User login
COVID-19–related skin changes: The hidden racism in documentation
Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.
Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.
In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.
The following findings from this study are striking:
- 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
- Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
- None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
- Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.
These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.
Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.
Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.
Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.
In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.
The following findings from this study are striking:
- 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
- Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
- None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
- Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.
These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.
Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.
Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.
Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.
In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.
The following findings from this study are striking:
- 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
- Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
- None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
- Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.
These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.
Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.
Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Are you SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitant?
When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”
How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.”
Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?
In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.
For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.
Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.
The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”
How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.”
Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?
In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.
For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.
Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.
The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”
How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.”
Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?
In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.
For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.
Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.
The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
COVID-19 bits and pieces
It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.
Under the radar
Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.
Forget the deep cleaning
There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.
Managing the inevitable
Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.
Patience
Unfortunately, We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.
Under the radar
Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.
Forget the deep cleaning
There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.
Managing the inevitable
Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.
Patience
Unfortunately, We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
It turns out that a pandemic, at least this COVID-19 version, can be a challenge for folks like me who are seldom at a loss for words. The pandemic has so overwhelmed every corner of our lives that it is hard to think of another topic on which to pontificate and still not tromp on someone’s political toes. One can always write about the pandemic itself, and I’ve tried that, but as the curtain is gradually being pulled back on this crafty little germ one runs the risk of making an observation today that will be disproved in a week or 2. However, I can’t suppress my urge to write, and so I have decided to share a few brief random observations. Of course they are related to the pandemic. And of course I realize that there is a better than fifty percent chance that they will be proved wrong by the time you read my next Letters from Maine.
Under the radar
Two of the many mysteries about SARS-CoV-2 involve young children who as a group appear to be less easily infected than adults and even when infected seem to be less likely to spread the disease to other people, particularly adults. One explanation posited by some researchers in France is that young children are less likely to have symptoms such as cough and are less powerful speakers and so might be less likely to spew out a significant number of infected aerosolized droplets (“How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavill, and Benedict Carey. New York Times, July 11, 2020). While there are probably several factors to explain this observation, one may be that young children are short, seldom taller than an adult waistline. I suspect the majority of aerosols they emit fall and inactivate harmlessly to the floor several feet below an adult’s nose and mouth. Regardless of the explanation, it appears to be good news for the opening of schools, at least for the early grades.
Forget the deep cleaning
There has been a glut of news stories about reopening schools, and many of these stories are accompanied by images of school custodians with buckets, mops, spray bottles, and sponges scouring desks and walls. The most recent image in our local newspaper was of someone scrubbing the underside of a desk. I know it’s taking the World Health Organization an unconscionable period of time to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, but the rest of us should have gotten the message long ago and been directing our attention to air handling and ventilation. The urge to scrub and deep clean is a hard habit to break, but this nasty bug is not like influenza or a flesh eating bacteria in which deep cleaning might help. A better image to attach to a story on school reopening would be one of a custodian with a screwdriver struggling to pry open a classroom window that had been painted shut a decade ago.
Managing the inevitable
Middlebury College in Vermont and Bowdoin College here in Brunswick, Maine, are similar in many respects because they are small and situated in relatively isolated small New England towns with good track records for pandemic management. Middlebury has elected to invite all its 2,750 students back to campus, whereas Bowdoin has decided to allow only incoming first years and transfer students (for a total of about 600) to return. Both schools will institute similar testing and social distancing protocols and restrict students from access to their respective towns (“A Tale of 2 Colleges.” By Bill Burger. Inside Higher Ed, June 29,2020). It will be an interesting experiment. I’m voting for Middlebury and not because my son and daughter-in-law are alums, but because I think Middlebury seems to have acknowledged that no matter how diligent one is in creating a SARS-CoV-2–free environment at the outset, these are college kids and there will be some cases on both campuses. It is on how those inevitable realities are managed and contained that an institution should be judged.
Patience
Unfortunately, We always have been a restless and impatient population eager to get moving and it has driven us to greatness. Hopefully, patience will be a lesson that we will learn, along with many others.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Got a short attention span?
Have you every wondered whether you have an attention deficit disorder? I have and I suspect that there are plenty of folks who share my curiosity. Realistically I’m pretty sure I don’t have ADD because while I enjoy being physically active my folks never described me as “bouncing off the walls.” Although I think I am very aware of my surroundings and observant, I wouldn’t say I am unusually distractible. I can multitask reasonably well and have been reasonably successful academically and professionally. But the one characteristic I do share with most ADD patients is a short attention span.
Short, of course, is a relative term. Any academic class longer than 45 minutes pushes me past my limit. The same goes for movies and television documentaries. Reading always has been a challenge for me, and 20 minutes is about as long as I can sit with a book or magazine article – even if it’s about a topic that interests me.
Even when I am painting or wood carving, I need to put down my brushes and knives after 20 minutes and do something else. I am a one-set tennis player and about a seven-hole golfer. I have the physical stamina to go much longer, but by the second set or the 10th hole I would prefer to be moving on to some other activity.
In college, I quickly learned that all-nighters were counterproductive. My usual study pattern evolved into one in which I would spend about 20 minutes on one course, take a trip to the refrigerator and return to studying on another course for 20 minutes, then take a break outside to shoot some hoops and return to work for 20 minutes on a third course. This pattern of relatively short bouts of work punctuated by brief snack or exercise breaks seemed to be my most efficient, productive, and mental health–sparing strategy.
Just last week, I learned that there is a name associated with my system. It’s called the Pomodoro technique and was “invented” by a student in an Italian business school in the 1980s (“This Time-Management Trick Changed My Whole Relationship With Time,”By Dean Kissick, The New York Times, June 23, 2020). At its core is a rigid pattern of 25 minutes of work punctuated by 5-minute breaks. The name comes from the tomato-shaped kitchen timer the inventor used to keep himself on a schedule that kept him at optimal efficiency. Of course I have never needed a timer to prompt me to move to another task. My short attention span always has taken care of that.
It turns out that by stumbling into a career in outpatient general pediatrics I found a perfect fit for my truncated attention span. Visits seldom lasted more than 15 minutes followed by a quick sprint to the next room and a fresh and stimulating set of faces and complaints. You may think I should have been spending a minimum of 20 or 25 minutes, but visits of that length seldom fit the realities of my usual day.
There is a myth floating around that there is always a direct correlation between the length of an office visit and its quality. The patient’s perception of quality is most important, and it is based on multiple factors – not the least of which is the level of engagement the physician exhibits. The problem comes when – for whatever reason – closure can’t be achieved in even a 35- or 40-minute visit. Here is when the provider must fall back on her/his clinical artistry by first acknowledging that neither patient nor provider is content with the current situation, but that a follow-up call that evening or an office visit in a day or two will continue the process.
Of course, there were always days when I wish had more time to devote to certain office visits. But for the most part, the hectic pace of outpatient pediatrics fit with my need for a rapidly changing stream of fresh challenges to keep my attention.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Have you every wondered whether you have an attention deficit disorder? I have and I suspect that there are plenty of folks who share my curiosity. Realistically I’m pretty sure I don’t have ADD because while I enjoy being physically active my folks never described me as “bouncing off the walls.” Although I think I am very aware of my surroundings and observant, I wouldn’t say I am unusually distractible. I can multitask reasonably well and have been reasonably successful academically and professionally. But the one characteristic I do share with most ADD patients is a short attention span.
Short, of course, is a relative term. Any academic class longer than 45 minutes pushes me past my limit. The same goes for movies and television documentaries. Reading always has been a challenge for me, and 20 minutes is about as long as I can sit with a book or magazine article – even if it’s about a topic that interests me.
Even when I am painting or wood carving, I need to put down my brushes and knives after 20 minutes and do something else. I am a one-set tennis player and about a seven-hole golfer. I have the physical stamina to go much longer, but by the second set or the 10th hole I would prefer to be moving on to some other activity.
In college, I quickly learned that all-nighters were counterproductive. My usual study pattern evolved into one in which I would spend about 20 minutes on one course, take a trip to the refrigerator and return to studying on another course for 20 minutes, then take a break outside to shoot some hoops and return to work for 20 minutes on a third course. This pattern of relatively short bouts of work punctuated by brief snack or exercise breaks seemed to be my most efficient, productive, and mental health–sparing strategy.
Just last week, I learned that there is a name associated with my system. It’s called the Pomodoro technique and was “invented” by a student in an Italian business school in the 1980s (“This Time-Management Trick Changed My Whole Relationship With Time,”By Dean Kissick, The New York Times, June 23, 2020). At its core is a rigid pattern of 25 minutes of work punctuated by 5-minute breaks. The name comes from the tomato-shaped kitchen timer the inventor used to keep himself on a schedule that kept him at optimal efficiency. Of course I have never needed a timer to prompt me to move to another task. My short attention span always has taken care of that.
It turns out that by stumbling into a career in outpatient general pediatrics I found a perfect fit for my truncated attention span. Visits seldom lasted more than 15 minutes followed by a quick sprint to the next room and a fresh and stimulating set of faces and complaints. You may think I should have been spending a minimum of 20 or 25 minutes, but visits of that length seldom fit the realities of my usual day.
There is a myth floating around that there is always a direct correlation between the length of an office visit and its quality. The patient’s perception of quality is most important, and it is based on multiple factors – not the least of which is the level of engagement the physician exhibits. The problem comes when – for whatever reason – closure can’t be achieved in even a 35- or 40-minute visit. Here is when the provider must fall back on her/his clinical artistry by first acknowledging that neither patient nor provider is content with the current situation, but that a follow-up call that evening or an office visit in a day or two will continue the process.
Of course, there were always days when I wish had more time to devote to certain office visits. But for the most part, the hectic pace of outpatient pediatrics fit with my need for a rapidly changing stream of fresh challenges to keep my attention.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Have you every wondered whether you have an attention deficit disorder? I have and I suspect that there are plenty of folks who share my curiosity. Realistically I’m pretty sure I don’t have ADD because while I enjoy being physically active my folks never described me as “bouncing off the walls.” Although I think I am very aware of my surroundings and observant, I wouldn’t say I am unusually distractible. I can multitask reasonably well and have been reasonably successful academically and professionally. But the one characteristic I do share with most ADD patients is a short attention span.
Short, of course, is a relative term. Any academic class longer than 45 minutes pushes me past my limit. The same goes for movies and television documentaries. Reading always has been a challenge for me, and 20 minutes is about as long as I can sit with a book or magazine article – even if it’s about a topic that interests me.
Even when I am painting or wood carving, I need to put down my brushes and knives after 20 minutes and do something else. I am a one-set tennis player and about a seven-hole golfer. I have the physical stamina to go much longer, but by the second set or the 10th hole I would prefer to be moving on to some other activity.
In college, I quickly learned that all-nighters were counterproductive. My usual study pattern evolved into one in which I would spend about 20 minutes on one course, take a trip to the refrigerator and return to studying on another course for 20 minutes, then take a break outside to shoot some hoops and return to work for 20 minutes on a third course. This pattern of relatively short bouts of work punctuated by brief snack or exercise breaks seemed to be my most efficient, productive, and mental health–sparing strategy.
Just last week, I learned that there is a name associated with my system. It’s called the Pomodoro technique and was “invented” by a student in an Italian business school in the 1980s (“This Time-Management Trick Changed My Whole Relationship With Time,”By Dean Kissick, The New York Times, June 23, 2020). At its core is a rigid pattern of 25 minutes of work punctuated by 5-minute breaks. The name comes from the tomato-shaped kitchen timer the inventor used to keep himself on a schedule that kept him at optimal efficiency. Of course I have never needed a timer to prompt me to move to another task. My short attention span always has taken care of that.
It turns out that by stumbling into a career in outpatient general pediatrics I found a perfect fit for my truncated attention span. Visits seldom lasted more than 15 minutes followed by a quick sprint to the next room and a fresh and stimulating set of faces and complaints. You may think I should have been spending a minimum of 20 or 25 minutes, but visits of that length seldom fit the realities of my usual day.
There is a myth floating around that there is always a direct correlation between the length of an office visit and its quality. The patient’s perception of quality is most important, and it is based on multiple factors – not the least of which is the level of engagement the physician exhibits. The problem comes when – for whatever reason – closure can’t be achieved in even a 35- or 40-minute visit. Here is when the provider must fall back on her/his clinical artistry by first acknowledging that neither patient nor provider is content with the current situation, but that a follow-up call that evening or an office visit in a day or two will continue the process.
Of course, there were always days when I wish had more time to devote to certain office visits. But for the most part, the hectic pace of outpatient pediatrics fit with my need for a rapidly changing stream of fresh challenges to keep my attention.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Hematologic manifestations of COVID-19
While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.
In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.
Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.
The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.
As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
COVID-19-associated coagulopathy
Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.
Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.
In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.
Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.
There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
Pathophysiology
The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.
“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”
The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
Management considerations
Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.
Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.
They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
Research priorities
A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.
“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.
They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.
Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
Community of learners
As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.
Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.
Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.
Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.
While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.
In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.
Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.
The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.
As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
COVID-19-associated coagulopathy
Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.
Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.
In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.
Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.
There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
Pathophysiology
The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.
“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”
The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
Management considerations
Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.
Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.
They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
Research priorities
A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.
“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.
They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.
Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
Community of learners
As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.
Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.
Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.
Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.
While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.
In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.
Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.
The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.
As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
COVID-19-associated coagulopathy
Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.
Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.
In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.
Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.
There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
Pathophysiology
The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.
“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”
The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
Management considerations
Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.
Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.
They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
Research priorities
A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.
“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.
They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.
Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
Community of learners
As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.
Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.
Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.
Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
New realities
Dear colleagues,
The August issue of The New Gastroenterologist has arrived! The summer of 2020 certainly looks different from years past, as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and we continue to adjust to the new realities of our personal and professional lives. Our third-year fellows have graduated amidst these unusual circumstances, some facing an uncertain job landscape. Yet their hard work is not lost upon us – as we must step back to recognize their achievements and bid them congratulations on the culmination of several years of training.
The pandemic has been pervasive in medical education with a profound effect on our training programs. Two very resourceful fellows, Indira Bhavsar-Burke and Claire Jansson-Knodell (Indiana University), share their experience with COVID-19 and how they used this time to create an online curriculum for medical students who were pulled from their gastroenterology clinical rotations.
As we remain socially distanced, connecting through virtual platforms and social media seems more important than ever, but digital media can be difficult to navigate as physicians. Austin Chiang (Thomas Jefferson University) offers a candid snapshot of the benefits and pitfalls of social media as a gastroenterologist, with advice on how to optimize one’s professional presence online.
This quarter’s “In Focus” feature is an excellent, high-yield review of eosinophilic esophagitis. Ronak Vashi Patel and Ikuo Hirano (Northwestern University) seek to answer frequently asked questions about diagnostic considerations and the approach to management by reviewing therapeutic options – a truly valuable clinical piece to guide any young gastroenterologist.
Our medical ethics series features a poignant piece written by Diana Anderson (University of California, San Francisco) and David Seres (Columbia University) on the role of nutritional support in patients with restrictive eating disorders. The article addresses the complex interplay between certain diagnoses and our emotive response as clinicians – a critical piece of patient care that is seldom discussed. The authors implore us to consider this difficult question: Could our unconscious partiality as physicians be worse than intentional harm?
Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa (Harvard University) discusses how her interest in health equity and health care policy led her to the Commonwealth Fund Fellowship in Minority Health Policy. Her passion for health care delivery reform and the care of vulnerable populations shines through as she describes how this post-GI fellowship pathway has been formative in shaping her career as a dynamic new gastroenterologist.
For those interested in serving as an expert witness, seasoned malpractice attorneys Daniel Mills and Courtney Lindbert (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) offer a salient list of the “do’s and don’ts” of the medical expert. Finally, this summer’s DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Michael Weinstein (Capital Digestive Care), offers important considerations for evaluating independent GI practices and how their response to COVID-19 can dictate their preparedness for future crises.
If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (vijayarao@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
Stay well,
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition
Dear colleagues,
The August issue of The New Gastroenterologist has arrived! The summer of 2020 certainly looks different from years past, as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and we continue to adjust to the new realities of our personal and professional lives. Our third-year fellows have graduated amidst these unusual circumstances, some facing an uncertain job landscape. Yet their hard work is not lost upon us – as we must step back to recognize their achievements and bid them congratulations on the culmination of several years of training.
The pandemic has been pervasive in medical education with a profound effect on our training programs. Two very resourceful fellows, Indira Bhavsar-Burke and Claire Jansson-Knodell (Indiana University), share their experience with COVID-19 and how they used this time to create an online curriculum for medical students who were pulled from their gastroenterology clinical rotations.
As we remain socially distanced, connecting through virtual platforms and social media seems more important than ever, but digital media can be difficult to navigate as physicians. Austin Chiang (Thomas Jefferson University) offers a candid snapshot of the benefits and pitfalls of social media as a gastroenterologist, with advice on how to optimize one’s professional presence online.
This quarter’s “In Focus” feature is an excellent, high-yield review of eosinophilic esophagitis. Ronak Vashi Patel and Ikuo Hirano (Northwestern University) seek to answer frequently asked questions about diagnostic considerations and the approach to management by reviewing therapeutic options – a truly valuable clinical piece to guide any young gastroenterologist.
Our medical ethics series features a poignant piece written by Diana Anderson (University of California, San Francisco) and David Seres (Columbia University) on the role of nutritional support in patients with restrictive eating disorders. The article addresses the complex interplay between certain diagnoses and our emotive response as clinicians – a critical piece of patient care that is seldom discussed. The authors implore us to consider this difficult question: Could our unconscious partiality as physicians be worse than intentional harm?
Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa (Harvard University) discusses how her interest in health equity and health care policy led her to the Commonwealth Fund Fellowship in Minority Health Policy. Her passion for health care delivery reform and the care of vulnerable populations shines through as she describes how this post-GI fellowship pathway has been formative in shaping her career as a dynamic new gastroenterologist.
For those interested in serving as an expert witness, seasoned malpractice attorneys Daniel Mills and Courtney Lindbert (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) offer a salient list of the “do’s and don’ts” of the medical expert. Finally, this summer’s DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Michael Weinstein (Capital Digestive Care), offers important considerations for evaluating independent GI practices and how their response to COVID-19 can dictate their preparedness for future crises.
If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (vijayarao@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
Stay well,
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition
Dear colleagues,
The August issue of The New Gastroenterologist has arrived! The summer of 2020 certainly looks different from years past, as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and we continue to adjust to the new realities of our personal and professional lives. Our third-year fellows have graduated amidst these unusual circumstances, some facing an uncertain job landscape. Yet their hard work is not lost upon us – as we must step back to recognize their achievements and bid them congratulations on the culmination of several years of training.
The pandemic has been pervasive in medical education with a profound effect on our training programs. Two very resourceful fellows, Indira Bhavsar-Burke and Claire Jansson-Knodell (Indiana University), share their experience with COVID-19 and how they used this time to create an online curriculum for medical students who were pulled from their gastroenterology clinical rotations.
As we remain socially distanced, connecting through virtual platforms and social media seems more important than ever, but digital media can be difficult to navigate as physicians. Austin Chiang (Thomas Jefferson University) offers a candid snapshot of the benefits and pitfalls of social media as a gastroenterologist, with advice on how to optimize one’s professional presence online.
This quarter’s “In Focus” feature is an excellent, high-yield review of eosinophilic esophagitis. Ronak Vashi Patel and Ikuo Hirano (Northwestern University) seek to answer frequently asked questions about diagnostic considerations and the approach to management by reviewing therapeutic options – a truly valuable clinical piece to guide any young gastroenterologist.
Our medical ethics series features a poignant piece written by Diana Anderson (University of California, San Francisco) and David Seres (Columbia University) on the role of nutritional support in patients with restrictive eating disorders. The article addresses the complex interplay between certain diagnoses and our emotive response as clinicians – a critical piece of patient care that is seldom discussed. The authors implore us to consider this difficult question: Could our unconscious partiality as physicians be worse than intentional harm?
Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa (Harvard University) discusses how her interest in health equity and health care policy led her to the Commonwealth Fund Fellowship in Minority Health Policy. Her passion for health care delivery reform and the care of vulnerable populations shines through as she describes how this post-GI fellowship pathway has been formative in shaping her career as a dynamic new gastroenterologist.
For those interested in serving as an expert witness, seasoned malpractice attorneys Daniel Mills and Courtney Lindbert (Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine P.C.) offer a salient list of the “do’s and don’ts” of the medical expert. Finally, this summer’s DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Michael Weinstein (Capital Digestive Care), offers important considerations for evaluating independent GI practices and how their response to COVID-19 can dictate their preparedness for future crises.
If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (vijayarao@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.
Stay well,
Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant professor of medicine, University of Chicago, section of gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition
Treating VIN while preventing recurrence
Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a distressing condition that may require painful and disfiguring treatments. It is particularly problematic because more than a quarter of patients will experience recurrence of their disease after primary therapy. In this column we will explore the risk factors for recurrence, recommendations for early detection, and options to minimize its incidence.
VIN was traditionally characterized in three stages (I, II, III). However, as it became better understood that the previously named VIN I was not, in fact, a precursor for malignancy, but rather a benign manifestation of low-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, it was removed from consideration as VIN. Furthermore, our understanding of VIN grew to recognize that there were two developmental pathways to vulvar neoplasia and malignancy. The first was via high-risk HPV infection, often with tobacco exposure as an accelerating factor, and typically among younger women. This has been named “usual type VIN” (uVIN). The second arises in the background of lichen sclerosus in older women and is named “differentiated type VIN” (dVIN). This type carries with it a higher risk for progression to cancer, coexisting in approximately 80% of cases of invasive squamous cell carcinoma. In addition, the progression to cancer appears to occur more quickly for dVIN lesions (22 months compared with 41 months in uVIN).1
While observation of VIN can be considered for young, asymptomatic women, it is not universally recommended because the risk of progression to cancer is approximately 8% (5% for uVIN and 33% for dVIN).1,2 Both subtypes of VIN can be treated with similar interventions including surgical excision (typically a wide local excision), ablative therapies (such as CO2 laser) or topical medical therapy such as imiquimod or 5-fluorouracil. (false-negative biopsies), and adequacy of margin status. However, given the proximity of this disease to vital structures such as the clitoris, urethral meatus, and anal verge, as well as issues with wound healing, and difficulty with reapproximation of vulvar tissues – particularly when large or multifocal disease is present – sometimes multimodal treatments or medical therapies are preferred to spare disfigurement or sexual, bladder, or bowel dysfunction.
Excision of VIN need not be deeper than the epidermis, although including a limited degree of dermis protects against incomplete resection of occult, coexisting early invasive disease. However, wide margins should ideally be at least 10 mm. This can prove to be a challenging goal for multiple reasons. First, while there are visual stigmata of VIN, its true extent can be determined only microscopically. In addition, the disease may be multifocal. Furthermore, particularly where it encroaches upon the anus, clitoris, or urethral meatus, resection margins may be limited because of the desire to preserve function of adjacent structures. The application of 2%-5% acetic acid in the operating room prior to marking the planned borders of excision can optimize the likelihood that the incisions will encompass the microscopic extent of VIN. As it does with cervical dysplasia, acetic acid is thought to cause reversible coagulation of nuclear proteins and cytokeratins, which are more abundant in dysplastic lesions, thus appearing white to the surgeon’s eye.
However, even with the surgeon’s best attempts to excise all disease, approximately half of VIN excisions will have positive margins. Fortunately, not all of these patients will go on to develop recurrent dysplasia. In fact, less than half of women with positive margins on excision will develop recurrent VIN disease.2 This incomplete incidence of recurrence may be in part due to an ablative effect of inflammation at the cut skin edges. Therefore, provided that there is no macroscopic disease remaining, close observation, rather than immediate reexcision, is recommended.
Positive excisional margins are a major risk factor for recurrence, carrying an eightfold increased risk, and also are associated with a more rapid onset of recurrence than for those with negative margins. Other predisposing risk factors for recurrence include advancing age, coexistence of dysplasia at other lower genital sites (including vaginal and cervical), immunosuppressive conditions or therapies (especially steroid use), HPV exposure, and the presence of lichen sclerosus.2 Continued tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor that has been shown to be associated with an increased recurrence risk of VIN. We should take the opportunity in the postoperative and surveillance period to educate our patients regarding the importance of smoking cessation in modifying their risk for recurrent or new disease.
HPV infection may not be a modifiable risk factor, but certainly can be prevented by encouraging the adoption of HPV vaccination.
Topical steroids used to treat lichen sclerosus can improve symptoms of this vulvar dystrophy as well as decrease the incidence of recurrent dVIN and invasive vulvar cancer. Treatment should continue until the skin has normalized its appearance and texture. This may involve chronic long-term therapy.3
Recognizing that more than a quarter of patients will recur, the recommended posttreatment follow-up for VIN is at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. It should include close inspection of the vulva with consideration of application of topical 2%-5% acetic acid (I typically apply this with a soaked gauze sponge) and vulvar colposcopy (a hand-held magnification glass works well for this purpose). Patients should be counseled regarding their high risk for recurrence, informed of typical symptoms, and encouraged to perform regular vulva self-inspection (with use of a hand mirror).
For patients at the highest risk for recurrence (older patients, patients with positive excisional margins, HPV coinfection, lichen sclerosus, tobacco use, and immunosuppression), I recommend 6 monthly follow-up surveillance for 5 years. Most (75%) of recurrences will occur with the first 43 months after diagnosis with half occurring in the first 18 months.2 Patients who have had positive margins on their excisional specimen are at the highest risk for an earlier recurrence.
VIN is an insidious disease with a high recurrence rate. It is challenging to completely resect with negative margins. Patients with a history of VIN should receive close observation in the years following their excision, particularly if resection margins were positive, and clinicians should attempt to modify risk factors wherever possible, paying particularly close attention to older postmenopausal women with a history of lichen sclerosus as progression to malignancy is highest for these women.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pathology. 2016 Jun 1;48(4)291-302.
2. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jan;148(1):126-31.
3. JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151(10):1061-7.
Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a distressing condition that may require painful and disfiguring treatments. It is particularly problematic because more than a quarter of patients will experience recurrence of their disease after primary therapy. In this column we will explore the risk factors for recurrence, recommendations for early detection, and options to minimize its incidence.
VIN was traditionally characterized in three stages (I, II, III). However, as it became better understood that the previously named VIN I was not, in fact, a precursor for malignancy, but rather a benign manifestation of low-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, it was removed from consideration as VIN. Furthermore, our understanding of VIN grew to recognize that there were two developmental pathways to vulvar neoplasia and malignancy. The first was via high-risk HPV infection, often with tobacco exposure as an accelerating factor, and typically among younger women. This has been named “usual type VIN” (uVIN). The second arises in the background of lichen sclerosus in older women and is named “differentiated type VIN” (dVIN). This type carries with it a higher risk for progression to cancer, coexisting in approximately 80% of cases of invasive squamous cell carcinoma. In addition, the progression to cancer appears to occur more quickly for dVIN lesions (22 months compared with 41 months in uVIN).1
While observation of VIN can be considered for young, asymptomatic women, it is not universally recommended because the risk of progression to cancer is approximately 8% (5% for uVIN and 33% for dVIN).1,2 Both subtypes of VIN can be treated with similar interventions including surgical excision (typically a wide local excision), ablative therapies (such as CO2 laser) or topical medical therapy such as imiquimod or 5-fluorouracil. (false-negative biopsies), and adequacy of margin status. However, given the proximity of this disease to vital structures such as the clitoris, urethral meatus, and anal verge, as well as issues with wound healing, and difficulty with reapproximation of vulvar tissues – particularly when large or multifocal disease is present – sometimes multimodal treatments or medical therapies are preferred to spare disfigurement or sexual, bladder, or bowel dysfunction.
Excision of VIN need not be deeper than the epidermis, although including a limited degree of dermis protects against incomplete resection of occult, coexisting early invasive disease. However, wide margins should ideally be at least 10 mm. This can prove to be a challenging goal for multiple reasons. First, while there are visual stigmata of VIN, its true extent can be determined only microscopically. In addition, the disease may be multifocal. Furthermore, particularly where it encroaches upon the anus, clitoris, or urethral meatus, resection margins may be limited because of the desire to preserve function of adjacent structures. The application of 2%-5% acetic acid in the operating room prior to marking the planned borders of excision can optimize the likelihood that the incisions will encompass the microscopic extent of VIN. As it does with cervical dysplasia, acetic acid is thought to cause reversible coagulation of nuclear proteins and cytokeratins, which are more abundant in dysplastic lesions, thus appearing white to the surgeon’s eye.
However, even with the surgeon’s best attempts to excise all disease, approximately half of VIN excisions will have positive margins. Fortunately, not all of these patients will go on to develop recurrent dysplasia. In fact, less than half of women with positive margins on excision will develop recurrent VIN disease.2 This incomplete incidence of recurrence may be in part due to an ablative effect of inflammation at the cut skin edges. Therefore, provided that there is no macroscopic disease remaining, close observation, rather than immediate reexcision, is recommended.
Positive excisional margins are a major risk factor for recurrence, carrying an eightfold increased risk, and also are associated with a more rapid onset of recurrence than for those with negative margins. Other predisposing risk factors for recurrence include advancing age, coexistence of dysplasia at other lower genital sites (including vaginal and cervical), immunosuppressive conditions or therapies (especially steroid use), HPV exposure, and the presence of lichen sclerosus.2 Continued tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor that has been shown to be associated with an increased recurrence risk of VIN. We should take the opportunity in the postoperative and surveillance period to educate our patients regarding the importance of smoking cessation in modifying their risk for recurrent or new disease.
HPV infection may not be a modifiable risk factor, but certainly can be prevented by encouraging the adoption of HPV vaccination.
Topical steroids used to treat lichen sclerosus can improve symptoms of this vulvar dystrophy as well as decrease the incidence of recurrent dVIN and invasive vulvar cancer. Treatment should continue until the skin has normalized its appearance and texture. This may involve chronic long-term therapy.3
Recognizing that more than a quarter of patients will recur, the recommended posttreatment follow-up for VIN is at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. It should include close inspection of the vulva with consideration of application of topical 2%-5% acetic acid (I typically apply this with a soaked gauze sponge) and vulvar colposcopy (a hand-held magnification glass works well for this purpose). Patients should be counseled regarding their high risk for recurrence, informed of typical symptoms, and encouraged to perform regular vulva self-inspection (with use of a hand mirror).
For patients at the highest risk for recurrence (older patients, patients with positive excisional margins, HPV coinfection, lichen sclerosus, tobacco use, and immunosuppression), I recommend 6 monthly follow-up surveillance for 5 years. Most (75%) of recurrences will occur with the first 43 months after diagnosis with half occurring in the first 18 months.2 Patients who have had positive margins on their excisional specimen are at the highest risk for an earlier recurrence.
VIN is an insidious disease with a high recurrence rate. It is challenging to completely resect with negative margins. Patients with a history of VIN should receive close observation in the years following their excision, particularly if resection margins were positive, and clinicians should attempt to modify risk factors wherever possible, paying particularly close attention to older postmenopausal women with a history of lichen sclerosus as progression to malignancy is highest for these women.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pathology. 2016 Jun 1;48(4)291-302.
2. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jan;148(1):126-31.
3. JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151(10):1061-7.
Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a distressing condition that may require painful and disfiguring treatments. It is particularly problematic because more than a quarter of patients will experience recurrence of their disease after primary therapy. In this column we will explore the risk factors for recurrence, recommendations for early detection, and options to minimize its incidence.
VIN was traditionally characterized in three stages (I, II, III). However, as it became better understood that the previously named VIN I was not, in fact, a precursor for malignancy, but rather a benign manifestation of low-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, it was removed from consideration as VIN. Furthermore, our understanding of VIN grew to recognize that there were two developmental pathways to vulvar neoplasia and malignancy. The first was via high-risk HPV infection, often with tobacco exposure as an accelerating factor, and typically among younger women. This has been named “usual type VIN” (uVIN). The second arises in the background of lichen sclerosus in older women and is named “differentiated type VIN” (dVIN). This type carries with it a higher risk for progression to cancer, coexisting in approximately 80% of cases of invasive squamous cell carcinoma. In addition, the progression to cancer appears to occur more quickly for dVIN lesions (22 months compared with 41 months in uVIN).1
While observation of VIN can be considered for young, asymptomatic women, it is not universally recommended because the risk of progression to cancer is approximately 8% (5% for uVIN and 33% for dVIN).1,2 Both subtypes of VIN can be treated with similar interventions including surgical excision (typically a wide local excision), ablative therapies (such as CO2 laser) or topical medical therapy such as imiquimod or 5-fluorouracil. (false-negative biopsies), and adequacy of margin status. However, given the proximity of this disease to vital structures such as the clitoris, urethral meatus, and anal verge, as well as issues with wound healing, and difficulty with reapproximation of vulvar tissues – particularly when large or multifocal disease is present – sometimes multimodal treatments or medical therapies are preferred to spare disfigurement or sexual, bladder, or bowel dysfunction.
Excision of VIN need not be deeper than the epidermis, although including a limited degree of dermis protects against incomplete resection of occult, coexisting early invasive disease. However, wide margins should ideally be at least 10 mm. This can prove to be a challenging goal for multiple reasons. First, while there are visual stigmata of VIN, its true extent can be determined only microscopically. In addition, the disease may be multifocal. Furthermore, particularly where it encroaches upon the anus, clitoris, or urethral meatus, resection margins may be limited because of the desire to preserve function of adjacent structures. The application of 2%-5% acetic acid in the operating room prior to marking the planned borders of excision can optimize the likelihood that the incisions will encompass the microscopic extent of VIN. As it does with cervical dysplasia, acetic acid is thought to cause reversible coagulation of nuclear proteins and cytokeratins, which are more abundant in dysplastic lesions, thus appearing white to the surgeon’s eye.
However, even with the surgeon’s best attempts to excise all disease, approximately half of VIN excisions will have positive margins. Fortunately, not all of these patients will go on to develop recurrent dysplasia. In fact, less than half of women with positive margins on excision will develop recurrent VIN disease.2 This incomplete incidence of recurrence may be in part due to an ablative effect of inflammation at the cut skin edges. Therefore, provided that there is no macroscopic disease remaining, close observation, rather than immediate reexcision, is recommended.
Positive excisional margins are a major risk factor for recurrence, carrying an eightfold increased risk, and also are associated with a more rapid onset of recurrence than for those with negative margins. Other predisposing risk factors for recurrence include advancing age, coexistence of dysplasia at other lower genital sites (including vaginal and cervical), immunosuppressive conditions or therapies (especially steroid use), HPV exposure, and the presence of lichen sclerosus.2 Continued tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor that has been shown to be associated with an increased recurrence risk of VIN. We should take the opportunity in the postoperative and surveillance period to educate our patients regarding the importance of smoking cessation in modifying their risk for recurrent or new disease.
HPV infection may not be a modifiable risk factor, but certainly can be prevented by encouraging the adoption of HPV vaccination.
Topical steroids used to treat lichen sclerosus can improve symptoms of this vulvar dystrophy as well as decrease the incidence of recurrent dVIN and invasive vulvar cancer. Treatment should continue until the skin has normalized its appearance and texture. This may involve chronic long-term therapy.3
Recognizing that more than a quarter of patients will recur, the recommended posttreatment follow-up for VIN is at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. It should include close inspection of the vulva with consideration of application of topical 2%-5% acetic acid (I typically apply this with a soaked gauze sponge) and vulvar colposcopy (a hand-held magnification glass works well for this purpose). Patients should be counseled regarding their high risk for recurrence, informed of typical symptoms, and encouraged to perform regular vulva self-inspection (with use of a hand mirror).
For patients at the highest risk for recurrence (older patients, patients with positive excisional margins, HPV coinfection, lichen sclerosus, tobacco use, and immunosuppression), I recommend 6 monthly follow-up surveillance for 5 years. Most (75%) of recurrences will occur with the first 43 months after diagnosis with half occurring in the first 18 months.2 Patients who have had positive margins on their excisional specimen are at the highest risk for an earlier recurrence.
VIN is an insidious disease with a high recurrence rate. It is challenging to completely resect with negative margins. Patients with a history of VIN should receive close observation in the years following their excision, particularly if resection margins were positive, and clinicians should attempt to modify risk factors wherever possible, paying particularly close attention to older postmenopausal women with a history of lichen sclerosus as progression to malignancy is highest for these women.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pathology. 2016 Jun 1;48(4)291-302.
2. Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jan;148(1):126-31.
3. JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151(10):1061-7.
Repeat MRIs: Educating patients
In dementia workups, or even with more benign forms of cognitive impairment, a cranial imaging study is always needed. Like most neurologists I prefer MRIs, although I am willing to settle for a head CT when I have to.
These studies aren’t cheap, but as part of the workup, to exclude other causes, they are invaluable.
Generally one is all that is needed, although there are exceptions. But some patients and families seem to think MRIs need to be repeated often, anywhere from annually to every few months, “to make sure nothing has changed.”
You usually can’t talk them out of it either. There must be “some reason” why the patient keeps getting worse. Explaining that it’s a degenerative process that doesn’t show up on MRI gets me nowhere. They read something on the Internet about it, or heard a story about the uncle of a friend of a friend, or they focus on an incidental finding that must be the cause (like an 8-mm meningioma).
Generally I stand my ground. Obviously, there are times another imaging study is warranted, such as for a dramatic, acute neurological change, but in most cases all we’re really seeing is the sad progression of disease.
I’m not unsympathetic to these people. I feel bad that this has happened to them and that they’ve been given incorrect information. I take as much time as needed to explain the disease and why another study is not needed. It’s easy to write an order for the study to appease them, but it only leads to repeating it again in a few months. Every MRI I order costs time and money, and could take the same test away from a person who truly needs it.
Sometimes the patient and family will understand after we discuss it and the request is forgotten. Other times they leave my office upset, post a bad Yelp review about me refusing to treat their ailing parent, and change neurologists. Occasionally they’re able to get their internist to give in and order a repeat MRI, and when the repeat study hasn’t changed they call me wanting to know when the next one should be done.
Throwing more money at a problem, especially when you already know what the answer will be, is never a good idea. Not now, not ever ... in medicine or anything else.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In dementia workups, or even with more benign forms of cognitive impairment, a cranial imaging study is always needed. Like most neurologists I prefer MRIs, although I am willing to settle for a head CT when I have to.
These studies aren’t cheap, but as part of the workup, to exclude other causes, they are invaluable.
Generally one is all that is needed, although there are exceptions. But some patients and families seem to think MRIs need to be repeated often, anywhere from annually to every few months, “to make sure nothing has changed.”
You usually can’t talk them out of it either. There must be “some reason” why the patient keeps getting worse. Explaining that it’s a degenerative process that doesn’t show up on MRI gets me nowhere. They read something on the Internet about it, or heard a story about the uncle of a friend of a friend, or they focus on an incidental finding that must be the cause (like an 8-mm meningioma).
Generally I stand my ground. Obviously, there are times another imaging study is warranted, such as for a dramatic, acute neurological change, but in most cases all we’re really seeing is the sad progression of disease.
I’m not unsympathetic to these people. I feel bad that this has happened to them and that they’ve been given incorrect information. I take as much time as needed to explain the disease and why another study is not needed. It’s easy to write an order for the study to appease them, but it only leads to repeating it again in a few months. Every MRI I order costs time and money, and could take the same test away from a person who truly needs it.
Sometimes the patient and family will understand after we discuss it and the request is forgotten. Other times they leave my office upset, post a bad Yelp review about me refusing to treat their ailing parent, and change neurologists. Occasionally they’re able to get their internist to give in and order a repeat MRI, and when the repeat study hasn’t changed they call me wanting to know when the next one should be done.
Throwing more money at a problem, especially when you already know what the answer will be, is never a good idea. Not now, not ever ... in medicine or anything else.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In dementia workups, or even with more benign forms of cognitive impairment, a cranial imaging study is always needed. Like most neurologists I prefer MRIs, although I am willing to settle for a head CT when I have to.
These studies aren’t cheap, but as part of the workup, to exclude other causes, they are invaluable.
Generally one is all that is needed, although there are exceptions. But some patients and families seem to think MRIs need to be repeated often, anywhere from annually to every few months, “to make sure nothing has changed.”
You usually can’t talk them out of it either. There must be “some reason” why the patient keeps getting worse. Explaining that it’s a degenerative process that doesn’t show up on MRI gets me nowhere. They read something on the Internet about it, or heard a story about the uncle of a friend of a friend, or they focus on an incidental finding that must be the cause (like an 8-mm meningioma).
Generally I stand my ground. Obviously, there are times another imaging study is warranted, such as for a dramatic, acute neurological change, but in most cases all we’re really seeing is the sad progression of disease.
I’m not unsympathetic to these people. I feel bad that this has happened to them and that they’ve been given incorrect information. I take as much time as needed to explain the disease and why another study is not needed. It’s easy to write an order for the study to appease them, but it only leads to repeating it again in a few months. Every MRI I order costs time and money, and could take the same test away from a person who truly needs it.
Sometimes the patient and family will understand after we discuss it and the request is forgotten. Other times they leave my office upset, post a bad Yelp review about me refusing to treat their ailing parent, and change neurologists. Occasionally they’re able to get their internist to give in and order a repeat MRI, and when the repeat study hasn’t changed they call me wanting to know when the next one should be done.
Throwing more money at a problem, especially when you already know what the answer will be, is never a good idea. Not now, not ever ... in medicine or anything else.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
No-suicide contracts: Can they work?
An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.
He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.
The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.
Discussion
Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.1 It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.2 The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.3 The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.4 A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.5
The origin of the NSC
The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.6 The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.7 The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.
The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.8
Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”9 They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.
Possible NSC common factors
Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.10
The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.
The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.
The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.
Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.11
Conclusion
Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”
Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.
Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.
In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
References
1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.
2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.
3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.
5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.
6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.
7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.
8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.
9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.
10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.
11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.
An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.
He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.
The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.
Discussion
Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.1 It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.2 The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.3 The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.4 A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.5
The origin of the NSC
The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.6 The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.7 The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.
The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.8
Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”9 They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.
Possible NSC common factors
Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.10
The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.
The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.
The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.
Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.11
Conclusion
Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”
Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.
Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.
In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
References
1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.
2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.
3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.
5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.
6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.
7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.
8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.
9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.
10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.
11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.
An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.
He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.
The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.
Discussion
Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.1 It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.2 The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.3 The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.4 A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.5
The origin of the NSC
The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.6 The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.7 The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.
The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.8
Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”9 They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.
Possible NSC common factors
Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.10
The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.
The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.
The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.
Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.11
Conclusion
Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”
Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.
Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.
In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
References
1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.
2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.
3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.
5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.
6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.
7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.
8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.
9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.
10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.
11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.
‘Defending Jacob’ and defending psychiatry
The 2012 crime fiction novel, “Defending Jacob,” by William Landay was dramatized into a miniseries created by Mark Bomback that premiered on April 24, 2020, on Apple TV+ (and for those resisting a subscription, “The Morning Show” and “Defending Jacob” are both worth it). Both the “Defending Jacob” novel and the miniseries have themes that are of interest to psychiatry, especially to child and forensic psychiatrists, and both the literary and TV versions are excellent, albeit disturbing, diversions from the current pandemic.
(Spoiler alert!) The story is set in the affluent town of Newton, Mass., where crime is generally low and homicides extremely infrequent. Protagonist Andy Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish assistant district attorney, is played by a younger Chris Evans in the miniseries. His wife, Laurie Gold Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish former schoolteacher and stay-at-home mom, is played by a younger Michelle Dockery of Downton Abbey fame. In the miniseries, her character is actively working as a teacher and social activist for children. Other differences between the novel and the miniseries will be pointed out when relevant, but the overall narrative is similar. Both stories are cleverly told through Andy Barber speaking in retrospect as he is being questioned in front of a grand jury for a potential indictment.
When 14-year-old Ben Rifkin is found stabbed to death in Cold Spring Park before school one morning, Andy Barber initially takes the case despite his boss’s reservations that there may be a conflict because Andy’s son Jacob is a student in Ben’s class at school. As the title suggests, it soon becomes clear that Jacob may have had something to do with the murder. At that point, Andy is taken off the case and it is given to a junior colleague, Neal Logiudice, who demonstrates both admiration and contempt for his former mentor, perhaps because of underlying jealousy and insecurity. Neal Logiudice becomes the DA questioning Andy Barber.
Prior to Jacob’s formal accusation of murder, the Barbers appear to be fiercely loyal and unable to fully see and understand their son. The difficulty with objectivity and the reasons why family member physicians should never treat family members – and why family member attorneys should never represent loved ones – is abundantly clear in this story. When Andy receives an anonymous tip that Jacob’s childhood best friend, Derek Yoo, posted on Facebook, “Jake, everyone knows you did it. You have a knife. I’ve seen it,’ ” Andy then looks through Jacob’s drawers and finds a folding knife in one of his T-shirts. In the chapter aptly titled “Denial,” Andy, an experienced prosecutor, does not turn the knife over as evidence, but instead disposes of it – believing Jacob that he did not take the knife to school the day his classmate was stabbed.
After Jacob is indicted, Andy Barber confesses to his wife, Laurie, that his estranged father who left when he was 6 is actually in prison convicted of murdering and raping a woman. In the novel, his grandfather and great-grandfather are also convicted felons. Laurie reveals this family history to Jacob’s attorney, and the attorney subsequently refers the family to a forensic psychologist. In the novel, she is a large Jewish woman; in the miniseries she is played by a very thin Poorna Jagannathan (who incidentally has portrayed a therapist in the television series “Sorry for your Loss,” and a doctor in “The Act,” “Better Call Saul,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” “House of Cards,” “The Game,” “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” “Rescue Me,” “Jonny Zero,” “An Actor Prepares,” “The Circle,” “Thanks for Sharing,” and “Montclair.”) Although the goal of the defense was a finding of “not guilty,” a psychiatric defense was going to be used as a last resort if necessary.
Laurie had already googled and learned of “the murder gene,” which was further explained by the forensic psychologist as a mutation called:
“MAOA Knockout. It has been argued in court as a trigger for violence before, but the argument was too simplistic, and it was rejected. Our understanding of the gene-environment interplay has improved since then – the science is getting better and very quickly – and we may have better testimony now. The second mutation is located in what’s called the serotonin transporter gene. The official name for the gene is SLC6A4. It’s located on chromosome 17. It encodes a protein that facilitates the activity of the serotonin transporter system, which is what enables the reuptake of serotonin from the synapse back into the neuron.”1
She further explains that there have been many studies on the “nurture” side of the nature/nurture question and that, with new developments in DNA studies, it is now becoming possible to study the “nature” side.
“Defending Jacob” explores the nature/nurture issue, as well as issues with forensic testimony in court and the criminal justice system in general. The issue of repressing feelings and hiding secrets and then having to confront both in a brutal manner is another theme addressed in the story. Andy tried to hide and forget that his father was in prison and the criminal history in his family, but he was forced to face this and his feelings about it when confronted with his own son being accused of murder. Of note, he does not seek help from a therapist despite these life-altering events. (Humongous spoiler alert:) The story that began with a murder of an unrelated child may end with a family murder, one that would be well described and could be understood by psychiatrists using the categories of motives initially described by Phillip Resnick, MD.2
Once again, and unfortunately, as we have pointed out in other media reviews, the portrayal of psychiatric/psychological themes is problematic. Using a psychologist to explain the science of DNA and not a psychiatrist is an interesting choice. Diagnosing a 14-year-old with personality disorders also contributes to misunderstanding and stigma. In addition, no timely attempt is made to refer the accused Jacob for mental health treatment. The stigmatization of psychiatry in the media was addressed by the World Psychiatric Association task force guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists,3 including breaking down negative views of psychiatrists and psychiatry in the general public, among medical students, other health professionals, and patients and relatives. The task force made recommendations for national psychiatric societies and for individual practitioners to help reduce stigma of the profession of psychiatry. We would argue that speaking to the media, including fiction authors, to help educate about mental health is an important role for psychiatrists. It would lead to more realistic portrayals in film and books.
Overall, “Defending Jacob” is a compelling story in both the novel and the miniseries. Despite some problems with how it depicts mental health issues, both are engaging and contain thoughtful, extremely well-written themes of interest to many clinical and forensic psychiatrists.
References
1. Landay W. Defending Jacob, a novel. New York: Delacorte Press, 2012.
2. Friedman SH. Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019.
3. Sartorius N et al. World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):131-44.
Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and on the faculty at Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Hatters Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law and was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association.
The 2012 crime fiction novel, “Defending Jacob,” by William Landay was dramatized into a miniseries created by Mark Bomback that premiered on April 24, 2020, on Apple TV+ (and for those resisting a subscription, “The Morning Show” and “Defending Jacob” are both worth it). Both the “Defending Jacob” novel and the miniseries have themes that are of interest to psychiatry, especially to child and forensic psychiatrists, and both the literary and TV versions are excellent, albeit disturbing, diversions from the current pandemic.
(Spoiler alert!) The story is set in the affluent town of Newton, Mass., where crime is generally low and homicides extremely infrequent. Protagonist Andy Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish assistant district attorney, is played by a younger Chris Evans in the miniseries. His wife, Laurie Gold Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish former schoolteacher and stay-at-home mom, is played by a younger Michelle Dockery of Downton Abbey fame. In the miniseries, her character is actively working as a teacher and social activist for children. Other differences between the novel and the miniseries will be pointed out when relevant, but the overall narrative is similar. Both stories are cleverly told through Andy Barber speaking in retrospect as he is being questioned in front of a grand jury for a potential indictment.
When 14-year-old Ben Rifkin is found stabbed to death in Cold Spring Park before school one morning, Andy Barber initially takes the case despite his boss’s reservations that there may be a conflict because Andy’s son Jacob is a student in Ben’s class at school. As the title suggests, it soon becomes clear that Jacob may have had something to do with the murder. At that point, Andy is taken off the case and it is given to a junior colleague, Neal Logiudice, who demonstrates both admiration and contempt for his former mentor, perhaps because of underlying jealousy and insecurity. Neal Logiudice becomes the DA questioning Andy Barber.
Prior to Jacob’s formal accusation of murder, the Barbers appear to be fiercely loyal and unable to fully see and understand their son. The difficulty with objectivity and the reasons why family member physicians should never treat family members – and why family member attorneys should never represent loved ones – is abundantly clear in this story. When Andy receives an anonymous tip that Jacob’s childhood best friend, Derek Yoo, posted on Facebook, “Jake, everyone knows you did it. You have a knife. I’ve seen it,’ ” Andy then looks through Jacob’s drawers and finds a folding knife in one of his T-shirts. In the chapter aptly titled “Denial,” Andy, an experienced prosecutor, does not turn the knife over as evidence, but instead disposes of it – believing Jacob that he did not take the knife to school the day his classmate was stabbed.
After Jacob is indicted, Andy Barber confesses to his wife, Laurie, that his estranged father who left when he was 6 is actually in prison convicted of murdering and raping a woman. In the novel, his grandfather and great-grandfather are also convicted felons. Laurie reveals this family history to Jacob’s attorney, and the attorney subsequently refers the family to a forensic psychologist. In the novel, she is a large Jewish woman; in the miniseries she is played by a very thin Poorna Jagannathan (who incidentally has portrayed a therapist in the television series “Sorry for your Loss,” and a doctor in “The Act,” “Better Call Saul,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” “House of Cards,” “The Game,” “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” “Rescue Me,” “Jonny Zero,” “An Actor Prepares,” “The Circle,” “Thanks for Sharing,” and “Montclair.”) Although the goal of the defense was a finding of “not guilty,” a psychiatric defense was going to be used as a last resort if necessary.
Laurie had already googled and learned of “the murder gene,” which was further explained by the forensic psychologist as a mutation called:
“MAOA Knockout. It has been argued in court as a trigger for violence before, but the argument was too simplistic, and it was rejected. Our understanding of the gene-environment interplay has improved since then – the science is getting better and very quickly – and we may have better testimony now. The second mutation is located in what’s called the serotonin transporter gene. The official name for the gene is SLC6A4. It’s located on chromosome 17. It encodes a protein that facilitates the activity of the serotonin transporter system, which is what enables the reuptake of serotonin from the synapse back into the neuron.”1
She further explains that there have been many studies on the “nurture” side of the nature/nurture question and that, with new developments in DNA studies, it is now becoming possible to study the “nature” side.
“Defending Jacob” explores the nature/nurture issue, as well as issues with forensic testimony in court and the criminal justice system in general. The issue of repressing feelings and hiding secrets and then having to confront both in a brutal manner is another theme addressed in the story. Andy tried to hide and forget that his father was in prison and the criminal history in his family, but he was forced to face this and his feelings about it when confronted with his own son being accused of murder. Of note, he does not seek help from a therapist despite these life-altering events. (Humongous spoiler alert:) The story that began with a murder of an unrelated child may end with a family murder, one that would be well described and could be understood by psychiatrists using the categories of motives initially described by Phillip Resnick, MD.2
Once again, and unfortunately, as we have pointed out in other media reviews, the portrayal of psychiatric/psychological themes is problematic. Using a psychologist to explain the science of DNA and not a psychiatrist is an interesting choice. Diagnosing a 14-year-old with personality disorders also contributes to misunderstanding and stigma. In addition, no timely attempt is made to refer the accused Jacob for mental health treatment. The stigmatization of psychiatry in the media was addressed by the World Psychiatric Association task force guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists,3 including breaking down negative views of psychiatrists and psychiatry in the general public, among medical students, other health professionals, and patients and relatives. The task force made recommendations for national psychiatric societies and for individual practitioners to help reduce stigma of the profession of psychiatry. We would argue that speaking to the media, including fiction authors, to help educate about mental health is an important role for psychiatrists. It would lead to more realistic portrayals in film and books.
Overall, “Defending Jacob” is a compelling story in both the novel and the miniseries. Despite some problems with how it depicts mental health issues, both are engaging and contain thoughtful, extremely well-written themes of interest to many clinical and forensic psychiatrists.
References
1. Landay W. Defending Jacob, a novel. New York: Delacorte Press, 2012.
2. Friedman SH. Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019.
3. Sartorius N et al. World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):131-44.
Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and on the faculty at Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Hatters Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law and was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association.
The 2012 crime fiction novel, “Defending Jacob,” by William Landay was dramatized into a miniseries created by Mark Bomback that premiered on April 24, 2020, on Apple TV+ (and for those resisting a subscription, “The Morning Show” and “Defending Jacob” are both worth it). Both the “Defending Jacob” novel and the miniseries have themes that are of interest to psychiatry, especially to child and forensic psychiatrists, and both the literary and TV versions are excellent, albeit disturbing, diversions from the current pandemic.
(Spoiler alert!) The story is set in the affluent town of Newton, Mass., where crime is generally low and homicides extremely infrequent. Protagonist Andy Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish assistant district attorney, is played by a younger Chris Evans in the miniseries. His wife, Laurie Gold Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish former schoolteacher and stay-at-home mom, is played by a younger Michelle Dockery of Downton Abbey fame. In the miniseries, her character is actively working as a teacher and social activist for children. Other differences between the novel and the miniseries will be pointed out when relevant, but the overall narrative is similar. Both stories are cleverly told through Andy Barber speaking in retrospect as he is being questioned in front of a grand jury for a potential indictment.
When 14-year-old Ben Rifkin is found stabbed to death in Cold Spring Park before school one morning, Andy Barber initially takes the case despite his boss’s reservations that there may be a conflict because Andy’s son Jacob is a student in Ben’s class at school. As the title suggests, it soon becomes clear that Jacob may have had something to do with the murder. At that point, Andy is taken off the case and it is given to a junior colleague, Neal Logiudice, who demonstrates both admiration and contempt for his former mentor, perhaps because of underlying jealousy and insecurity. Neal Logiudice becomes the DA questioning Andy Barber.
Prior to Jacob’s formal accusation of murder, the Barbers appear to be fiercely loyal and unable to fully see and understand their son. The difficulty with objectivity and the reasons why family member physicians should never treat family members – and why family member attorneys should never represent loved ones – is abundantly clear in this story. When Andy receives an anonymous tip that Jacob’s childhood best friend, Derek Yoo, posted on Facebook, “Jake, everyone knows you did it. You have a knife. I’ve seen it,’ ” Andy then looks through Jacob’s drawers and finds a folding knife in one of his T-shirts. In the chapter aptly titled “Denial,” Andy, an experienced prosecutor, does not turn the knife over as evidence, but instead disposes of it – believing Jacob that he did not take the knife to school the day his classmate was stabbed.
After Jacob is indicted, Andy Barber confesses to his wife, Laurie, that his estranged father who left when he was 6 is actually in prison convicted of murdering and raping a woman. In the novel, his grandfather and great-grandfather are also convicted felons. Laurie reveals this family history to Jacob’s attorney, and the attorney subsequently refers the family to a forensic psychologist. In the novel, she is a large Jewish woman; in the miniseries she is played by a very thin Poorna Jagannathan (who incidentally has portrayed a therapist in the television series “Sorry for your Loss,” and a doctor in “The Act,” “Better Call Saul,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” “House of Cards,” “The Game,” “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” “Rescue Me,” “Jonny Zero,” “An Actor Prepares,” “The Circle,” “Thanks for Sharing,” and “Montclair.”) Although the goal of the defense was a finding of “not guilty,” a psychiatric defense was going to be used as a last resort if necessary.
Laurie had already googled and learned of “the murder gene,” which was further explained by the forensic psychologist as a mutation called:
“MAOA Knockout. It has been argued in court as a trigger for violence before, but the argument was too simplistic, and it was rejected. Our understanding of the gene-environment interplay has improved since then – the science is getting better and very quickly – and we may have better testimony now. The second mutation is located in what’s called the serotonin transporter gene. The official name for the gene is SLC6A4. It’s located on chromosome 17. It encodes a protein that facilitates the activity of the serotonin transporter system, which is what enables the reuptake of serotonin from the synapse back into the neuron.”1
She further explains that there have been many studies on the “nurture” side of the nature/nurture question and that, with new developments in DNA studies, it is now becoming possible to study the “nature” side.
“Defending Jacob” explores the nature/nurture issue, as well as issues with forensic testimony in court and the criminal justice system in general. The issue of repressing feelings and hiding secrets and then having to confront both in a brutal manner is another theme addressed in the story. Andy tried to hide and forget that his father was in prison and the criminal history in his family, but he was forced to face this and his feelings about it when confronted with his own son being accused of murder. Of note, he does not seek help from a therapist despite these life-altering events. (Humongous spoiler alert:) The story that began with a murder of an unrelated child may end with a family murder, one that would be well described and could be understood by psychiatrists using the categories of motives initially described by Phillip Resnick, MD.2
Once again, and unfortunately, as we have pointed out in other media reviews, the portrayal of psychiatric/psychological themes is problematic. Using a psychologist to explain the science of DNA and not a psychiatrist is an interesting choice. Diagnosing a 14-year-old with personality disorders also contributes to misunderstanding and stigma. In addition, no timely attempt is made to refer the accused Jacob for mental health treatment. The stigmatization of psychiatry in the media was addressed by the World Psychiatric Association task force guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists,3 including breaking down negative views of psychiatrists and psychiatry in the general public, among medical students, other health professionals, and patients and relatives. The task force made recommendations for national psychiatric societies and for individual practitioners to help reduce stigma of the profession of psychiatry. We would argue that speaking to the media, including fiction authors, to help educate about mental health is an important role for psychiatrists. It would lead to more realistic portrayals in film and books.
Overall, “Defending Jacob” is a compelling story in both the novel and the miniseries. Despite some problems with how it depicts mental health issues, both are engaging and contain thoughtful, extremely well-written themes of interest to many clinical and forensic psychiatrists.
References
1. Landay W. Defending Jacob, a novel. New York: Delacorte Press, 2012.
2. Friedman SH. Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019.
3. Sartorius N et al. World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):131-44.
Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and on the faculty at Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Hatters Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law and was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association.