User login
Molecular developments in treatment of UPSC
Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) is an infrequent but deadly form of endometrial cancer comprising 10% of cases but contributing 40% of deaths from the disease. Recurrence rates are high for this disease. Five-year survival is 55% for all patients and only 70% for stage I disease.1 Patterns of recurrence tend to be distant (extrapelvic and extraabdominal) as frequently as they are localized to the pelvis, and metastases and recurrences are unrelated to the extent of uterine disease (such as myometrial invasion). It is for these reasons that the recommended course of adjuvant therapy for this disease is systemic therapy (typically six doses of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy) with consideration for radiation to the vagina or pelvis to consolidate pelvic and vaginal control.2 This differs from early-stage high/intermediate–risk endometrioid adenocarcinomas, for which adjuvant chemotherapy has not been found to be helpful.
Because of the lower incidence of UPSC, it frequently has been studied alongside endometrioid cell types in clinical trials which explore novel adjuvant therapies. However, UPSC is biologically distinct from endometrioid endometrial cancers, which likely results in inferior clinical responses to conventional interventions. Fortunately we are beginning to better understand UPSC at a molecular level, and advancements are being made in the targeted therapies for these patients that are unique, compared with those applied to other cancer subtypes.
As discussed above, UPSC is a particularly aggressive form of uterine cancer. Histologically it is characterized by a precursor lesion of endometrial glandular dysplasia progressing to endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIC). Histologically it presents with a highly atypical slit-like glandular configuration, which appears similar to serous carcinomas of the fallopian tube and ovary. Molecularly these tumors commonly manifest mutations in tumor protein p53 (TP53) and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA), which are both genes associated with oncogenic potential.1 While most UPSC tumors have loss of expression in hormone receptors such as estrogen and progesterone, 25%-30% of cases overexpress the tyrosine kinase receptor human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).3-5 This has proven to provide an exciting target for therapeutic interventions.
A target for therapeutic intervention
HER2 is a transmembrane receptor which, when activated, signals complex downstream pathways responsible for cellular proliferation, dedifferentiation, and metastasis. In a recent multi-institutional analysis of early-stage UPSC, HER2 overexpression was identified among 25% of cases.4 Approximately 30% of cases of advanced disease manifest overexpression of this biomarker.5 HER2 overexpression (HER2-positive status) is significantly associated with higher rates of recurrence and mortality, even among patients treated with conventional therapies.3 Thus HER2-positive status is obviously an indicator of particularly aggressive disease.
Fortunately this particular biomarker is one for which we have established and developing therapeutics. The humanized monoclonal antibody, trastuzumab, has been highly effective in improving survival for HER2-positive breast cancer.6 More recently, it was studied in a phase 2 trial with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent HER2-positive UPSC.5 This trial showed that the addition of this targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy improved recurrence-free survival from 8 months to 12 months, and improved overall survival from 24.4 months to 29.6 months.5
One discovery leads to another treatment
This discovery led to the approval of trastuzumab to be used in addition to chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent disease.2 The most significant effects appear to be among those who have not received prior therapies, with a doubling of progression-free survival among these patients, and a more modest response among patients treated for recurrent, mostly pretreated disease.
Work currently is underway to explore an array of antibody or small-molecule blockades of HER2 in addition to vaccines against the protein or treatment with conjugate compounds in which an antibody to HER2 is paired with a cytotoxic drug able to be internalized into HER2-expressing cells.7 This represents a form of personalized medicine referred to as biomarker-driven targeted therapy, in which therapies are prescribed based on the expression of specific molecular markers (such as HER2 expression) typically in combination with other clinical markers such as surgical staging results, race, age, etc. These approaches can be very effective strategies in rare tumor subtypes with distinct molecular and clinical behaviors.
As previously mentioned, the targeting of HER2 overexpression with trastuzumab has been shown to be highly effective in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancers where even patients with early-stage disease receive a multimodal therapy approach including antibody, chemotherapy, surgical, and often radiation treatments.6 We are moving towards a similar multimodal comprehensive treatment strategy for UPSC. If it is as successful as it is in breast cancer, it will be long overdue, and desperately necessary given the poor prognosis of this disease for all stages because of the inadequacies of current treatments strategies.
Routine testing of UPSC for HER2 expression is now a part of routine molecular substaging of uterine cancers in the same way we have embraced testing for microsatellite instability and hormone-receptor status. While a diagnosis of HER2 overexpression in UPSC portends a poor prognosis, patients can be reassured that treatment strategies exist that can target this malignant mechanism in advanced disease and more are under further development for early-stage disease.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328334d8a3.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine Neoplasms (version 2.2020).
3. Cancer 2005 Oct 1. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21308.
4. Gynecol Oncol 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.07.016.
5. J Clin Oncol 2018. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.5966.
6. N Engl J Med 2011. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0910383.
7. Discov Med. 2016 Apr;21(116):293-303.
Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) is an infrequent but deadly form of endometrial cancer comprising 10% of cases but contributing 40% of deaths from the disease. Recurrence rates are high for this disease. Five-year survival is 55% for all patients and only 70% for stage I disease.1 Patterns of recurrence tend to be distant (extrapelvic and extraabdominal) as frequently as they are localized to the pelvis, and metastases and recurrences are unrelated to the extent of uterine disease (such as myometrial invasion). It is for these reasons that the recommended course of adjuvant therapy for this disease is systemic therapy (typically six doses of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy) with consideration for radiation to the vagina or pelvis to consolidate pelvic and vaginal control.2 This differs from early-stage high/intermediate–risk endometrioid adenocarcinomas, for which adjuvant chemotherapy has not been found to be helpful.
Because of the lower incidence of UPSC, it frequently has been studied alongside endometrioid cell types in clinical trials which explore novel adjuvant therapies. However, UPSC is biologically distinct from endometrioid endometrial cancers, which likely results in inferior clinical responses to conventional interventions. Fortunately we are beginning to better understand UPSC at a molecular level, and advancements are being made in the targeted therapies for these patients that are unique, compared with those applied to other cancer subtypes.
As discussed above, UPSC is a particularly aggressive form of uterine cancer. Histologically it is characterized by a precursor lesion of endometrial glandular dysplasia progressing to endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIC). Histologically it presents with a highly atypical slit-like glandular configuration, which appears similar to serous carcinomas of the fallopian tube and ovary. Molecularly these tumors commonly manifest mutations in tumor protein p53 (TP53) and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA), which are both genes associated with oncogenic potential.1 While most UPSC tumors have loss of expression in hormone receptors such as estrogen and progesterone, 25%-30% of cases overexpress the tyrosine kinase receptor human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).3-5 This has proven to provide an exciting target for therapeutic interventions.
A target for therapeutic intervention
HER2 is a transmembrane receptor which, when activated, signals complex downstream pathways responsible for cellular proliferation, dedifferentiation, and metastasis. In a recent multi-institutional analysis of early-stage UPSC, HER2 overexpression was identified among 25% of cases.4 Approximately 30% of cases of advanced disease manifest overexpression of this biomarker.5 HER2 overexpression (HER2-positive status) is significantly associated with higher rates of recurrence and mortality, even among patients treated with conventional therapies.3 Thus HER2-positive status is obviously an indicator of particularly aggressive disease.
Fortunately this particular biomarker is one for which we have established and developing therapeutics. The humanized monoclonal antibody, trastuzumab, has been highly effective in improving survival for HER2-positive breast cancer.6 More recently, it was studied in a phase 2 trial with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent HER2-positive UPSC.5 This trial showed that the addition of this targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy improved recurrence-free survival from 8 months to 12 months, and improved overall survival from 24.4 months to 29.6 months.5
One discovery leads to another treatment
This discovery led to the approval of trastuzumab to be used in addition to chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent disease.2 The most significant effects appear to be among those who have not received prior therapies, with a doubling of progression-free survival among these patients, and a more modest response among patients treated for recurrent, mostly pretreated disease.
Work currently is underway to explore an array of antibody or small-molecule blockades of HER2 in addition to vaccines against the protein or treatment with conjugate compounds in which an antibody to HER2 is paired with a cytotoxic drug able to be internalized into HER2-expressing cells.7 This represents a form of personalized medicine referred to as biomarker-driven targeted therapy, in which therapies are prescribed based on the expression of specific molecular markers (such as HER2 expression) typically in combination with other clinical markers such as surgical staging results, race, age, etc. These approaches can be very effective strategies in rare tumor subtypes with distinct molecular and clinical behaviors.
As previously mentioned, the targeting of HER2 overexpression with trastuzumab has been shown to be highly effective in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancers where even patients with early-stage disease receive a multimodal therapy approach including antibody, chemotherapy, surgical, and often radiation treatments.6 We are moving towards a similar multimodal comprehensive treatment strategy for UPSC. If it is as successful as it is in breast cancer, it will be long overdue, and desperately necessary given the poor prognosis of this disease for all stages because of the inadequacies of current treatments strategies.
Routine testing of UPSC for HER2 expression is now a part of routine molecular substaging of uterine cancers in the same way we have embraced testing for microsatellite instability and hormone-receptor status. While a diagnosis of HER2 overexpression in UPSC portends a poor prognosis, patients can be reassured that treatment strategies exist that can target this malignant mechanism in advanced disease and more are under further development for early-stage disease.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328334d8a3.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine Neoplasms (version 2.2020).
3. Cancer 2005 Oct 1. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21308.
4. Gynecol Oncol 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.07.016.
5. J Clin Oncol 2018. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.5966.
6. N Engl J Med 2011. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0910383.
7. Discov Med. 2016 Apr;21(116):293-303.
Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) is an infrequent but deadly form of endometrial cancer comprising 10% of cases but contributing 40% of deaths from the disease. Recurrence rates are high for this disease. Five-year survival is 55% for all patients and only 70% for stage I disease.1 Patterns of recurrence tend to be distant (extrapelvic and extraabdominal) as frequently as they are localized to the pelvis, and metastases and recurrences are unrelated to the extent of uterine disease (such as myometrial invasion). It is for these reasons that the recommended course of adjuvant therapy for this disease is systemic therapy (typically six doses of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy) with consideration for radiation to the vagina or pelvis to consolidate pelvic and vaginal control.2 This differs from early-stage high/intermediate–risk endometrioid adenocarcinomas, for which adjuvant chemotherapy has not been found to be helpful.
Because of the lower incidence of UPSC, it frequently has been studied alongside endometrioid cell types in clinical trials which explore novel adjuvant therapies. However, UPSC is biologically distinct from endometrioid endometrial cancers, which likely results in inferior clinical responses to conventional interventions. Fortunately we are beginning to better understand UPSC at a molecular level, and advancements are being made in the targeted therapies for these patients that are unique, compared with those applied to other cancer subtypes.
As discussed above, UPSC is a particularly aggressive form of uterine cancer. Histologically it is characterized by a precursor lesion of endometrial glandular dysplasia progressing to endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIC). Histologically it presents with a highly atypical slit-like glandular configuration, which appears similar to serous carcinomas of the fallopian tube and ovary. Molecularly these tumors commonly manifest mutations in tumor protein p53 (TP53) and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA), which are both genes associated with oncogenic potential.1 While most UPSC tumors have loss of expression in hormone receptors such as estrogen and progesterone, 25%-30% of cases overexpress the tyrosine kinase receptor human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).3-5 This has proven to provide an exciting target for therapeutic interventions.
A target for therapeutic intervention
HER2 is a transmembrane receptor which, when activated, signals complex downstream pathways responsible for cellular proliferation, dedifferentiation, and metastasis. In a recent multi-institutional analysis of early-stage UPSC, HER2 overexpression was identified among 25% of cases.4 Approximately 30% of cases of advanced disease manifest overexpression of this biomarker.5 HER2 overexpression (HER2-positive status) is significantly associated with higher rates of recurrence and mortality, even among patients treated with conventional therapies.3 Thus HER2-positive status is obviously an indicator of particularly aggressive disease.
Fortunately this particular biomarker is one for which we have established and developing therapeutics. The humanized monoclonal antibody, trastuzumab, has been highly effective in improving survival for HER2-positive breast cancer.6 More recently, it was studied in a phase 2 trial with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent HER2-positive UPSC.5 This trial showed that the addition of this targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy improved recurrence-free survival from 8 months to 12 months, and improved overall survival from 24.4 months to 29.6 months.5
One discovery leads to another treatment
This discovery led to the approval of trastuzumab to be used in addition to chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent disease.2 The most significant effects appear to be among those who have not received prior therapies, with a doubling of progression-free survival among these patients, and a more modest response among patients treated for recurrent, mostly pretreated disease.
Work currently is underway to explore an array of antibody or small-molecule blockades of HER2 in addition to vaccines against the protein or treatment with conjugate compounds in which an antibody to HER2 is paired with a cytotoxic drug able to be internalized into HER2-expressing cells.7 This represents a form of personalized medicine referred to as biomarker-driven targeted therapy, in which therapies are prescribed based on the expression of specific molecular markers (such as HER2 expression) typically in combination with other clinical markers such as surgical staging results, race, age, etc. These approaches can be very effective strategies in rare tumor subtypes with distinct molecular and clinical behaviors.
As previously mentioned, the targeting of HER2 overexpression with trastuzumab has been shown to be highly effective in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancers where even patients with early-stage disease receive a multimodal therapy approach including antibody, chemotherapy, surgical, and often radiation treatments.6 We are moving towards a similar multimodal comprehensive treatment strategy for UPSC. If it is as successful as it is in breast cancer, it will be long overdue, and desperately necessary given the poor prognosis of this disease for all stages because of the inadequacies of current treatments strategies.
Routine testing of UPSC for HER2 expression is now a part of routine molecular substaging of uterine cancers in the same way we have embraced testing for microsatellite instability and hormone-receptor status. While a diagnosis of HER2 overexpression in UPSC portends a poor prognosis, patients can be reassured that treatment strategies exist that can target this malignant mechanism in advanced disease and more are under further development for early-stage disease.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328334d8a3.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine Neoplasms (version 2.2020).
3. Cancer 2005 Oct 1. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21308.
4. Gynecol Oncol 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.07.016.
5. J Clin Oncol 2018. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.5966.
6. N Engl J Med 2011. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0910383.
7. Discov Med. 2016 Apr;21(116):293-303.
The joys of telemedicine
Another great morning,
Here goes. I’ll invite Gretchen by text: 617-555-5555. “TOO LONG.” How can 10 digits be too long? Trying again: 617-555-5555. “TOO LONG!” What the heck, let me leave off the last digit: 617-555-555. “TOO SHORT.”
Never mind, I’ll invite her by email.
Five minutes have gone by. Better call to see if she got the invite.
“Hello, is this Gretchen? Don’t hang up, I’m not a telemarketer! This is Dr. Rockoff. I sent you an invitation for our computer visit.
“You got it, great. Yes, you have to click on it to sign in. I know, your appointment’s at 8:30. It’s now 8:28. Let’s start early, why not?
“Hi, there! I can see you. Can you hear me? You’re nodding and your lips are moving. I can’t hear you. Did you enable your microphone?
“Nope, still can’t hear. I’ll call your cell, and we’ll talk that way.
“Yes, it’s me, Dr. Rockoff. What’s that? You enabled the microphone along with your video when you logged on? Well, there we go. How can I help today?
“You want a refill on your tretinoin gel for age management? Not a problem. Let’s see, you’ve been using it since 1996. No, you look great! Not a day over 76, really! I’ll have the staff escribe it right over.
“Okay, take care. Three years should be about right. Happy 80th!”
Wonder what happened there. Maybe things will go better for the next patient. Okay, I’m emailing an invite to Rob.
There he is! “Hi. Can you see me? Hear me? Nope, can’t hear you. Let me just call your cell.”
Okay, 972-555-5555. Ringing ... oh no, right to voicemail. “You have reached 972-555-5555. The mailbox is full and cannot accept messages. Please try some other time.”
“Okay, I’m back with you on the screen, Rob. Nope, still can’t hear you. I tried your cell but it went to voicemail. Yes, I see you’re holding the phone in your hand. Let me try you again.
“972-555-5555. Right to voicemail. Doesn’t your phone ring? You never make voice calls, only send texts? Look, please call me: 781-555-5555, write it down.
“Excellent, we’re in business. You’re worried about a mole that’s changing. You sent a photo to the office. Great, I’ll look right now on your record ... nope, not uploaded. Can you email me the photo? Please write down my email address: alanrockoffmdskincarespecialistist@myfabuloustelemedicineportal.now. Got that? Okay, please send the picture ...
“Returned as undeliverable? Show me what you typed ... Oh, wait. It’s ‘telemedicine,’ not ‘TellaMedicine.’ ” Yeah, that should do it.
“Okay, got the picture. You do fabulous super-closeups! Is that your navel next to it? Your left nostril? Okay. You tried to razor off the hair growing out it? Yes, that could account for the bleeding. Tell you what, go easy on it for the next 2 weeks, and send me another picture. Same email address.
“You have another question? Sure. You want a refill of your clindamycin gel because the tube from 2013 ran out? Guess you haven’t grown out of your acne yet. Sure, happy to send it in for you. Same pharmacy we have on file? You’re bunking with your parents in Wichita? No problem. Just need the pharmacy name and street. Boston, Wichita, whatever.
“Sure, happy to help. Enjoy your stay with your parents. You’ve been there 4 months? Are you cleaning your room? Mostly? Good. Take care. I’ll respond to your email in 2 weeks. Meantime, you might empty out your full voicemail box ... Oh, right, your generation only texts ...”
Okay, one more. Here’s Henrietta. I emailed her an invitation ... Holy Cow, she’s checked in! Let’s see, click “Join.” I can see her!
“Henrietta, is that you? Can you hear me? You can? You can hear me! Henrietta can hear me! And I can hear her!
“Yes, Henrietta, I’m all right. Just doing cartwheels around my study. Between COVID and the 95-degree heat and 100% humidity, it’s all the exercise I get.
“How can I help you today?
“Henrietta? HENRIETTA! Where have you gone, Henrietta?”
THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CALL. DISCONNECT YOUR ROUTER, WAIT 65 SECONDS, RECONNECT, THEN RESTART YOUR WIFI, AND LOG IN AGAIN.
Maybe it’s time to go back to the office. A face shield and HAZMAT suit are sounding better all the time.
Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semiretired after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available online. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
Another great morning,
Here goes. I’ll invite Gretchen by text: 617-555-5555. “TOO LONG.” How can 10 digits be too long? Trying again: 617-555-5555. “TOO LONG!” What the heck, let me leave off the last digit: 617-555-555. “TOO SHORT.”
Never mind, I’ll invite her by email.
Five minutes have gone by. Better call to see if she got the invite.
“Hello, is this Gretchen? Don’t hang up, I’m not a telemarketer! This is Dr. Rockoff. I sent you an invitation for our computer visit.
“You got it, great. Yes, you have to click on it to sign in. I know, your appointment’s at 8:30. It’s now 8:28. Let’s start early, why not?
“Hi, there! I can see you. Can you hear me? You’re nodding and your lips are moving. I can’t hear you. Did you enable your microphone?
“Nope, still can’t hear. I’ll call your cell, and we’ll talk that way.
“Yes, it’s me, Dr. Rockoff. What’s that? You enabled the microphone along with your video when you logged on? Well, there we go. How can I help today?
“You want a refill on your tretinoin gel for age management? Not a problem. Let’s see, you’ve been using it since 1996. No, you look great! Not a day over 76, really! I’ll have the staff escribe it right over.
“Okay, take care. Three years should be about right. Happy 80th!”
Wonder what happened there. Maybe things will go better for the next patient. Okay, I’m emailing an invite to Rob.
There he is! “Hi. Can you see me? Hear me? Nope, can’t hear you. Let me just call your cell.”
Okay, 972-555-5555. Ringing ... oh no, right to voicemail. “You have reached 972-555-5555. The mailbox is full and cannot accept messages. Please try some other time.”
“Okay, I’m back with you on the screen, Rob. Nope, still can’t hear you. I tried your cell but it went to voicemail. Yes, I see you’re holding the phone in your hand. Let me try you again.
“972-555-5555. Right to voicemail. Doesn’t your phone ring? You never make voice calls, only send texts? Look, please call me: 781-555-5555, write it down.
“Excellent, we’re in business. You’re worried about a mole that’s changing. You sent a photo to the office. Great, I’ll look right now on your record ... nope, not uploaded. Can you email me the photo? Please write down my email address: alanrockoffmdskincarespecialistist@myfabuloustelemedicineportal.now. Got that? Okay, please send the picture ...
“Returned as undeliverable? Show me what you typed ... Oh, wait. It’s ‘telemedicine,’ not ‘TellaMedicine.’ ” Yeah, that should do it.
“Okay, got the picture. You do fabulous super-closeups! Is that your navel next to it? Your left nostril? Okay. You tried to razor off the hair growing out it? Yes, that could account for the bleeding. Tell you what, go easy on it for the next 2 weeks, and send me another picture. Same email address.
“You have another question? Sure. You want a refill of your clindamycin gel because the tube from 2013 ran out? Guess you haven’t grown out of your acne yet. Sure, happy to send it in for you. Same pharmacy we have on file? You’re bunking with your parents in Wichita? No problem. Just need the pharmacy name and street. Boston, Wichita, whatever.
“Sure, happy to help. Enjoy your stay with your parents. You’ve been there 4 months? Are you cleaning your room? Mostly? Good. Take care. I’ll respond to your email in 2 weeks. Meantime, you might empty out your full voicemail box ... Oh, right, your generation only texts ...”
Okay, one more. Here’s Henrietta. I emailed her an invitation ... Holy Cow, she’s checked in! Let’s see, click “Join.” I can see her!
“Henrietta, is that you? Can you hear me? You can? You can hear me! Henrietta can hear me! And I can hear her!
“Yes, Henrietta, I’m all right. Just doing cartwheels around my study. Between COVID and the 95-degree heat and 100% humidity, it’s all the exercise I get.
“How can I help you today?
“Henrietta? HENRIETTA! Where have you gone, Henrietta?”
THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CALL. DISCONNECT YOUR ROUTER, WAIT 65 SECONDS, RECONNECT, THEN RESTART YOUR WIFI, AND LOG IN AGAIN.
Maybe it’s time to go back to the office. A face shield and HAZMAT suit are sounding better all the time.
Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semiretired after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available online. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
Another great morning,
Here goes. I’ll invite Gretchen by text: 617-555-5555. “TOO LONG.” How can 10 digits be too long? Trying again: 617-555-5555. “TOO LONG!” What the heck, let me leave off the last digit: 617-555-555. “TOO SHORT.”
Never mind, I’ll invite her by email.
Five minutes have gone by. Better call to see if she got the invite.
“Hello, is this Gretchen? Don’t hang up, I’m not a telemarketer! This is Dr. Rockoff. I sent you an invitation for our computer visit.
“You got it, great. Yes, you have to click on it to sign in. I know, your appointment’s at 8:30. It’s now 8:28. Let’s start early, why not?
“Hi, there! I can see you. Can you hear me? You’re nodding and your lips are moving. I can’t hear you. Did you enable your microphone?
“Nope, still can’t hear. I’ll call your cell, and we’ll talk that way.
“Yes, it’s me, Dr. Rockoff. What’s that? You enabled the microphone along with your video when you logged on? Well, there we go. How can I help today?
“You want a refill on your tretinoin gel for age management? Not a problem. Let’s see, you’ve been using it since 1996. No, you look great! Not a day over 76, really! I’ll have the staff escribe it right over.
“Okay, take care. Three years should be about right. Happy 80th!”
Wonder what happened there. Maybe things will go better for the next patient. Okay, I’m emailing an invite to Rob.
There he is! “Hi. Can you see me? Hear me? Nope, can’t hear you. Let me just call your cell.”
Okay, 972-555-5555. Ringing ... oh no, right to voicemail. “You have reached 972-555-5555. The mailbox is full and cannot accept messages. Please try some other time.”
“Okay, I’m back with you on the screen, Rob. Nope, still can’t hear you. I tried your cell but it went to voicemail. Yes, I see you’re holding the phone in your hand. Let me try you again.
“972-555-5555. Right to voicemail. Doesn’t your phone ring? You never make voice calls, only send texts? Look, please call me: 781-555-5555, write it down.
“Excellent, we’re in business. You’re worried about a mole that’s changing. You sent a photo to the office. Great, I’ll look right now on your record ... nope, not uploaded. Can you email me the photo? Please write down my email address: alanrockoffmdskincarespecialistist@myfabuloustelemedicineportal.now. Got that? Okay, please send the picture ...
“Returned as undeliverable? Show me what you typed ... Oh, wait. It’s ‘telemedicine,’ not ‘TellaMedicine.’ ” Yeah, that should do it.
“Okay, got the picture. You do fabulous super-closeups! Is that your navel next to it? Your left nostril? Okay. You tried to razor off the hair growing out it? Yes, that could account for the bleeding. Tell you what, go easy on it for the next 2 weeks, and send me another picture. Same email address.
“You have another question? Sure. You want a refill of your clindamycin gel because the tube from 2013 ran out? Guess you haven’t grown out of your acne yet. Sure, happy to send it in for you. Same pharmacy we have on file? You’re bunking with your parents in Wichita? No problem. Just need the pharmacy name and street. Boston, Wichita, whatever.
“Sure, happy to help. Enjoy your stay with your parents. You’ve been there 4 months? Are you cleaning your room? Mostly? Good. Take care. I’ll respond to your email in 2 weeks. Meantime, you might empty out your full voicemail box ... Oh, right, your generation only texts ...”
Okay, one more. Here’s Henrietta. I emailed her an invitation ... Holy Cow, she’s checked in! Let’s see, click “Join.” I can see her!
“Henrietta, is that you? Can you hear me? You can? You can hear me! Henrietta can hear me! And I can hear her!
“Yes, Henrietta, I’m all right. Just doing cartwheels around my study. Between COVID and the 95-degree heat and 100% humidity, it’s all the exercise I get.
“How can I help you today?
“Henrietta? HENRIETTA! Where have you gone, Henrietta?”
THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CALL. DISCONNECT YOUR ROUTER, WAIT 65 SECONDS, RECONNECT, THEN RESTART YOUR WIFI, AND LOG IN AGAIN.
Maybe it’s time to go back to the office. A face shield and HAZMAT suit are sounding better all the time.
Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semiretired after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available online. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
September marks 9 months
It has been a busy month. September will mark the ninth month of U.S. COVID-19 with the country now surpassing 5 million cases and more than 175,000 deaths. Daily life and our medical practices will never be the same. Many have lost friends, family, businesses, and hope. Instead of acting as a nation to pull through this together, we seem to be entering a continual state of Thoreau solitude combined with Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons.
In the last 2 months GI & Hepatology News published a two-part opinion piece about the acquisition of physicians’ GI practices by private equity (PE) companies. I received a strongly worded (but justified) email criticizing the newspaper for being one sided and not declaring a conflict of interest on the part of the author. For both issues, I take sole responsibility. While it is important for us to understand how PE is affecting GI practices, the author did have a personal stake in the success of this financial model. It is important to note that details of a PE acquisition can vary greatly depending on the PE company involved and PE companies looking to acquire practices now can be counted in the hundreds. The pros and cons of PE acquisitions were argued prior to COVID-19, but since the first quarter of 2020, the model is even more confusing. We will find out over the next several years whether this ever-proliferating model of practice financing will be successful or disastrous.
In November, GI & Hepatology News will publish a special supplement called Gastroenterology Data Trends. This publication will include brief, but robust snapshots of major trends in topics ranging from NAFLD, IBD, and GI cancers to the impact of COVID-19 on GI practices. We have collected a stellar group of authors to help us.
This month, the school year begins in ways that are still being sorted out. The “Big House” will not host its usual 110,000 fans packed like sardines watching Michigan football. I hope all of our readers skipped Sturgis this year. Stay safe, stay apart, and mask up.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
It has been a busy month. September will mark the ninth month of U.S. COVID-19 with the country now surpassing 5 million cases and more than 175,000 deaths. Daily life and our medical practices will never be the same. Many have lost friends, family, businesses, and hope. Instead of acting as a nation to pull through this together, we seem to be entering a continual state of Thoreau solitude combined with Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons.
In the last 2 months GI & Hepatology News published a two-part opinion piece about the acquisition of physicians’ GI practices by private equity (PE) companies. I received a strongly worded (but justified) email criticizing the newspaper for being one sided and not declaring a conflict of interest on the part of the author. For both issues, I take sole responsibility. While it is important for us to understand how PE is affecting GI practices, the author did have a personal stake in the success of this financial model. It is important to note that details of a PE acquisition can vary greatly depending on the PE company involved and PE companies looking to acquire practices now can be counted in the hundreds. The pros and cons of PE acquisitions were argued prior to COVID-19, but since the first quarter of 2020, the model is even more confusing. We will find out over the next several years whether this ever-proliferating model of practice financing will be successful or disastrous.
In November, GI & Hepatology News will publish a special supplement called Gastroenterology Data Trends. This publication will include brief, but robust snapshots of major trends in topics ranging from NAFLD, IBD, and GI cancers to the impact of COVID-19 on GI practices. We have collected a stellar group of authors to help us.
This month, the school year begins in ways that are still being sorted out. The “Big House” will not host its usual 110,000 fans packed like sardines watching Michigan football. I hope all of our readers skipped Sturgis this year. Stay safe, stay apart, and mask up.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
It has been a busy month. September will mark the ninth month of U.S. COVID-19 with the country now surpassing 5 million cases and more than 175,000 deaths. Daily life and our medical practices will never be the same. Many have lost friends, family, businesses, and hope. Instead of acting as a nation to pull through this together, we seem to be entering a continual state of Thoreau solitude combined with Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons.
In the last 2 months GI & Hepatology News published a two-part opinion piece about the acquisition of physicians’ GI practices by private equity (PE) companies. I received a strongly worded (but justified) email criticizing the newspaper for being one sided and not declaring a conflict of interest on the part of the author. For both issues, I take sole responsibility. While it is important for us to understand how PE is affecting GI practices, the author did have a personal stake in the success of this financial model. It is important to note that details of a PE acquisition can vary greatly depending on the PE company involved and PE companies looking to acquire practices now can be counted in the hundreds. The pros and cons of PE acquisitions were argued prior to COVID-19, but since the first quarter of 2020, the model is even more confusing. We will find out over the next several years whether this ever-proliferating model of practice financing will be successful or disastrous.
In November, GI & Hepatology News will publish a special supplement called Gastroenterology Data Trends. This publication will include brief, but robust snapshots of major trends in topics ranging from NAFLD, IBD, and GI cancers to the impact of COVID-19 on GI practices. We have collected a stellar group of authors to help us.
This month, the school year begins in ways that are still being sorted out. The “Big House” will not host its usual 110,000 fans packed like sardines watching Michigan football. I hope all of our readers skipped Sturgis this year. Stay safe, stay apart, and mask up.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
There is no cure for gullibility
Metformin, oleander extract, azithromycin, famotidine, fluvoxamine, hydroxychloroquine, indomethacin, remdesivir, different vaccines, and many others. What does this disparate group of agents have in common? They’re all being bandied about as treatments for COVID-19.
This sort of thing makes big headlines in the news when someone even mentions them as a possible treatment, but so do proposed treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, various cancers, and other devastating illnesses. It triggers calls to doctors’ offices by patients wanting to be put on them, demands for them to be sold over the counter, and less-then-scrupulous people selling all kinds of things claiming to contain them and cure the disease for only $89.95 with free shipping if you act now.
Even in ordinary times (whatever that means anymore) it doesn’t take much for even a hint of success to make the news, spiking calls to doctors’ offices asking about “that new treatment I saw.” Of course, the number of drugs that are proven to be successful and come to market is a fraction of what’s actually tested.
Since the many failures don’t make headlines like successes do, the general public moves on and doesn’t even remember the initial story after a while. Only the medical and pharmaceutical professions are left to remember “we tried that, it didn’t work.”
We learn as much from failure as we do from success – sometimes more – but failure doesn’t make headlines or sell papers or get clicks.
The research scientists and physicians know this and how long it can take to find something that works. In some diseases it still hasn’t happened, in spite of billions spent and decades going by.
Unfortunately, nonscientific people (which is most of the population) just see our remarkable breakthroughs evidenced by shiny equipment and new drugs, and only read the headlines about successes. They don’t realize the many years and failures behind them.
It doesn’t help to have nonmedical talking heads on the news egging this belief on. The few voices of reason are drowned out.
The polio virus was identified in 1908 (the disease is thousands of years old). The Salk vaccine came out in 1955. That’s a 47-year gap. I doubt it will take that long for COVID-19, but the point is that these things never have, and never will, happen overnight.
The problem isn’t science or medicine. It’s unreasonable expectations for immediate success. While science and diseases may change over time, human nature doesn’t.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Metformin, oleander extract, azithromycin, famotidine, fluvoxamine, hydroxychloroquine, indomethacin, remdesivir, different vaccines, and many others. What does this disparate group of agents have in common? They’re all being bandied about as treatments for COVID-19.
This sort of thing makes big headlines in the news when someone even mentions them as a possible treatment, but so do proposed treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, various cancers, and other devastating illnesses. It triggers calls to doctors’ offices by patients wanting to be put on them, demands for them to be sold over the counter, and less-then-scrupulous people selling all kinds of things claiming to contain them and cure the disease for only $89.95 with free shipping if you act now.
Even in ordinary times (whatever that means anymore) it doesn’t take much for even a hint of success to make the news, spiking calls to doctors’ offices asking about “that new treatment I saw.” Of course, the number of drugs that are proven to be successful and come to market is a fraction of what’s actually tested.
Since the many failures don’t make headlines like successes do, the general public moves on and doesn’t even remember the initial story after a while. Only the medical and pharmaceutical professions are left to remember “we tried that, it didn’t work.”
We learn as much from failure as we do from success – sometimes more – but failure doesn’t make headlines or sell papers or get clicks.
The research scientists and physicians know this and how long it can take to find something that works. In some diseases it still hasn’t happened, in spite of billions spent and decades going by.
Unfortunately, nonscientific people (which is most of the population) just see our remarkable breakthroughs evidenced by shiny equipment and new drugs, and only read the headlines about successes. They don’t realize the many years and failures behind them.
It doesn’t help to have nonmedical talking heads on the news egging this belief on. The few voices of reason are drowned out.
The polio virus was identified in 1908 (the disease is thousands of years old). The Salk vaccine came out in 1955. That’s a 47-year gap. I doubt it will take that long for COVID-19, but the point is that these things never have, and never will, happen overnight.
The problem isn’t science or medicine. It’s unreasonable expectations for immediate success. While science and diseases may change over time, human nature doesn’t.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Metformin, oleander extract, azithromycin, famotidine, fluvoxamine, hydroxychloroquine, indomethacin, remdesivir, different vaccines, and many others. What does this disparate group of agents have in common? They’re all being bandied about as treatments for COVID-19.
This sort of thing makes big headlines in the news when someone even mentions them as a possible treatment, but so do proposed treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, various cancers, and other devastating illnesses. It triggers calls to doctors’ offices by patients wanting to be put on them, demands for them to be sold over the counter, and less-then-scrupulous people selling all kinds of things claiming to contain them and cure the disease for only $89.95 with free shipping if you act now.
Even in ordinary times (whatever that means anymore) it doesn’t take much for even a hint of success to make the news, spiking calls to doctors’ offices asking about “that new treatment I saw.” Of course, the number of drugs that are proven to be successful and come to market is a fraction of what’s actually tested.
Since the many failures don’t make headlines like successes do, the general public moves on and doesn’t even remember the initial story after a while. Only the medical and pharmaceutical professions are left to remember “we tried that, it didn’t work.”
We learn as much from failure as we do from success – sometimes more – but failure doesn’t make headlines or sell papers or get clicks.
The research scientists and physicians know this and how long it can take to find something that works. In some diseases it still hasn’t happened, in spite of billions spent and decades going by.
Unfortunately, nonscientific people (which is most of the population) just see our remarkable breakthroughs evidenced by shiny equipment and new drugs, and only read the headlines about successes. They don’t realize the many years and failures behind them.
It doesn’t help to have nonmedical talking heads on the news egging this belief on. The few voices of reason are drowned out.
The polio virus was identified in 1908 (the disease is thousands of years old). The Salk vaccine came out in 1955. That’s a 47-year gap. I doubt it will take that long for COVID-19, but the point is that these things never have, and never will, happen overnight.
The problem isn’t science or medicine. It’s unreasonable expectations for immediate success. While science and diseases may change over time, human nature doesn’t.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Reducing maternal mortality with prenatal care
As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.
For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.1 Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.2
Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.
We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.
We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.3 Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.4 Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.
We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.
We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.
We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.
I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.
3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.
4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.
As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.
For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.1 Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.2
Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.
We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.
We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.3 Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.4 Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.
We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.
We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.
We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.
I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.
3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.
4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.
As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.
For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.1 Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.2
Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.
We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.
We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.3 Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.4 Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.
We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.
We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.
We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.
I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.
3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.
4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.
Rooting out systemic racism: Equal access to maternal, prenatal care
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity.
This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.
Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.
Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.
And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.
As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?
Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.
We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.
We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity.
This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.
Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.
Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.
And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.
As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?
Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.
We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.
We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity.
This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.
Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.
Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.
And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.
As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?
Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.
We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.
We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
Vitamin D pearls
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
Case: A 56-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity calls clinic to discuss concerns about COVID-19, stating: “I want to do everything I can to reduce my risk of infection.” In addition to physical distancing, mask wearing, hand hygiene, and control of chronic conditions, which of the following supplements would you recommend for this patient?
1. Coenzyme Q10 160 mg twice a day
2. Vitamin D 2,000 IU daily
3. Vitamin E 400 IU daily
4. Vitamin B12 1,000 mcg daily
Of these choices, vitamin D supplementation is likely the best option, based on the limited data that is available.
Risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcome, such as older age, obesity, and more pigmented skin are also risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. This makes the study of vitamin D and COVID-19 both challenging and relevant.
In a recent study of 7,807 people living in Israel, Merzon and colleagues found that low plasma vitamin D level was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive for COVID-19 (19.00 ng/mL) than negative (20.55 ng/ mL). After controlling for demographic variables and several medical conditions, the adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19 infection in those with lower vitamin D was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.95; P < .001). However, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D level.1
Prior studies have also looked at vitamin D and respiratory infection. Martineau and colleagues analyzed 25 randomized, controlled trials with a pooled number of 11,321 individuals, including healthy ones and those with comorbidities, and found that oral vitamin D supplementation in daily or weekly doses had a protective effect against acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; P < .001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (less than 25 nmol/L) experienced the most protective benefit. Vitamin D did not influence respiratory infection outcome.2
These studies suggest an adequate vitamin D level may be protective against infection with COVID-19, but who will benefit from vitamin D supplementation, and in what dose? Per U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. Regarding daily dietary intake, the Institute of Medicine recommends 600 IU for persons aged 1-70, and 800 IU for those aged over 70 years. Salmon (447 IU per 3 oz serving), tuna (154 IU), and fortified milk (116 IU) are among the most vitamin D–rich foods.3 The recommended upper level of intake is 4,000 IU/day.
Too much of a good thing?
Extra vitamin D is stored in adipose tissue. If it builds up over time, storage sites may be overwhelmed, causing a rise in serum D level. While one might expect a subsequent rise in calcium levels, studies have shown this happens inconsistently, and at very high vitamin D levels, over 120 ng/mL.4 Most people would have to take at least 50,000 IU daily for several months to see an effect. The main adverse outcome of vitamin D toxicity is kidney stones, mediated by increased calcium in the blood and urine.
Several animal models have demonstrated hypervitaminosis D–induced aortic and coronary artery calcification. Like with kidney stones, the mechanism appears to be through increased calcium and phosphate levels. Shroff and colleagues studied serum vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children with renal disease on dialysis and found a U-shaped distribution: Children with both low and high vitamin D levels had significantly increased carotid artery intima-media thickness and calcification.5 Given the specialized nature of this population, it’s unclear whether these results can be generalized to most people. More studies are warranted on this topic.
Other benefits
Vitamin D is perhaps most famous for helping to build strong bones. Avenell and colleagues performed a Cochrane meta-analysis of vitamin D supplementation in older adults and found that vitamin D alone did not significantly reduce the risk of hip or other new fracture. Vitamin D plus calcium supplementation did reduce the risk of hip fracture (nine trials, pooled number of individuals was 49,853; relative risk, 0.84; P = .01).6
A lesser-known benefit of vitamin D is muscle protection. A prospective study out of the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati followed 146 adults who were intolerant to two or more statins because of muscle side effects and found to have a vitamin D level below 32 ng per mL. Subjects were given vitamin D replacement (50,000 units weekly) and followed for 2 years. On statin rechallenge, 88-95% tolerated a statin with vitamin D levels 53-55 ng/mL.7
Pearl
Vitamin D supplementation may protect against COVID-19 infection and has very low chance of harm at daily doses at or below 4,000 IU. Other benefits of taking vitamin D include bone protection and reduction in statin-induced myopathy. The main adverse effect is kidney stones.
Ms. Sharninghausen is a medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Merzon E et al. Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19 infection: An Israeli population‐based study. FEBS J. 2020. doi: 10.1111/febs.15495.
2. Martineau AR et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
3. “How to Get More Vitamin D From Your Food,” Cleveland Clinic. 2019 Oct 23. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-get-more-vitamin-d-from-your-food/.
4. Galior K et al. Development of vitamin d toxicity from overcorrection of vitamin D Deficiency: A review of case reports. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):953. doi: 10.3390/nu10080953
5. Shroff R et al. A bimodal association of vitamin D levels and vascular disease in children on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(6):1239-46. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007090993.
6. Avenell A et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post‐menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;2014(4):CD000227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000227.pub4.
7. Khayznikov M et al. Statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis can in most cases be safely resolved by vitamin D supplementation. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(3):86-93. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.153919
What have we learned? HM20 Virtual edition
The last session of each SHM Annual Conference is traditionally a short presentation titled “What Have We Learned?” that is delivered by next year’s course director (and this year, that is me!).
We’ve learned that by making the heartbreaking decision to cancel the HM20 in-person conference and convert to a virtual platform, SHM leadership is not afraid to do the right thing to protect the health of its members and staff, even when such a decision comes at significant cost to the organization. We’ve learned that the SHM staff are flexible and innovative and are masters of logistics – their ability to pivot so quickly into a virtual format on such short notice is nothing short of amazing. On the Annual Conference Committee (ACC), we already knew that Benji Mathews, the HM20 course director, was an outstanding leader. True to form, despite facing unprecedented uncertainty and tremendous disappointment, Benji continued to lead with the steady, eloquent presence and poise he’s known for, delivering an outstanding HM20 Virtual.
We’ve learned that SHM members can enjoy and engage meaningfully in a virtual format, as evidenced by well-attended sessions, including robust Q&A exchanges that took place during HM20 Virtual’s simulive offerings. Not seeing each other in person this year has reminded us how much the sense of community we enjoy through SHM means to so many of us. I missed catching up with so many colleagues that have become true friends over the years, and I know you did as well.
We also saw how SHM does not hesitate to provide a platform to shine a spotlight on the critical issues of the day. The double pandemic of COVID-19 and structural racism that we face was addressed head-on by expert faculty in sessions such as “Structural Racism and Bias in Hospital Medicine During Two Pandemics,” “The Immigrant Hospitalist: Navigating the Uncertain Terrain During COVID-19,” and “When Grief and Crises Intersect: Perspectives of a Black Physician in the Time of Two Pandemics.” Sessions on different aspects of COVID-19 enabled our members to stay up to date on the continually evolving knowledge base of this new disease.
We are so excited as we look ahead to HM21. There will be content on COVID-19 at HM21 … but not too much COVID. The ACC is mindful that our members come to the Annual Conference to hear experts speak on a broad range of clinical topics, and HM21 will be sure to deliver. An innovative new track on Diagnostic Safety will address this critical aspect of high-quality care. We will also debut a new leadership track. At HM21, the ACC is also proud to introduce a dedicated track that will include sessions that address diversity, disparities, and equity. And if what happens in Vegas cannot stay in Vegas (does that make some of you nervous …?), and a virtual element needs to be part of HM21, we will utilize a sophisticated and highly functional platform that will provide some things that our HM20 Virtual platform didn’t.
Couldn’t make HM20 Virtual? Don’t worry! You can still experience the in-depth, immersive education courtesy of some of the most knowledgeable faculty in the field through HM20 Virtual On Demand.
It has indeed been a year in which we have learned a lot. Most importantly, we have learned that we are resilient and that we are stronger together. That SHM and the Annual Conference – be it virtual or in person – is a place where we value, respect, and support each other. Have a great year. I look forward to welcoming you to HM21 in May 2021!
Dr. Steinberg is associate chair for education and residency program director in the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, and course director of HM21.
The last session of each SHM Annual Conference is traditionally a short presentation titled “What Have We Learned?” that is delivered by next year’s course director (and this year, that is me!).
We’ve learned that by making the heartbreaking decision to cancel the HM20 in-person conference and convert to a virtual platform, SHM leadership is not afraid to do the right thing to protect the health of its members and staff, even when such a decision comes at significant cost to the organization. We’ve learned that the SHM staff are flexible and innovative and are masters of logistics – their ability to pivot so quickly into a virtual format on such short notice is nothing short of amazing. On the Annual Conference Committee (ACC), we already knew that Benji Mathews, the HM20 course director, was an outstanding leader. True to form, despite facing unprecedented uncertainty and tremendous disappointment, Benji continued to lead with the steady, eloquent presence and poise he’s known for, delivering an outstanding HM20 Virtual.
We’ve learned that SHM members can enjoy and engage meaningfully in a virtual format, as evidenced by well-attended sessions, including robust Q&A exchanges that took place during HM20 Virtual’s simulive offerings. Not seeing each other in person this year has reminded us how much the sense of community we enjoy through SHM means to so many of us. I missed catching up with so many colleagues that have become true friends over the years, and I know you did as well.
We also saw how SHM does not hesitate to provide a platform to shine a spotlight on the critical issues of the day. The double pandemic of COVID-19 and structural racism that we face was addressed head-on by expert faculty in sessions such as “Structural Racism and Bias in Hospital Medicine During Two Pandemics,” “The Immigrant Hospitalist: Navigating the Uncertain Terrain During COVID-19,” and “When Grief and Crises Intersect: Perspectives of a Black Physician in the Time of Two Pandemics.” Sessions on different aspects of COVID-19 enabled our members to stay up to date on the continually evolving knowledge base of this new disease.
We are so excited as we look ahead to HM21. There will be content on COVID-19 at HM21 … but not too much COVID. The ACC is mindful that our members come to the Annual Conference to hear experts speak on a broad range of clinical topics, and HM21 will be sure to deliver. An innovative new track on Diagnostic Safety will address this critical aspect of high-quality care. We will also debut a new leadership track. At HM21, the ACC is also proud to introduce a dedicated track that will include sessions that address diversity, disparities, and equity. And if what happens in Vegas cannot stay in Vegas (does that make some of you nervous …?), and a virtual element needs to be part of HM21, we will utilize a sophisticated and highly functional platform that will provide some things that our HM20 Virtual platform didn’t.
Couldn’t make HM20 Virtual? Don’t worry! You can still experience the in-depth, immersive education courtesy of some of the most knowledgeable faculty in the field through HM20 Virtual On Demand.
It has indeed been a year in which we have learned a lot. Most importantly, we have learned that we are resilient and that we are stronger together. That SHM and the Annual Conference – be it virtual or in person – is a place where we value, respect, and support each other. Have a great year. I look forward to welcoming you to HM21 in May 2021!
Dr. Steinberg is associate chair for education and residency program director in the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, and course director of HM21.
The last session of each SHM Annual Conference is traditionally a short presentation titled “What Have We Learned?” that is delivered by next year’s course director (and this year, that is me!).
We’ve learned that by making the heartbreaking decision to cancel the HM20 in-person conference and convert to a virtual platform, SHM leadership is not afraid to do the right thing to protect the health of its members and staff, even when such a decision comes at significant cost to the organization. We’ve learned that the SHM staff are flexible and innovative and are masters of logistics – their ability to pivot so quickly into a virtual format on such short notice is nothing short of amazing. On the Annual Conference Committee (ACC), we already knew that Benji Mathews, the HM20 course director, was an outstanding leader. True to form, despite facing unprecedented uncertainty and tremendous disappointment, Benji continued to lead with the steady, eloquent presence and poise he’s known for, delivering an outstanding HM20 Virtual.
We’ve learned that SHM members can enjoy and engage meaningfully in a virtual format, as evidenced by well-attended sessions, including robust Q&A exchanges that took place during HM20 Virtual’s simulive offerings. Not seeing each other in person this year has reminded us how much the sense of community we enjoy through SHM means to so many of us. I missed catching up with so many colleagues that have become true friends over the years, and I know you did as well.
We also saw how SHM does not hesitate to provide a platform to shine a spotlight on the critical issues of the day. The double pandemic of COVID-19 and structural racism that we face was addressed head-on by expert faculty in sessions such as “Structural Racism and Bias in Hospital Medicine During Two Pandemics,” “The Immigrant Hospitalist: Navigating the Uncertain Terrain During COVID-19,” and “When Grief and Crises Intersect: Perspectives of a Black Physician in the Time of Two Pandemics.” Sessions on different aspects of COVID-19 enabled our members to stay up to date on the continually evolving knowledge base of this new disease.
We are so excited as we look ahead to HM21. There will be content on COVID-19 at HM21 … but not too much COVID. The ACC is mindful that our members come to the Annual Conference to hear experts speak on a broad range of clinical topics, and HM21 will be sure to deliver. An innovative new track on Diagnostic Safety will address this critical aspect of high-quality care. We will also debut a new leadership track. At HM21, the ACC is also proud to introduce a dedicated track that will include sessions that address diversity, disparities, and equity. And if what happens in Vegas cannot stay in Vegas (does that make some of you nervous …?), and a virtual element needs to be part of HM21, we will utilize a sophisticated and highly functional platform that will provide some things that our HM20 Virtual platform didn’t.
Couldn’t make HM20 Virtual? Don’t worry! You can still experience the in-depth, immersive education courtesy of some of the most knowledgeable faculty in the field through HM20 Virtual On Demand.
It has indeed been a year in which we have learned a lot. Most importantly, we have learned that we are resilient and that we are stronger together. That SHM and the Annual Conference – be it virtual or in person – is a place where we value, respect, and support each other. Have a great year. I look forward to welcoming you to HM21 in May 2021!
Dr. Steinberg is associate chair for education and residency program director in the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, and course director of HM21.
Mitigating psychiatric disorder relapse in pregnancy during pandemic
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect , and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.
The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect , and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.
The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect , and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.
The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.