
The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”
If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.
If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.
Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.
Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
New year, old you
This column should arrive just in time. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!
I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.
If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?
And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.
As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.
We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).
Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.
Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.
These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.
Happy New Year! And good luck!
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
This column should arrive just in time. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!
I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.
If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?
And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.
As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.
We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).
Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.
Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.
These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.
Happy New Year! And good luck!
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
This column should arrive just in time. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!
I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.
If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?
And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.
As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.
We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).
Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.
Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.
These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.
Happy New Year! And good luck!
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Anxiety may be a part of healthy development, sometimes
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
The evolving landscape of complement inhibition therapy
The introduction of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5 of the complement cascade, revolutionized the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a rare hematologic disorder characterized by complement-mediated intravascular hemolysis, bone marrow failure, and thrombophilia. Treatment options for PNH were limited before eculizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2007.
Its use resulted in the inhibition of intravascular hemolysis, hemoglobin stabilization, and substantial reductions in transfusion requirements. Moreover, eculizumab had the unexpected effect of reducing the risk of thromboembolic complications, the most severe complication of PNH. Patients treated with eculizumab experienced fewer thrombotic events (4%), compared with historical cohorts (27%). Importantly, 5-year overall survival rates for patients with PNH taking eculizumab improved more than 90%, compared wity the 80% reported historically.
More than 10 years later, we are tasked with assessing the impact of this drug. Unquestionably, eculizumab has done more for PNH than we could have hoped for. However, 10 years of additional data reveal the limitations of this groundbreaking therapy. Despite the overall sustained response and survival benefit, hematologic response remains variable. Complete normalization of hemoglobin occurs in less than one-third of patients. Transfusion requirements persist in many patients. Residual anemia during eculizumab therapy is at least partly attributed to bone marrow failure, a feature the complement inhibition does not address. Still, pharmacokinetic limitations of the drug also contribute to the lack of complete responses. There is residual intravascular hemolysis because of insufficient inhibition of C5 and the emergence of C3-mediated extravascular hemolysis constitutes an unanticipated mechanistic complication of all C5-mediated therapies.
The last few years have seen a surge in novel anticomplement agents, which improve upon the already well-established inhibition of C5 but also explore the efficacy of targeting earlier aspects of the complement pathway. During the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting, we had exciting updates on some of the promising new kids on the block.
Ravulizumab, the newest C5 monoclonal antibody approved by the FDA for PNH, displays more robust C5 inhibition, thereby reducing the breakthrough hemolysis still seen with eculizumab use. Crovalimab, also an anti-C5 humanized antibody, is engineered with Sequential Monoclonal Antibody Recycling Technology that improves the half-life of the drug and facilitates subcutaneous dosing while still achieving complete C5 inhibition. Some of the most exciting data is on danicopan, a small-molecule factor D inhibitor that targets the alternative pathway thereby inhibiting C3 convertase and blocking extravascular hemolysis. It has shown promise as a stand-alone agent, as well as with combined C5 inhibition, while promising safety, a reasonable concern as we explore the long-term risks of targeting the proximal complement pathway.
I was recently asked to comment on how the new complement inhibitors are addressing unmet needs in PNH. While the recent presentations at ASH demonstrate an improvement on the efficacy of C5 inhibition, pharmacokinetics, and drug delivery – all which translate to improved hemoglobin and reduced breakthrough hemolysis for PNH patients – I am most excited at the promise this new generation of drugs holds for other diseases. Since its approval for PNH, eculizumab has also been approved for use in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.
Perhaps the greatest potential I envision for the new generation of drugs is in aHUS, a chronic disease characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-stage renal disease that cannot be cured with renal transplantation. The pathophysiology involves dysregulation of complement activation because of genetic mutations or autoantibodies to key proteins in the complement cascade. Though we have experienced some success with eculizumab, responses can be incomplete, particularly in patients with C5 mutations. The newer drugs offer the opportunity to inhibit complement activation at both proximal and distal aspects of the cascade, which may prove ideal in a disease in which the affected protein is not consistent. Moreover, preclinical and clinical trials have shown promise for these novel complement inhibitors in other autoimmune diseases: antibody-mediated vasculitis, C3 glomerulopathy, catastrophic antibody syndrome, membranous nephropathy, and lupus nephritis.
The surge of new complement inhibitors could revolutionize our strategy for treatment of autoimmune-mediated diseases, in which downstream complement activation can manifest with life-threatening tissue injury. Inhibition of complement offers a promising strategy for blocking downstream immune-mediated effector mechanisms of injury common in several autoimmune diseases.
As the results from various clinical trials come to fruition, it will be exciting to determine how to best use this new generation of drugs to target new diseases and whether the next decade is poised to eclipse the progress in complement therapy already established by eculizumab.
Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.
The introduction of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5 of the complement cascade, revolutionized the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a rare hematologic disorder characterized by complement-mediated intravascular hemolysis, bone marrow failure, and thrombophilia. Treatment options for PNH were limited before eculizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2007.
Its use resulted in the inhibition of intravascular hemolysis, hemoglobin stabilization, and substantial reductions in transfusion requirements. Moreover, eculizumab had the unexpected effect of reducing the risk of thromboembolic complications, the most severe complication of PNH. Patients treated with eculizumab experienced fewer thrombotic events (4%), compared with historical cohorts (27%). Importantly, 5-year overall survival rates for patients with PNH taking eculizumab improved more than 90%, compared wity the 80% reported historically.
More than 10 years later, we are tasked with assessing the impact of this drug. Unquestionably, eculizumab has done more for PNH than we could have hoped for. However, 10 years of additional data reveal the limitations of this groundbreaking therapy. Despite the overall sustained response and survival benefit, hematologic response remains variable. Complete normalization of hemoglobin occurs in less than one-third of patients. Transfusion requirements persist in many patients. Residual anemia during eculizumab therapy is at least partly attributed to bone marrow failure, a feature the complement inhibition does not address. Still, pharmacokinetic limitations of the drug also contribute to the lack of complete responses. There is residual intravascular hemolysis because of insufficient inhibition of C5 and the emergence of C3-mediated extravascular hemolysis constitutes an unanticipated mechanistic complication of all C5-mediated therapies.
The last few years have seen a surge in novel anticomplement agents, which improve upon the already well-established inhibition of C5 but also explore the efficacy of targeting earlier aspects of the complement pathway. During the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting, we had exciting updates on some of the promising new kids on the block.
Ravulizumab, the newest C5 monoclonal antibody approved by the FDA for PNH, displays more robust C5 inhibition, thereby reducing the breakthrough hemolysis still seen with eculizumab use. Crovalimab, also an anti-C5 humanized antibody, is engineered with Sequential Monoclonal Antibody Recycling Technology that improves the half-life of the drug and facilitates subcutaneous dosing while still achieving complete C5 inhibition. Some of the most exciting data is on danicopan, a small-molecule factor D inhibitor that targets the alternative pathway thereby inhibiting C3 convertase and blocking extravascular hemolysis. It has shown promise as a stand-alone agent, as well as with combined C5 inhibition, while promising safety, a reasonable concern as we explore the long-term risks of targeting the proximal complement pathway.
I was recently asked to comment on how the new complement inhibitors are addressing unmet needs in PNH. While the recent presentations at ASH demonstrate an improvement on the efficacy of C5 inhibition, pharmacokinetics, and drug delivery – all which translate to improved hemoglobin and reduced breakthrough hemolysis for PNH patients – I am most excited at the promise this new generation of drugs holds for other diseases. Since its approval for PNH, eculizumab has also been approved for use in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.
Perhaps the greatest potential I envision for the new generation of drugs is in aHUS, a chronic disease characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-stage renal disease that cannot be cured with renal transplantation. The pathophysiology involves dysregulation of complement activation because of genetic mutations or autoantibodies to key proteins in the complement cascade. Though we have experienced some success with eculizumab, responses can be incomplete, particularly in patients with C5 mutations. The newer drugs offer the opportunity to inhibit complement activation at both proximal and distal aspects of the cascade, which may prove ideal in a disease in which the affected protein is not consistent. Moreover, preclinical and clinical trials have shown promise for these novel complement inhibitors in other autoimmune diseases: antibody-mediated vasculitis, C3 glomerulopathy, catastrophic antibody syndrome, membranous nephropathy, and lupus nephritis.
The surge of new complement inhibitors could revolutionize our strategy for treatment of autoimmune-mediated diseases, in which downstream complement activation can manifest with life-threatening tissue injury. Inhibition of complement offers a promising strategy for blocking downstream immune-mediated effector mechanisms of injury common in several autoimmune diseases.
As the results from various clinical trials come to fruition, it will be exciting to determine how to best use this new generation of drugs to target new diseases and whether the next decade is poised to eclipse the progress in complement therapy already established by eculizumab.
Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.
The introduction of eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5 of the complement cascade, revolutionized the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a rare hematologic disorder characterized by complement-mediated intravascular hemolysis, bone marrow failure, and thrombophilia. Treatment options for PNH were limited before eculizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2007.
Its use resulted in the inhibition of intravascular hemolysis, hemoglobin stabilization, and substantial reductions in transfusion requirements. Moreover, eculizumab had the unexpected effect of reducing the risk of thromboembolic complications, the most severe complication of PNH. Patients treated with eculizumab experienced fewer thrombotic events (4%), compared with historical cohorts (27%). Importantly, 5-year overall survival rates for patients with PNH taking eculizumab improved more than 90%, compared wity the 80% reported historically.
More than 10 years later, we are tasked with assessing the impact of this drug. Unquestionably, eculizumab has done more for PNH than we could have hoped for. However, 10 years of additional data reveal the limitations of this groundbreaking therapy. Despite the overall sustained response and survival benefit, hematologic response remains variable. Complete normalization of hemoglobin occurs in less than one-third of patients. Transfusion requirements persist in many patients. Residual anemia during eculizumab therapy is at least partly attributed to bone marrow failure, a feature the complement inhibition does not address. Still, pharmacokinetic limitations of the drug also contribute to the lack of complete responses. There is residual intravascular hemolysis because of insufficient inhibition of C5 and the emergence of C3-mediated extravascular hemolysis constitutes an unanticipated mechanistic complication of all C5-mediated therapies.
The last few years have seen a surge in novel anticomplement agents, which improve upon the already well-established inhibition of C5 but also explore the efficacy of targeting earlier aspects of the complement pathway. During the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting, we had exciting updates on some of the promising new kids on the block.
Ravulizumab, the newest C5 monoclonal antibody approved by the FDA for PNH, displays more robust C5 inhibition, thereby reducing the breakthrough hemolysis still seen with eculizumab use. Crovalimab, also an anti-C5 humanized antibody, is engineered with Sequential Monoclonal Antibody Recycling Technology that improves the half-life of the drug and facilitates subcutaneous dosing while still achieving complete C5 inhibition. Some of the most exciting data is on danicopan, a small-molecule factor D inhibitor that targets the alternative pathway thereby inhibiting C3 convertase and blocking extravascular hemolysis. It has shown promise as a stand-alone agent, as well as with combined C5 inhibition, while promising safety, a reasonable concern as we explore the long-term risks of targeting the proximal complement pathway.
I was recently asked to comment on how the new complement inhibitors are addressing unmet needs in PNH. While the recent presentations at ASH demonstrate an improvement on the efficacy of C5 inhibition, pharmacokinetics, and drug delivery – all which translate to improved hemoglobin and reduced breakthrough hemolysis for PNH patients – I am most excited at the promise this new generation of drugs holds for other diseases. Since its approval for PNH, eculizumab has also been approved for use in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.
Perhaps the greatest potential I envision for the new generation of drugs is in aHUS, a chronic disease characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-stage renal disease that cannot be cured with renal transplantation. The pathophysiology involves dysregulation of complement activation because of genetic mutations or autoantibodies to key proteins in the complement cascade. Though we have experienced some success with eculizumab, responses can be incomplete, particularly in patients with C5 mutations. The newer drugs offer the opportunity to inhibit complement activation at both proximal and distal aspects of the cascade, which may prove ideal in a disease in which the affected protein is not consistent. Moreover, preclinical and clinical trials have shown promise for these novel complement inhibitors in other autoimmune diseases: antibody-mediated vasculitis, C3 glomerulopathy, catastrophic antibody syndrome, membranous nephropathy, and lupus nephritis.
The surge of new complement inhibitors could revolutionize our strategy for treatment of autoimmune-mediated diseases, in which downstream complement activation can manifest with life-threatening tissue injury. Inhibition of complement offers a promising strategy for blocking downstream immune-mediated effector mechanisms of injury common in several autoimmune diseases.
As the results from various clinical trials come to fruition, it will be exciting to determine how to best use this new generation of drugs to target new diseases and whether the next decade is poised to eclipse the progress in complement therapy already established by eculizumab.
Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.
Seasonality
Did you notice that your practice slows down in February? In fact, if you plot your patient census over a few years, you may find that it dips every February. And you will discover other slow periods, perhaps in December, and busy months during other parts of the year.
Seasonality is yet another of those basic business concepts that most physicians have never heard of, because of the conspicuous lack of business training in medical schools. . Why are people more or less willing to spend money at certain times of the year? Analysts usually blame slow business during January or February on reluctance to buy products or services after the holiday season. They attribute summer peaks to everything from warm weather to an increased propensity to buy when students are out of school, and summer slumps to vacationing customers. It is not always easy – or necessary – to explain seasonality. The point is that such behavior patterns do exist.
It would seem that this behavior would be easy to change, by running some ads, or doing an e-mail blast; but unfortunately, altering a seasonal pattern is not an option for a small private practice. It can be done, but it is a deep pockets game requiring long, expensive campaigns that are only practical for large corporations.
For example, soup was traditionally consumed during the winter months since time immemorial. After years of pervasive advertising extolling its nutritional virtues (remember “Soup is Good Food”?), the soup industry succeeded in convincing the public to use their product year-round. Obviously, that kind of large-scale behavior modification is not practical for a local medical practice.
Does that mean there is nothing we can do about our practices’ seasonal variations? Not at all; but we must work within the realities of our patients’ seasonal behavior, rather than attempting to change that behavior outright.
First, you need to know what that behavior is, because it varies from practice to practice, even within the same state or city. Plotting your seasonality is easy; you can make a graph on Excel in a few minutes. Ask your office manager or accountant for month-by-month billing figures for the last 2 or 3 years. (Make sure it’s the amount billed, not collected, since the latter lags the former by several weeks at least.) Plot those figures on the vertical arm and time (in months) on the horizontal. Alternatively you can plot patient visits per month, if you wish; I do both.
Once you know your seasonality, review your options. Modify your own habits when necessary. If you typically take a vacation in August, for example, that’s not a great idea if August is one of your busiest months; consider vacationing during predictable slow periods instead.
Though I have said that you can’t change most seasonal behavior, it is possible to “retrain” some of your long-time, loyal patients to come in during your slower periods for at least some of their care. Use insurance company rules as a financial incentive, where possible. Many of my patients are on Medicare, so I send a notice to all of them in early November each year, urging them to come in during December (one of my light months) before their deductible has to be paid again.
If you advertise your services, do the bulk of it during your busiest months. That might seem counterintuitive; why not advertise during slow periods to fill those empty slots? But once again, you cannot change seasonal behavior with a low-budget, local advertising campaign; physicians who attempt it invariably get a poor response to their ads. So don’t try to move the mountain to Mohammed. Advertise during your busy periods, when seasonal patterns predict that potential patients are more willing to spend money and are more likely to respond to your message.
In short, then, try to “flatten” your seasonal dips by persuading as many existing patients as possible to return during slower seasons. You can then encourage new patients to make appointments when they are receptive to purchasing new services, your seasonal peaks. Once in your practice, some of them can then be shifted into your slower periods, especially for predictable, periodic care.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Did you notice that your practice slows down in February? In fact, if you plot your patient census over a few years, you may find that it dips every February. And you will discover other slow periods, perhaps in December, and busy months during other parts of the year.
Seasonality is yet another of those basic business concepts that most physicians have never heard of, because of the conspicuous lack of business training in medical schools. . Why are people more or less willing to spend money at certain times of the year? Analysts usually blame slow business during January or February on reluctance to buy products or services after the holiday season. They attribute summer peaks to everything from warm weather to an increased propensity to buy when students are out of school, and summer slumps to vacationing customers. It is not always easy – or necessary – to explain seasonality. The point is that such behavior patterns do exist.
It would seem that this behavior would be easy to change, by running some ads, or doing an e-mail blast; but unfortunately, altering a seasonal pattern is not an option for a small private practice. It can be done, but it is a deep pockets game requiring long, expensive campaigns that are only practical for large corporations.
For example, soup was traditionally consumed during the winter months since time immemorial. After years of pervasive advertising extolling its nutritional virtues (remember “Soup is Good Food”?), the soup industry succeeded in convincing the public to use their product year-round. Obviously, that kind of large-scale behavior modification is not practical for a local medical practice.
Does that mean there is nothing we can do about our practices’ seasonal variations? Not at all; but we must work within the realities of our patients’ seasonal behavior, rather than attempting to change that behavior outright.
First, you need to know what that behavior is, because it varies from practice to practice, even within the same state or city. Plotting your seasonality is easy; you can make a graph on Excel in a few minutes. Ask your office manager or accountant for month-by-month billing figures for the last 2 or 3 years. (Make sure it’s the amount billed, not collected, since the latter lags the former by several weeks at least.) Plot those figures on the vertical arm and time (in months) on the horizontal. Alternatively you can plot patient visits per month, if you wish; I do both.
Once you know your seasonality, review your options. Modify your own habits when necessary. If you typically take a vacation in August, for example, that’s not a great idea if August is one of your busiest months; consider vacationing during predictable slow periods instead.
Though I have said that you can’t change most seasonal behavior, it is possible to “retrain” some of your long-time, loyal patients to come in during your slower periods for at least some of their care. Use insurance company rules as a financial incentive, where possible. Many of my patients are on Medicare, so I send a notice to all of them in early November each year, urging them to come in during December (one of my light months) before their deductible has to be paid again.
If you advertise your services, do the bulk of it during your busiest months. That might seem counterintuitive; why not advertise during slow periods to fill those empty slots? But once again, you cannot change seasonal behavior with a low-budget, local advertising campaign; physicians who attempt it invariably get a poor response to their ads. So don’t try to move the mountain to Mohammed. Advertise during your busy periods, when seasonal patterns predict that potential patients are more willing to spend money and are more likely to respond to your message.
In short, then, try to “flatten” your seasonal dips by persuading as many existing patients as possible to return during slower seasons. You can then encourage new patients to make appointments when they are receptive to purchasing new services, your seasonal peaks. Once in your practice, some of them can then be shifted into your slower periods, especially for predictable, periodic care.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Did you notice that your practice slows down in February? In fact, if you plot your patient census over a few years, you may find that it dips every February. And you will discover other slow periods, perhaps in December, and busy months during other parts of the year.
Seasonality is yet another of those basic business concepts that most physicians have never heard of, because of the conspicuous lack of business training in medical schools. . Why are people more or less willing to spend money at certain times of the year? Analysts usually blame slow business during January or February on reluctance to buy products or services after the holiday season. They attribute summer peaks to everything from warm weather to an increased propensity to buy when students are out of school, and summer slumps to vacationing customers. It is not always easy – or necessary – to explain seasonality. The point is that such behavior patterns do exist.
It would seem that this behavior would be easy to change, by running some ads, or doing an e-mail blast; but unfortunately, altering a seasonal pattern is not an option for a small private practice. It can be done, but it is a deep pockets game requiring long, expensive campaigns that are only practical for large corporations.
For example, soup was traditionally consumed during the winter months since time immemorial. After years of pervasive advertising extolling its nutritional virtues (remember “Soup is Good Food”?), the soup industry succeeded in convincing the public to use their product year-round. Obviously, that kind of large-scale behavior modification is not practical for a local medical practice.
Does that mean there is nothing we can do about our practices’ seasonal variations? Not at all; but we must work within the realities of our patients’ seasonal behavior, rather than attempting to change that behavior outright.
First, you need to know what that behavior is, because it varies from practice to practice, even within the same state or city. Plotting your seasonality is easy; you can make a graph on Excel in a few minutes. Ask your office manager or accountant for month-by-month billing figures for the last 2 or 3 years. (Make sure it’s the amount billed, not collected, since the latter lags the former by several weeks at least.) Plot those figures on the vertical arm and time (in months) on the horizontal. Alternatively you can plot patient visits per month, if you wish; I do both.
Once you know your seasonality, review your options. Modify your own habits when necessary. If you typically take a vacation in August, for example, that’s not a great idea if August is one of your busiest months; consider vacationing during predictable slow periods instead.
Though I have said that you can’t change most seasonal behavior, it is possible to “retrain” some of your long-time, loyal patients to come in during your slower periods for at least some of their care. Use insurance company rules as a financial incentive, where possible. Many of my patients are on Medicare, so I send a notice to all of them in early November each year, urging them to come in during December (one of my light months) before their deductible has to be paid again.
If you advertise your services, do the bulk of it during your busiest months. That might seem counterintuitive; why not advertise during slow periods to fill those empty slots? But once again, you cannot change seasonal behavior with a low-budget, local advertising campaign; physicians who attempt it invariably get a poor response to their ads. So don’t try to move the mountain to Mohammed. Advertise during your busy periods, when seasonal patterns predict that potential patients are more willing to spend money and are more likely to respond to your message.
In short, then, try to “flatten” your seasonal dips by persuading as many existing patients as possible to return during slower seasons. You can then encourage new patients to make appointments when they are receptive to purchasing new services, your seasonal peaks. Once in your practice, some of them can then be shifted into your slower periods, especially for predictable, periodic care.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
The power and promise of person-generated health data – part 1
The time shared during clinical encounters provides small peeks into patients’ lives that get documented as episodic snapshots in electronic health records. But there is little information about how patients are doing outside of the office. With increasing emphasis on filling out mandatory parts of the EHR, there is less time available for in-depth, in-office conversations and phone follow-ups.
At the same time, it has become clear that it is not just the medicines we prescribe that affect our patients’ lives. Their behaviors outside of the office – being physically active, eating well, getting a good night’s rest, and adhering to medications – also impact their health outcomes.
The explosion of technology and personal data in our increasingly connected world provides powerful new sources of health and behavior information that generate new understanding of patients’ lives in their everyday settings.
The ubiquity and remarkable technological progress of personal computing devices – including wearables, smartphones, and tablets – along with the multitude of sensor modalities embedded within these devices, has enabled us to establish a continuous connection with people who want to share information about their behavior and daily life.
Such rich, longitudinal information, known as person-generated health data (PGHD), can be searched for physiological and behavioral signatures that can be used in combination with traditional clinical information to predict, diagnose, and treat disease. It can also be used to understand the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions.
PGHD is defined as wellness and/or health-related data created, recorded, or gathered by individuals. It reflects events and interactions that occur during an person’s everyday life. Systematically gathering this information and organizing it to better understand patients’ approach to their health or their unique experience living with disease provides meaningful insights that complement the data traditionally collected as part of clinical trials or periodic office visits.
PGHD can produce a rich picture of a person’s health or symptom burden with disease. It allows the opportunity to measure the real human burden of a patient’s disease and how it changes over time, with an opportunity to detect changes in symptoms in real time.
PGHD can also enable participation in health research.
An example would be the work of Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Evidation provides a platform to run research studies utilizing technology and systems to measure health in everyday life. Its app, Achievement, collects continuous behavior-related data from smartphones, wearables, connected devices, and apps. That provides opportunities for participants to join research studies that develop novel measures designed to quantify health outcomes in a way that more accurately reflects an individual’s day-to-day activities and experience. All data collected are at the direction of and with the permission of the individual.
“Achievers” are given points for taking health-related actions such as tracking steps or their sleep, which convert to cash that can be kept or donated to their favorite charities. Achievement’s 3.5 million diverse participants also receive offers to join research studies. This paradigm shift dramatically expands access to research to increase diversity, shortens the time to first data through rapid recruitment, and enhances retention rates by making it easier to engage. To date, more than 1 million users have chosen to participate in research studies. The technology is bringing new data and insights to health research; it supports important questions about quality of life, medical products’ real-world effectiveness, and the development of hyperpersonalized health care services.
This new type of data is transforming medical research by creating real-world studies of unprecedented size, such as the Apple Heart Study – a virtual study with more than 400,000 enrolled participants – which was designed to test the accuracy of Apple Watches in safely identifying atrial fibrillation. The FDA has cleared two features on the Apple Watch: the device’s ability to detect and notify the user of an irregular heart rhythm, and the ability to take a single-lead EKG feature that can provide a rhythm strip for a clinician to review.
The FDA clearance letters specify that the apps are “not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.” They provide extra information, and that information might be helpful – but the apps won’t replace a doctor’s visit. It remains to be seen how these data will be used, but they have the potential to identify atrial fibrillation early, leading to treatment that may prevent devastating strokes.
Another example of home-generated health data is a tool that has obtained FDA clearance as a diagnostic device with insurance reimbursement: WatchPAT, a portable sleep apnea diagnostic device. WatchPAT is worn like a simple wristwatch, with no need for belts, wires, or nasal cannulas.
Over time, in-home tests like these that are of minimal inconvenience to the patient and reflect a real-world experience may eclipse traditional sleep studies that require patients to spend the night in a clinic while attached to wires and monitors.
Health data generated by connected populations will yield novel insights that may help us better predict, diagnose, and treat disease. These are examples of innovations that can extend clinicians’ abilities to remotely monitor or diagnose health conditions, and we can expect that more will continue to be integrated into the clinical and research settings in the near future.
In part 2 of this series, we will discuss novel digital measures and studies utilizing PGHD to impact population health.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, family medicine residency program, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Foschini is cofounder and chief data scientist at Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Bray Patrick-Lake is a patient thought leader and director, strategic partnerships, at Evidation Health.
References
Determining real-world data’s fitness for use and the role of reliability, September 2019. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381(20):1909-17.
The time shared during clinical encounters provides small peeks into patients’ lives that get documented as episodic snapshots in electronic health records. But there is little information about how patients are doing outside of the office. With increasing emphasis on filling out mandatory parts of the EHR, there is less time available for in-depth, in-office conversations and phone follow-ups.
At the same time, it has become clear that it is not just the medicines we prescribe that affect our patients’ lives. Their behaviors outside of the office – being physically active, eating well, getting a good night’s rest, and adhering to medications – also impact their health outcomes.
The explosion of technology and personal data in our increasingly connected world provides powerful new sources of health and behavior information that generate new understanding of patients’ lives in their everyday settings.
The ubiquity and remarkable technological progress of personal computing devices – including wearables, smartphones, and tablets – along with the multitude of sensor modalities embedded within these devices, has enabled us to establish a continuous connection with people who want to share information about their behavior and daily life.
Such rich, longitudinal information, known as person-generated health data (PGHD), can be searched for physiological and behavioral signatures that can be used in combination with traditional clinical information to predict, diagnose, and treat disease. It can also be used to understand the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions.
PGHD is defined as wellness and/or health-related data created, recorded, or gathered by individuals. It reflects events and interactions that occur during an person’s everyday life. Systematically gathering this information and organizing it to better understand patients’ approach to their health or their unique experience living with disease provides meaningful insights that complement the data traditionally collected as part of clinical trials or periodic office visits.
PGHD can produce a rich picture of a person’s health or symptom burden with disease. It allows the opportunity to measure the real human burden of a patient’s disease and how it changes over time, with an opportunity to detect changes in symptoms in real time.
PGHD can also enable participation in health research.
An example would be the work of Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Evidation provides a platform to run research studies utilizing technology and systems to measure health in everyday life. Its app, Achievement, collects continuous behavior-related data from smartphones, wearables, connected devices, and apps. That provides opportunities for participants to join research studies that develop novel measures designed to quantify health outcomes in a way that more accurately reflects an individual’s day-to-day activities and experience. All data collected are at the direction of and with the permission of the individual.
“Achievers” are given points for taking health-related actions such as tracking steps or their sleep, which convert to cash that can be kept or donated to their favorite charities. Achievement’s 3.5 million diverse participants also receive offers to join research studies. This paradigm shift dramatically expands access to research to increase diversity, shortens the time to first data through rapid recruitment, and enhances retention rates by making it easier to engage. To date, more than 1 million users have chosen to participate in research studies. The technology is bringing new data and insights to health research; it supports important questions about quality of life, medical products’ real-world effectiveness, and the development of hyperpersonalized health care services.
This new type of data is transforming medical research by creating real-world studies of unprecedented size, such as the Apple Heart Study – a virtual study with more than 400,000 enrolled participants – which was designed to test the accuracy of Apple Watches in safely identifying atrial fibrillation. The FDA has cleared two features on the Apple Watch: the device’s ability to detect and notify the user of an irregular heart rhythm, and the ability to take a single-lead EKG feature that can provide a rhythm strip for a clinician to review.
The FDA clearance letters specify that the apps are “not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.” They provide extra information, and that information might be helpful – but the apps won’t replace a doctor’s visit. It remains to be seen how these data will be used, but they have the potential to identify atrial fibrillation early, leading to treatment that may prevent devastating strokes.
Another example of home-generated health data is a tool that has obtained FDA clearance as a diagnostic device with insurance reimbursement: WatchPAT, a portable sleep apnea diagnostic device. WatchPAT is worn like a simple wristwatch, with no need for belts, wires, or nasal cannulas.
Over time, in-home tests like these that are of minimal inconvenience to the patient and reflect a real-world experience may eclipse traditional sleep studies that require patients to spend the night in a clinic while attached to wires and monitors.
Health data generated by connected populations will yield novel insights that may help us better predict, diagnose, and treat disease. These are examples of innovations that can extend clinicians’ abilities to remotely monitor or diagnose health conditions, and we can expect that more will continue to be integrated into the clinical and research settings in the near future.
In part 2 of this series, we will discuss novel digital measures and studies utilizing PGHD to impact population health.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, family medicine residency program, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Foschini is cofounder and chief data scientist at Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Bray Patrick-Lake is a patient thought leader and director, strategic partnerships, at Evidation Health.
References
Determining real-world data’s fitness for use and the role of reliability, September 2019. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381(20):1909-17.
The time shared during clinical encounters provides small peeks into patients’ lives that get documented as episodic snapshots in electronic health records. But there is little information about how patients are doing outside of the office. With increasing emphasis on filling out mandatory parts of the EHR, there is less time available for in-depth, in-office conversations and phone follow-ups.
At the same time, it has become clear that it is not just the medicines we prescribe that affect our patients’ lives. Their behaviors outside of the office – being physically active, eating well, getting a good night’s rest, and adhering to medications – also impact their health outcomes.
The explosion of technology and personal data in our increasingly connected world provides powerful new sources of health and behavior information that generate new understanding of patients’ lives in their everyday settings.
The ubiquity and remarkable technological progress of personal computing devices – including wearables, smartphones, and tablets – along with the multitude of sensor modalities embedded within these devices, has enabled us to establish a continuous connection with people who want to share information about their behavior and daily life.
Such rich, longitudinal information, known as person-generated health data (PGHD), can be searched for physiological and behavioral signatures that can be used in combination with traditional clinical information to predict, diagnose, and treat disease. It can also be used to understand the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions.
PGHD is defined as wellness and/or health-related data created, recorded, or gathered by individuals. It reflects events and interactions that occur during an person’s everyday life. Systematically gathering this information and organizing it to better understand patients’ approach to their health or their unique experience living with disease provides meaningful insights that complement the data traditionally collected as part of clinical trials or periodic office visits.
PGHD can produce a rich picture of a person’s health or symptom burden with disease. It allows the opportunity to measure the real human burden of a patient’s disease and how it changes over time, with an opportunity to detect changes in symptoms in real time.
PGHD can also enable participation in health research.
An example would be the work of Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Evidation provides a platform to run research studies utilizing technology and systems to measure health in everyday life. Its app, Achievement, collects continuous behavior-related data from smartphones, wearables, connected devices, and apps. That provides opportunities for participants to join research studies that develop novel measures designed to quantify health outcomes in a way that more accurately reflects an individual’s day-to-day activities and experience. All data collected are at the direction of and with the permission of the individual.
“Achievers” are given points for taking health-related actions such as tracking steps or their sleep, which convert to cash that can be kept or donated to their favorite charities. Achievement’s 3.5 million diverse participants also receive offers to join research studies. This paradigm shift dramatically expands access to research to increase diversity, shortens the time to first data through rapid recruitment, and enhances retention rates by making it easier to engage. To date, more than 1 million users have chosen to participate in research studies. The technology is bringing new data and insights to health research; it supports important questions about quality of life, medical products’ real-world effectiveness, and the development of hyperpersonalized health care services.
This new type of data is transforming medical research by creating real-world studies of unprecedented size, such as the Apple Heart Study – a virtual study with more than 400,000 enrolled participants – which was designed to test the accuracy of Apple Watches in safely identifying atrial fibrillation. The FDA has cleared two features on the Apple Watch: the device’s ability to detect and notify the user of an irregular heart rhythm, and the ability to take a single-lead EKG feature that can provide a rhythm strip for a clinician to review.
The FDA clearance letters specify that the apps are “not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.” They provide extra information, and that information might be helpful – but the apps won’t replace a doctor’s visit. It remains to be seen how these data will be used, but they have the potential to identify atrial fibrillation early, leading to treatment that may prevent devastating strokes.
Another example of home-generated health data is a tool that has obtained FDA clearance as a diagnostic device with insurance reimbursement: WatchPAT, a portable sleep apnea diagnostic device. WatchPAT is worn like a simple wristwatch, with no need for belts, wires, or nasal cannulas.
Over time, in-home tests like these that are of minimal inconvenience to the patient and reflect a real-world experience may eclipse traditional sleep studies that require patients to spend the night in a clinic while attached to wires and monitors.
Health data generated by connected populations will yield novel insights that may help us better predict, diagnose, and treat disease. These are examples of innovations that can extend clinicians’ abilities to remotely monitor or diagnose health conditions, and we can expect that more will continue to be integrated into the clinical and research settings in the near future.
In part 2 of this series, we will discuss novel digital measures and studies utilizing PGHD to impact population health.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, family medicine residency program, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Foschini is cofounder and chief data scientist at Evidation Health in San Mateo, Calif. Bray Patrick-Lake is a patient thought leader and director, strategic partnerships, at Evidation Health.
References
Determining real-world data’s fitness for use and the role of reliability, September 2019. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381(20):1909-17.
Rash on hands and feet
Lichenoid dermatoses are a heterogeneous group of diseases with varying clinical presentations. The term “lichenoid” refers to the popular lesions of certain skin disorders of which lichen planus (LP) is the prototype. The papules are shiny, flat topped, polygonal, of different sizes, and occur in clusters creating a pattern that resembles lichen growing on a rock. Lichenoid eruptions are quite common in children and can result from many different origins. In most instances the precise mechanism of disease is not known, although it is usually believed to be immunologic in nature. Certain disorders are common in children, whereas others more often affect the adult population.
Lichen striatus, lichen nitidus (LN), and lichen spinulosus are lichenoid lesions that are more common in children than adults.
LN – as seen in the patient described here – is an uncommon benign inflammatory skin disease, primarily of children. Individual lesions are sharply demarcated, pinpoint to pinhead sized, round or polygonal, and strikingly monomorphous in nature. The papules are usually flesh colored, however, the color varies from yellow and brown to violet hues depending on the background color of the patient’s skin. This variation in color is in contrast with LP which is characteristically violaceous. The surfaces of the papules are flat, shiny, and slightly elevated. They may have a fine scale or a hyperkeratotic plug. The lesions tend to occur in groups, primarily on the abdomen, chest, glans penis, and upper extremities. The Koebner phenomenon is observed and is a hallmark for the disorder. LN is generally asymptomatic, unlike LP, which is exceedingly pruritic.
The cause of LN is unknown; however, it has been proposed that LN, in particular generalized LN, may be associated with immune alterations in the patient. The course of LN is slowly progressive with a tendency toward remission. The lesions can remain stationary for years; however, they sometimes disappear spontaneously and completely.
The differential diagnosis of LN beyond the entities discussed above includes frictional lichenoid eruption, lichenoid drug eruption, LP, and keratosis pilaris.
LP is the classic lichenoid eruption. It is rare in children and occurs most frequently in individuals aged 30-60 years. LP usually manifests as an extremely pruritic eruption of flat-topped polygonal and violaceous papules that often have fine linear white scales known as Wickham striae. The distribution is usually bilateral and symmetric with most of the papules and plaques located on the legs, flexor wrists, neck, and genitalia. The lesions may exhibit the Koebner phenomenon, appearing in a linear pattern along the site of a scratch. Generally, in childhood cases there is reported itching, and oral and nail lesions are less common.
Frictional lichenoid eruption occurs in childhood. The lesions consist of lichenoid papules with regular borders 1-2 mm in diameter that generally are asymptomatic, although they may be mildly pruritic. The papules are found in a very characteristic distribution with almost exclusive involvement of the backs of the hands, fingers, elbows, and knees with occasional involvement of the extensor forearms and cheeks. This disorder occurs in predisposed children who have been exposed to significant frictional force during play, and typically resolves spontaneously after removal of the stimulus.
Keratosis pilaris is a rash that usually is found on the outer areas of the upper arms, upper thighs, buttocks, and cheeks. It consists of small bumps that are flesh colored to red. The bumps generally don’t hurt or itch.
The lack of symptoms and spontaneous healing have rendered treatment unnecessary in most cases. LN generally is self-limiting, thus treatment may not be necessary. However, topical treatment with mid- to high-potency corticosteroids has hastened resolution of lesions in some children, as have topical dinitrochlorobenzene and systemic treatment with psoralens, astemizole, etretinate, and psoralen-UVA.
Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Eichenfield nor Dr. Bhatti has any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
References
Pickert A. Cutis. 2012 Sep;90(3):E1-3. https://mdedge-files-live.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/0900300E1.pdf Tziotzios C et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Nov;79(5):789-804. Tilly JJ et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Oct;51(4):606-24.
Lichenoid dermatoses are a heterogeneous group of diseases with varying clinical presentations. The term “lichenoid” refers to the popular lesions of certain skin disorders of which lichen planus (LP) is the prototype. The papules are shiny, flat topped, polygonal, of different sizes, and occur in clusters creating a pattern that resembles lichen growing on a rock. Lichenoid eruptions are quite common in children and can result from many different origins. In most instances the precise mechanism of disease is not known, although it is usually believed to be immunologic in nature. Certain disorders are common in children, whereas others more often affect the adult population.
Lichen striatus, lichen nitidus (LN), and lichen spinulosus are lichenoid lesions that are more common in children than adults.
LN – as seen in the patient described here – is an uncommon benign inflammatory skin disease, primarily of children. Individual lesions are sharply demarcated, pinpoint to pinhead sized, round or polygonal, and strikingly monomorphous in nature. The papules are usually flesh colored, however, the color varies from yellow and brown to violet hues depending on the background color of the patient’s skin. This variation in color is in contrast with LP which is characteristically violaceous. The surfaces of the papules are flat, shiny, and slightly elevated. They may have a fine scale or a hyperkeratotic plug. The lesions tend to occur in groups, primarily on the abdomen, chest, glans penis, and upper extremities. The Koebner phenomenon is observed and is a hallmark for the disorder. LN is generally asymptomatic, unlike LP, which is exceedingly pruritic.
The cause of LN is unknown; however, it has been proposed that LN, in particular generalized LN, may be associated with immune alterations in the patient. The course of LN is slowly progressive with a tendency toward remission. The lesions can remain stationary for years; however, they sometimes disappear spontaneously and completely.
The differential diagnosis of LN beyond the entities discussed above includes frictional lichenoid eruption, lichenoid drug eruption, LP, and keratosis pilaris.
LP is the classic lichenoid eruption. It is rare in children and occurs most frequently in individuals aged 30-60 years. LP usually manifests as an extremely pruritic eruption of flat-topped polygonal and violaceous papules that often have fine linear white scales known as Wickham striae. The distribution is usually bilateral and symmetric with most of the papules and plaques located on the legs, flexor wrists, neck, and genitalia. The lesions may exhibit the Koebner phenomenon, appearing in a linear pattern along the site of a scratch. Generally, in childhood cases there is reported itching, and oral and nail lesions are less common.
Frictional lichenoid eruption occurs in childhood. The lesions consist of lichenoid papules with regular borders 1-2 mm in diameter that generally are asymptomatic, although they may be mildly pruritic. The papules are found in a very characteristic distribution with almost exclusive involvement of the backs of the hands, fingers, elbows, and knees with occasional involvement of the extensor forearms and cheeks. This disorder occurs in predisposed children who have been exposed to significant frictional force during play, and typically resolves spontaneously after removal of the stimulus.
Keratosis pilaris is a rash that usually is found on the outer areas of the upper arms, upper thighs, buttocks, and cheeks. It consists of small bumps that are flesh colored to red. The bumps generally don’t hurt or itch.
The lack of symptoms and spontaneous healing have rendered treatment unnecessary in most cases. LN generally is self-limiting, thus treatment may not be necessary. However, topical treatment with mid- to high-potency corticosteroids has hastened resolution of lesions in some children, as have topical dinitrochlorobenzene and systemic treatment with psoralens, astemizole, etretinate, and psoralen-UVA.
Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Eichenfield nor Dr. Bhatti has any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
References
Pickert A. Cutis. 2012 Sep;90(3):E1-3. https://mdedge-files-live.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/0900300E1.pdf Tziotzios C et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Nov;79(5):789-804. Tilly JJ et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Oct;51(4):606-24.
Lichenoid dermatoses are a heterogeneous group of diseases with varying clinical presentations. The term “lichenoid” refers to the popular lesions of certain skin disorders of which lichen planus (LP) is the prototype. The papules are shiny, flat topped, polygonal, of different sizes, and occur in clusters creating a pattern that resembles lichen growing on a rock. Lichenoid eruptions are quite common in children and can result from many different origins. In most instances the precise mechanism of disease is not known, although it is usually believed to be immunologic in nature. Certain disorders are common in children, whereas others more often affect the adult population.
Lichen striatus, lichen nitidus (LN), and lichen spinulosus are lichenoid lesions that are more common in children than adults.
LN – as seen in the patient described here – is an uncommon benign inflammatory skin disease, primarily of children. Individual lesions are sharply demarcated, pinpoint to pinhead sized, round or polygonal, and strikingly monomorphous in nature. The papules are usually flesh colored, however, the color varies from yellow and brown to violet hues depending on the background color of the patient’s skin. This variation in color is in contrast with LP which is characteristically violaceous. The surfaces of the papules are flat, shiny, and slightly elevated. They may have a fine scale or a hyperkeratotic plug. The lesions tend to occur in groups, primarily on the abdomen, chest, glans penis, and upper extremities. The Koebner phenomenon is observed and is a hallmark for the disorder. LN is generally asymptomatic, unlike LP, which is exceedingly pruritic.
The cause of LN is unknown; however, it has been proposed that LN, in particular generalized LN, may be associated with immune alterations in the patient. The course of LN is slowly progressive with a tendency toward remission. The lesions can remain stationary for years; however, they sometimes disappear spontaneously and completely.
The differential diagnosis of LN beyond the entities discussed above includes frictional lichenoid eruption, lichenoid drug eruption, LP, and keratosis pilaris.
LP is the classic lichenoid eruption. It is rare in children and occurs most frequently in individuals aged 30-60 years. LP usually manifests as an extremely pruritic eruption of flat-topped polygonal and violaceous papules that often have fine linear white scales known as Wickham striae. The distribution is usually bilateral and symmetric with most of the papules and plaques located on the legs, flexor wrists, neck, and genitalia. The lesions may exhibit the Koebner phenomenon, appearing in a linear pattern along the site of a scratch. Generally, in childhood cases there is reported itching, and oral and nail lesions are less common.
Frictional lichenoid eruption occurs in childhood. The lesions consist of lichenoid papules with regular borders 1-2 mm in diameter that generally are asymptomatic, although they may be mildly pruritic. The papules are found in a very characteristic distribution with almost exclusive involvement of the backs of the hands, fingers, elbows, and knees with occasional involvement of the extensor forearms and cheeks. This disorder occurs in predisposed children who have been exposed to significant frictional force during play, and typically resolves spontaneously after removal of the stimulus.
Keratosis pilaris is a rash that usually is found on the outer areas of the upper arms, upper thighs, buttocks, and cheeks. It consists of small bumps that are flesh colored to red. The bumps generally don’t hurt or itch.
The lack of symptoms and spontaneous healing have rendered treatment unnecessary in most cases. LN generally is self-limiting, thus treatment may not be necessary. However, topical treatment with mid- to high-potency corticosteroids has hastened resolution of lesions in some children, as have topical dinitrochlorobenzene and systemic treatment with psoralens, astemizole, etretinate, and psoralen-UVA.
Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Eichenfield nor Dr. Bhatti has any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
References
Pickert A. Cutis. 2012 Sep;90(3):E1-3. https://mdedge-files-live.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/0900300E1.pdf Tziotzios C et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Nov;79(5):789-804. Tilly JJ et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Oct;51(4):606-24.
A 9-year-old healthy Kuwaiti male with no significant past medical history presents with a rash on his hands and feet that has been present for 3 years.
His mother reports that he has been seen by dermatologists in various countries and was last seen by a dermatologist in Kuwait 3 years ago. At that time, he was told that it was dryness and advised to not shower daily. Since then he has been taking showers three times weekly and using Cetaphil once weekly without improvement. He was seen by his pediatrician 6 months ago, diagnosed with xerosis, and was given hydrocortisone 2.5% to use twice daily, again without any improvement.
The rash is not itchy, and he has no oral lesions or nail involvement. Exam revealed lichenoid papules on bilateral dorsal hands and feet, bilateral upper arms, bilateral axilla, lower abdomen, and left upper chest.
Community pediatric care is diminishing
The mantra of community hospital administrators is that pediatric care does not pay. Neonatal intensive care pays. For pediatrics, it is similar to how football programs (Medicare patients) support minor sports (pediatrics and obstetrics) at colleges. However, fewer even mildly sick newborns are cared for at community hospitals, which has led to a centralization of neonatal and pediatric care and a loss of pediatric expertise at the affected hospitals.
Pediatric hospitalists are hired to cover the pediatric floor, the emergency department, and labor and delivery, then fired over empty pediatric beds. The rationale expressed is that pediatricians have done such a good job in preventive care that children rarely need hospitalization, so why have a pediatric inpatient unit? It is true that preventive care has been an integral part of primary care for children. Significantly less that 1% of child office visits result in hospitalization.
Advocate Health Care has closed inpatient pediatric units at Illinois Masonic, on Chicago’s North Side, Good Samaritan in Downers Grove, and Good Shepherd in Barrington. Units also have been closed at Mount Sinai in North Lawndale, Norwegian American on Chicago’s West Side, Little Company of Mary in Evergreen Park, and Alexian Brothers in Elk Grove.
As a Chicago-area pediatrician for more than 30 years, I have learned several things about community-based pediatric care:
1. Pediatrics is a geographic specialty. Parents will travel to shop, but would rather walk or have a short ride to their children’s medical providers. Secondary care should be community based, and hospitalization, if necessary, should be close by as well.
2. Hospitals that ceased delivering pediatric inpatient care lost their child-friendliness and pediatric competence, becoming uncomfortable delivering almost any care for children (e.g., sedated MRIs and EEGs, x-rays and ultrasounds, ECGs and echocardiograms, and emergency care).
3. In almost all hospitals, after pediatrics was gone eventually so passed obstetrics (another less remunerative specialty). Sick newborns need immediate, competent care. Most pediatric hospitalizations are short term, often overnight. Delaying newborn care is a medicolegal nightmare. and exposes the child and his or her family to a potentially dangerous drive or helicopter ride.
4. As pediatric subspecialty care becomes more centralized, parents are asked to travel for hours to see a pediatric specialist. There are times when that is necessary (e.g., cardiovascular surgery). Pediatric subspecialists, such as pediatric otolaryngologists, then leave community hospitals, forcing even minor surgeries (e.g., ear ventilation tubes) to be done at a center. In rural areas, this could mean hours of travel, lost work days, and family disruption.
5. Children’s hospitals get uninsured and publicly insured children sent hundreds of miles, because there were no subspecialists in the community who would care for these children.
What is the solution, in our profit-focused health care system?
1. Hospitals’ Certificates of Need could include a mandate for pediatric care.
2. Children’s hospitals could be made responsible for community-based care within their geographic catchment areas.
3. The state or the federal government could mandate and financially support community-based hospital care.
4. Deciding what level of care might be appropriate for each community could depend upon closeness to a pediatric hospital, health problems in the community, and the availability of pediatric specialists.
5. A condition for medical licensure might be that a community-based pediatric subspecialist is required to care for a proportion of the uninsured or publicly insured children in his or her area.
6. Reimbursements for pediatric care need to rise enough to make caring for children worth it.
The major decision point regarding care for children cannot be financial, but must instead embrace the needs of each affected community. If quality health care is a right, and not a privilege, then it is time to stop closing pediatric inpatient units, and, instead, look for creative ways to better care for our children.
This process has led to pediatric care being available only in designated centers. The centralization of pediatric care has progressed from 30 years ago, when most community hospitals had inpatient pediatric units, to the search for innovative ways to fill pediatric beds in the mid-90s (sick day care, flex- or shared pediatric units), to the wholesale closure of community pediatric inpatient beds, from 2000 to the present. I have, unfortunately, seen this firsthand, watching the rise of pediatric mega-hospitals and the demise of community pediatrics. It is a simple financial argument. Care for children simply does not pay nearly as well as does care for adults, especially Medicaid patients. Pediatricians are the poorest paid practicing doctors (public health doctors are paid less).
It is true that pediatricians always have been at the forefront of preventive medicine, and that pediatric patients almost always get better, in spite of our best-intentioned interventions. So community-based pediatricians admit very few patients.
With the loss of pediatric units, community hospitals lose their comfort caring for children. This includes phlebotomy, x-ray, trauma, surgery, and behavioral health. And eroding community hospital pediatric expertise has catastrophic implications for rural hospitals, where parents may have to drive for hours to find a child-friendly emergency department.
Is there an answer?
1. Hospitals are responsible for the patients they serve, including children. Why should a hospital be able to close pediatric services so easily?
2. Every hospital that sees children, through the emergency department, needs to have a pediatrician available to evaluate a child, 24/7.
3. There needs to be an observation unit for children, with pediatric staffing, for overnight stays.
4. Pediatric hospitalists should be staffing community hospitals.
5. Pediatric behavioral health resources need to be available, e.g., inpatient psychiatry, partial hospitalization programs, intensive outpatient programs.
6. Telehealth communication is not adequate to address acute care problems, because the hospital caring for the child has to have the proper equipment and adequate expertise to carry out the recommendations of the teleconsultant.
If we accept that our children will shape the future, we must allow them to survive and thrive. Is health care a right or a privilege, and is it just for adults or for children, too?
Dr. Ochs is in private practice at Ravenswood Pediatrics in Chicago. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
The mantra of community hospital administrators is that pediatric care does not pay. Neonatal intensive care pays. For pediatrics, it is similar to how football programs (Medicare patients) support minor sports (pediatrics and obstetrics) at colleges. However, fewer even mildly sick newborns are cared for at community hospitals, which has led to a centralization of neonatal and pediatric care and a loss of pediatric expertise at the affected hospitals.
Pediatric hospitalists are hired to cover the pediatric floor, the emergency department, and labor and delivery, then fired over empty pediatric beds. The rationale expressed is that pediatricians have done such a good job in preventive care that children rarely need hospitalization, so why have a pediatric inpatient unit? It is true that preventive care has been an integral part of primary care for children. Significantly less that 1% of child office visits result in hospitalization.
Advocate Health Care has closed inpatient pediatric units at Illinois Masonic, on Chicago’s North Side, Good Samaritan in Downers Grove, and Good Shepherd in Barrington. Units also have been closed at Mount Sinai in North Lawndale, Norwegian American on Chicago’s West Side, Little Company of Mary in Evergreen Park, and Alexian Brothers in Elk Grove.
As a Chicago-area pediatrician for more than 30 years, I have learned several things about community-based pediatric care:
1. Pediatrics is a geographic specialty. Parents will travel to shop, but would rather walk or have a short ride to their children’s medical providers. Secondary care should be community based, and hospitalization, if necessary, should be close by as well.
2. Hospitals that ceased delivering pediatric inpatient care lost their child-friendliness and pediatric competence, becoming uncomfortable delivering almost any care for children (e.g., sedated MRIs and EEGs, x-rays and ultrasounds, ECGs and echocardiograms, and emergency care).
3. In almost all hospitals, after pediatrics was gone eventually so passed obstetrics (another less remunerative specialty). Sick newborns need immediate, competent care. Most pediatric hospitalizations are short term, often overnight. Delaying newborn care is a medicolegal nightmare. and exposes the child and his or her family to a potentially dangerous drive or helicopter ride.
4. As pediatric subspecialty care becomes more centralized, parents are asked to travel for hours to see a pediatric specialist. There are times when that is necessary (e.g., cardiovascular surgery). Pediatric subspecialists, such as pediatric otolaryngologists, then leave community hospitals, forcing even minor surgeries (e.g., ear ventilation tubes) to be done at a center. In rural areas, this could mean hours of travel, lost work days, and family disruption.
5. Children’s hospitals get uninsured and publicly insured children sent hundreds of miles, because there were no subspecialists in the community who would care for these children.
What is the solution, in our profit-focused health care system?
1. Hospitals’ Certificates of Need could include a mandate for pediatric care.
2. Children’s hospitals could be made responsible for community-based care within their geographic catchment areas.
3. The state or the federal government could mandate and financially support community-based hospital care.
4. Deciding what level of care might be appropriate for each community could depend upon closeness to a pediatric hospital, health problems in the community, and the availability of pediatric specialists.
5. A condition for medical licensure might be that a community-based pediatric subspecialist is required to care for a proportion of the uninsured or publicly insured children in his or her area.
6. Reimbursements for pediatric care need to rise enough to make caring for children worth it.
The major decision point regarding care for children cannot be financial, but must instead embrace the needs of each affected community. If quality health care is a right, and not a privilege, then it is time to stop closing pediatric inpatient units, and, instead, look for creative ways to better care for our children.
This process has led to pediatric care being available only in designated centers. The centralization of pediatric care has progressed from 30 years ago, when most community hospitals had inpatient pediatric units, to the search for innovative ways to fill pediatric beds in the mid-90s (sick day care, flex- or shared pediatric units), to the wholesale closure of community pediatric inpatient beds, from 2000 to the present. I have, unfortunately, seen this firsthand, watching the rise of pediatric mega-hospitals and the demise of community pediatrics. It is a simple financial argument. Care for children simply does not pay nearly as well as does care for adults, especially Medicaid patients. Pediatricians are the poorest paid practicing doctors (public health doctors are paid less).
It is true that pediatricians always have been at the forefront of preventive medicine, and that pediatric patients almost always get better, in spite of our best-intentioned interventions. So community-based pediatricians admit very few patients.
With the loss of pediatric units, community hospitals lose their comfort caring for children. This includes phlebotomy, x-ray, trauma, surgery, and behavioral health. And eroding community hospital pediatric expertise has catastrophic implications for rural hospitals, where parents may have to drive for hours to find a child-friendly emergency department.
Is there an answer?
1. Hospitals are responsible for the patients they serve, including children. Why should a hospital be able to close pediatric services so easily?
2. Every hospital that sees children, through the emergency department, needs to have a pediatrician available to evaluate a child, 24/7.
3. There needs to be an observation unit for children, with pediatric staffing, for overnight stays.
4. Pediatric hospitalists should be staffing community hospitals.
5. Pediatric behavioral health resources need to be available, e.g., inpatient psychiatry, partial hospitalization programs, intensive outpatient programs.
6. Telehealth communication is not adequate to address acute care problems, because the hospital caring for the child has to have the proper equipment and adequate expertise to carry out the recommendations of the teleconsultant.
If we accept that our children will shape the future, we must allow them to survive and thrive. Is health care a right or a privilege, and is it just for adults or for children, too?
Dr. Ochs is in private practice at Ravenswood Pediatrics in Chicago. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
The mantra of community hospital administrators is that pediatric care does not pay. Neonatal intensive care pays. For pediatrics, it is similar to how football programs (Medicare patients) support minor sports (pediatrics and obstetrics) at colleges. However, fewer even mildly sick newborns are cared for at community hospitals, which has led to a centralization of neonatal and pediatric care and a loss of pediatric expertise at the affected hospitals.
Pediatric hospitalists are hired to cover the pediatric floor, the emergency department, and labor and delivery, then fired over empty pediatric beds. The rationale expressed is that pediatricians have done such a good job in preventive care that children rarely need hospitalization, so why have a pediatric inpatient unit? It is true that preventive care has been an integral part of primary care for children. Significantly less that 1% of child office visits result in hospitalization.
Advocate Health Care has closed inpatient pediatric units at Illinois Masonic, on Chicago’s North Side, Good Samaritan in Downers Grove, and Good Shepherd in Barrington. Units also have been closed at Mount Sinai in North Lawndale, Norwegian American on Chicago’s West Side, Little Company of Mary in Evergreen Park, and Alexian Brothers in Elk Grove.
As a Chicago-area pediatrician for more than 30 years, I have learned several things about community-based pediatric care:
1. Pediatrics is a geographic specialty. Parents will travel to shop, but would rather walk or have a short ride to their children’s medical providers. Secondary care should be community based, and hospitalization, if necessary, should be close by as well.
2. Hospitals that ceased delivering pediatric inpatient care lost their child-friendliness and pediatric competence, becoming uncomfortable delivering almost any care for children (e.g., sedated MRIs and EEGs, x-rays and ultrasounds, ECGs and echocardiograms, and emergency care).
3. In almost all hospitals, after pediatrics was gone eventually so passed obstetrics (another less remunerative specialty). Sick newborns need immediate, competent care. Most pediatric hospitalizations are short term, often overnight. Delaying newborn care is a medicolegal nightmare. and exposes the child and his or her family to a potentially dangerous drive or helicopter ride.
4. As pediatric subspecialty care becomes more centralized, parents are asked to travel for hours to see a pediatric specialist. There are times when that is necessary (e.g., cardiovascular surgery). Pediatric subspecialists, such as pediatric otolaryngologists, then leave community hospitals, forcing even minor surgeries (e.g., ear ventilation tubes) to be done at a center. In rural areas, this could mean hours of travel, lost work days, and family disruption.
5. Children’s hospitals get uninsured and publicly insured children sent hundreds of miles, because there were no subspecialists in the community who would care for these children.
What is the solution, in our profit-focused health care system?
1. Hospitals’ Certificates of Need could include a mandate for pediatric care.
2. Children’s hospitals could be made responsible for community-based care within their geographic catchment areas.
3. The state or the federal government could mandate and financially support community-based hospital care.
4. Deciding what level of care might be appropriate for each community could depend upon closeness to a pediatric hospital, health problems in the community, and the availability of pediatric specialists.
5. A condition for medical licensure might be that a community-based pediatric subspecialist is required to care for a proportion of the uninsured or publicly insured children in his or her area.
6. Reimbursements for pediatric care need to rise enough to make caring for children worth it.
The major decision point regarding care for children cannot be financial, but must instead embrace the needs of each affected community. If quality health care is a right, and not a privilege, then it is time to stop closing pediatric inpatient units, and, instead, look for creative ways to better care for our children.
This process has led to pediatric care being available only in designated centers. The centralization of pediatric care has progressed from 30 years ago, when most community hospitals had inpatient pediatric units, to the search for innovative ways to fill pediatric beds in the mid-90s (sick day care, flex- or shared pediatric units), to the wholesale closure of community pediatric inpatient beds, from 2000 to the present. I have, unfortunately, seen this firsthand, watching the rise of pediatric mega-hospitals and the demise of community pediatrics. It is a simple financial argument. Care for children simply does not pay nearly as well as does care for adults, especially Medicaid patients. Pediatricians are the poorest paid practicing doctors (public health doctors are paid less).
It is true that pediatricians always have been at the forefront of preventive medicine, and that pediatric patients almost always get better, in spite of our best-intentioned interventions. So community-based pediatricians admit very few patients.
With the loss of pediatric units, community hospitals lose their comfort caring for children. This includes phlebotomy, x-ray, trauma, surgery, and behavioral health. And eroding community hospital pediatric expertise has catastrophic implications for rural hospitals, where parents may have to drive for hours to find a child-friendly emergency department.
Is there an answer?
1. Hospitals are responsible for the patients they serve, including children. Why should a hospital be able to close pediatric services so easily?
2. Every hospital that sees children, through the emergency department, needs to have a pediatrician available to evaluate a child, 24/7.
3. There needs to be an observation unit for children, with pediatric staffing, for overnight stays.
4. Pediatric hospitalists should be staffing community hospitals.
5. Pediatric behavioral health resources need to be available, e.g., inpatient psychiatry, partial hospitalization programs, intensive outpatient programs.
6. Telehealth communication is not adequate to address acute care problems, because the hospital caring for the child has to have the proper equipment and adequate expertise to carry out the recommendations of the teleconsultant.
If we accept that our children will shape the future, we must allow them to survive and thrive. Is health care a right or a privilege, and is it just for adults or for children, too?
Dr. Ochs is in private practice at Ravenswood Pediatrics in Chicago. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Standards for health claims in advertisements need to go up
Three months is how long I’ll leave a magazine out in my waiting room. When its lobby lifespan is up, I’ll usually recycle it, though sometimes will take it home to read myself when I have down time.
Leafing through an accumulated pile of them over the recent holiday break, I was struck by how many carry ads for questionable “cures”: magnetic bracelets for headaches, copper-based topical creams that claim to cure diabetic neuropathy. Another was from a company with something that looks like a standard tanning bed advertising that it has special lights to “alternatively treat cancer.”
How on Earth is this legal?
Seriously. Since college I’ve been through 4 years of medical school, another 5 combined of residency and fellowship, and now 21 years of frontline neurology experience. And if, after all that, I were to start marketing such horse hockey as a cure for anything (besides my wallet), I’d be hounded by the Food and Drug Administration and state board and probably driven out of practice.
Yet, people with no “real” (science-based) medical treatment experience are free to market this stuff to a public who, for the most part, don’t have the training, knowledge, or experience to know it’s a crock.
I’m sure some of the people selling this stuff really believe they’re helping. Admittedly, there are a lot of things we don’t know in medicine. But anything that’s making such claims should have real evidence – like a large double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – behind it. Not anecdotal reports, small uncontrolled trials, and patient testimonials. The placebo effect is remarkably strong.
There are also some selling this stuff who are less than scrupulous. They’ll claim to have good intentions, but are well aware they’re bilking people – often desperate – out of their savings. They’re no better than the doctors who make headlines for Medicare and insurance fraud by performing unnecessary surgeries and billing for medications that weren’t given.
Either way, the point is the same. Unproven treatments are just that – unproven – and shouldn’t be marketed as effective ones. If it works, let the evidence prove it. But if it doesn’t, no one should be promoting it to anyone, regardless of how long (and where) they went to school.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Three months is how long I’ll leave a magazine out in my waiting room. When its lobby lifespan is up, I’ll usually recycle it, though sometimes will take it home to read myself when I have down time.
Leafing through an accumulated pile of them over the recent holiday break, I was struck by how many carry ads for questionable “cures”: magnetic bracelets for headaches, copper-based topical creams that claim to cure diabetic neuropathy. Another was from a company with something that looks like a standard tanning bed advertising that it has special lights to “alternatively treat cancer.”
How on Earth is this legal?
Seriously. Since college I’ve been through 4 years of medical school, another 5 combined of residency and fellowship, and now 21 years of frontline neurology experience. And if, after all that, I were to start marketing such horse hockey as a cure for anything (besides my wallet), I’d be hounded by the Food and Drug Administration and state board and probably driven out of practice.
Yet, people with no “real” (science-based) medical treatment experience are free to market this stuff to a public who, for the most part, don’t have the training, knowledge, or experience to know it’s a crock.
I’m sure some of the people selling this stuff really believe they’re helping. Admittedly, there are a lot of things we don’t know in medicine. But anything that’s making such claims should have real evidence – like a large double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – behind it. Not anecdotal reports, small uncontrolled trials, and patient testimonials. The placebo effect is remarkably strong.
There are also some selling this stuff who are less than scrupulous. They’ll claim to have good intentions, but are well aware they’re bilking people – often desperate – out of their savings. They’re no better than the doctors who make headlines for Medicare and insurance fraud by performing unnecessary surgeries and billing for medications that weren’t given.
Either way, the point is the same. Unproven treatments are just that – unproven – and shouldn’t be marketed as effective ones. If it works, let the evidence prove it. But if it doesn’t, no one should be promoting it to anyone, regardless of how long (and where) they went to school.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Three months is how long I’ll leave a magazine out in my waiting room. When its lobby lifespan is up, I’ll usually recycle it, though sometimes will take it home to read myself when I have down time.
Leafing through an accumulated pile of them over the recent holiday break, I was struck by how many carry ads for questionable “cures”: magnetic bracelets for headaches, copper-based topical creams that claim to cure diabetic neuropathy. Another was from a company with something that looks like a standard tanning bed advertising that it has special lights to “alternatively treat cancer.”
How on Earth is this legal?
Seriously. Since college I’ve been through 4 years of medical school, another 5 combined of residency and fellowship, and now 21 years of frontline neurology experience. And if, after all that, I were to start marketing such horse hockey as a cure for anything (besides my wallet), I’d be hounded by the Food and Drug Administration and state board and probably driven out of practice.
Yet, people with no “real” (science-based) medical treatment experience are free to market this stuff to a public who, for the most part, don’t have the training, knowledge, or experience to know it’s a crock.
I’m sure some of the people selling this stuff really believe they’re helping. Admittedly, there are a lot of things we don’t know in medicine. But anything that’s making such claims should have real evidence – like a large double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – behind it. Not anecdotal reports, small uncontrolled trials, and patient testimonials. The placebo effect is remarkably strong.
There are also some selling this stuff who are less than scrupulous. They’ll claim to have good intentions, but are well aware they’re bilking people – often desperate – out of their savings. They’re no better than the doctors who make headlines for Medicare and insurance fraud by performing unnecessary surgeries and billing for medications that weren’t given.
Either way, the point is the same. Unproven treatments are just that – unproven – and shouldn’t be marketed as effective ones. If it works, let the evidence prove it. But if it doesn’t, no one should be promoting it to anyone, regardless of how long (and where) they went to school.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.