Dermatology News

WASHINGTON – Speaker after speaker, veteran emergency department physicians and nurses approached the podium for a May 4 press conference on the U.S. Capitol lawn across from the East Senate steps to describe violent incidents – being bitten, punched, slapped, kicked, choked, spat on, threatened – that they have both observed and have been subject to while working in EDs.

The press conference was cosponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Emergency Nurses Association, which have partnered since 2019 on the No Silence on ED Violence campaign.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

The numbers confirm their experience. A 2018 poll of 3,500 ED physicians nationwide, which was conducted by Marketing General and was reported at ACEP’s annual meeting, found that nearly half of respondents had been assaulted at work; 27% of them were injured from the assault. Nurses, who spend more time with patients, may face even higher rates.

Incidence was reported to be increasing in 2018, and that was before the social and psychological upheavals imposed by the COVID pandemic caused assaults on staff in the hospital to go up an estimated 200%-300%.

But what really grated was that more than 95% of such cases, mostly perpetrated by patients, were never prosecuted, said Jennifer Casaletto, MD, FACEP, a North Carolina emergency physician and president of the state’s ACEP chapter. “Hospital and law enforcement see violence as just part of the job in our EDs.”

It’s no secret that workplace violence is increasing, Dr. Casaletto said. Four weeks ago, she stitched up the face of a charge nurse who had been assaulted. The nurse didn’t report the incident because she didn’t believe anything would change.

“Listening to my colleagues, I know the terror they have felt in the moment – for themselves, their colleagues, their patients. I know that raw fear of being attacked, and the complex emotions that follow. I’ve been hit, bit, and punched and watched colleagues getting choked.”

Dr. Casaletto was present in the ED when an out-of-control patient clubbed a nurse with an IV pole as she tried to close the doors to other patients’ rooms. “Instinctively, I pulled my stethoscope from around my neck, hoping I wouldn’t be strangled with it.”

Tennessee emergency nurse Todd Haines, MSN, RN, AEMT, CEN, said he has stepped in to help pull patients off coworkers. “I’ve seen some staff so severely injured they could not return to the bedside. I’ve been verbally threatened. My family has been threatened by patients and their families,” he reported. “We’ve all seen it. And COVID has made some people even meaner. They just lose their minds, and ED staff take the brunt of their aggression. But then to report these incidents and hear: ‘It’s just part of your job,’ well, it’s not part of my job.”

Mr. Haines spent 10 years in law enforcement with a sheriff’s department in middle Tennessee and was on its special tactical response team before becoming an ED nurse. He said he saw many more verbal and physical assaults in 11 years in the ED than during his police career.

“I love emergency nursing at the bedside, but it got to the point where I took the first chance to leave the bedside. And I’m not alone. Other nurses are leaving in droves.” Mr. Haines now has a job directing a trauma program, and he volunteers on policy issues for the Tennessee ENA. But he worries about the toll of this violence on the ED workforce, with so many professionals already mulling over leaving the field because of job stress and burnout.

“We have to do something to keep experienced hospital emergency staff at the bedside.”

What’s the answer?

Also speaking at the press conference was Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who pledged to introduce the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Services Workers Act, which passed the House in April. This bill would direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to issue a standard requiring employers in health care and social services to develop and implement workplace violence prevention plans. It would cover a variety of health facilities but not doctor’s offices or home-based services.

An interim final standard would be due within a year of enactment, with a final version to follow. Covered employers would have 6 months to develop and implement their own comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, with the meaningful participation of direct care employees, tailored for and specific to the conditions and hazards of their facility, informed by past violent incidents, and subject to the size and complexity of the setting.

The plan would also name an individual responsible for its implementation, would include staff training and education, and would require facilities to track incidents and prohibit retaliation against employees who reported incidents of workplace violence.

On Wednesday, Sen. Baldwin called for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to fast-track this bill, but that was opposed by Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.). She will soon introduce legislation similar to HR 1195, which the House passed.

“This bill will provide long overdue protections and safety standards,” she said. It will ensure that workplaces adopt proven protection techniques, such as those in OSHA’s 2015 guideline for preventing health care workplace violence. The American Hospital Association opposed the House bill on the grounds that hospitals have already implemented policies and programs specifically tailored to address workplace violence, so the OSHA standards required by the bill are not warranted.

Another speaker at the press conference, Aisha Terry, MD, MPH, FACEP, an emergency physician for George Washington University and Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and current vice president of ACEP, described an incident that occurred when she was at work. A patient punched the nurse caring for him in the face, knocking her unconscious to the floor. “I’ll never forget that sound,” Dr. Terry said. “To this day, it has impacted her career. She hasn’t known what to do.”

Many people don’t realize how bad workplace violence really is, Dr. Terry added. “You assume you can serve as the safety net of this country, taking care of patients in the context of the pandemic, and feel safe – and not have to worry about your own safety. It’s past due that we put an end to this.”
 

Biggest win

Mr. Haines called the workplace violence bill a game changer for ED professionals, now and into the future. “We’re not going to totally eliminate violence in the emergency department. That is part of our business. But this legislation will support us and give a safer environment for us to do the work we love,” he said.

“The biggest win for this legislation is that it will create a supportive, nonretaliatory environment. It will give us as nurses a structured way to report things.” And, when these incidents do get reported, staff will get the help they need, Mr. Haines said. “The legislation will help show the importance of implementing systems and processes in emergency settings to address the risks and hazards that makes us all vulnerable to violence.”

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

WASHINGTON – Speaker after speaker, veteran emergency department physicians and nurses approached the podium for a May 4 press conference on the U.S. Capitol lawn across from the East Senate steps to describe violent incidents – being bitten, punched, slapped, kicked, choked, spat on, threatened – that they have both observed and have been subject to while working in EDs.

The press conference was cosponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Emergency Nurses Association, which have partnered since 2019 on the No Silence on ED Violence campaign.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

The numbers confirm their experience. A 2018 poll of 3,500 ED physicians nationwide, which was conducted by Marketing General and was reported at ACEP’s annual meeting, found that nearly half of respondents had been assaulted at work; 27% of them were injured from the assault. Nurses, who spend more time with patients, may face even higher rates.

Incidence was reported to be increasing in 2018, and that was before the social and psychological upheavals imposed by the COVID pandemic caused assaults on staff in the hospital to go up an estimated 200%-300%.

But what really grated was that more than 95% of such cases, mostly perpetrated by patients, were never prosecuted, said Jennifer Casaletto, MD, FACEP, a North Carolina emergency physician and president of the state’s ACEP chapter. “Hospital and law enforcement see violence as just part of the job in our EDs.”

It’s no secret that workplace violence is increasing, Dr. Casaletto said. Four weeks ago, she stitched up the face of a charge nurse who had been assaulted. The nurse didn’t report the incident because she didn’t believe anything would change.

“Listening to my colleagues, I know the terror they have felt in the moment – for themselves, their colleagues, their patients. I know that raw fear of being attacked, and the complex emotions that follow. I’ve been hit, bit, and punched and watched colleagues getting choked.”

Dr. Casaletto was present in the ED when an out-of-control patient clubbed a nurse with an IV pole as she tried to close the doors to other patients’ rooms. “Instinctively, I pulled my stethoscope from around my neck, hoping I wouldn’t be strangled with it.”

Tennessee emergency nurse Todd Haines, MSN, RN, AEMT, CEN, said he has stepped in to help pull patients off coworkers. “I’ve seen some staff so severely injured they could not return to the bedside. I’ve been verbally threatened. My family has been threatened by patients and their families,” he reported. “We’ve all seen it. And COVID has made some people even meaner. They just lose their minds, and ED staff take the brunt of their aggression. But then to report these incidents and hear: ‘It’s just part of your job,’ well, it’s not part of my job.”

Mr. Haines spent 10 years in law enforcement with a sheriff’s department in middle Tennessee and was on its special tactical response team before becoming an ED nurse. He said he saw many more verbal and physical assaults in 11 years in the ED than during his police career.

“I love emergency nursing at the bedside, but it got to the point where I took the first chance to leave the bedside. And I’m not alone. Other nurses are leaving in droves.” Mr. Haines now has a job directing a trauma program, and he volunteers on policy issues for the Tennessee ENA. But he worries about the toll of this violence on the ED workforce, with so many professionals already mulling over leaving the field because of job stress and burnout.

“We have to do something to keep experienced hospital emergency staff at the bedside.”

What’s the answer?

Also speaking at the press conference was Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who pledged to introduce the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Services Workers Act, which passed the House in April. This bill would direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to issue a standard requiring employers in health care and social services to develop and implement workplace violence prevention plans. It would cover a variety of health facilities but not doctor’s offices or home-based services.

An interim final standard would be due within a year of enactment, with a final version to follow. Covered employers would have 6 months to develop and implement their own comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, with the meaningful participation of direct care employees, tailored for and specific to the conditions and hazards of their facility, informed by past violent incidents, and subject to the size and complexity of the setting.

The plan would also name an individual responsible for its implementation, would include staff training and education, and would require facilities to track incidents and prohibit retaliation against employees who reported incidents of workplace violence.

On Wednesday, Sen. Baldwin called for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to fast-track this bill, but that was opposed by Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.). She will soon introduce legislation similar to HR 1195, which the House passed.

“This bill will provide long overdue protections and safety standards,” she said. It will ensure that workplaces adopt proven protection techniques, such as those in OSHA’s 2015 guideline for preventing health care workplace violence. The American Hospital Association opposed the House bill on the grounds that hospitals have already implemented policies and programs specifically tailored to address workplace violence, so the OSHA standards required by the bill are not warranted.

Another speaker at the press conference, Aisha Terry, MD, MPH, FACEP, an emergency physician for George Washington University and Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and current vice president of ACEP, described an incident that occurred when she was at work. A patient punched the nurse caring for him in the face, knocking her unconscious to the floor. “I’ll never forget that sound,” Dr. Terry said. “To this day, it has impacted her career. She hasn’t known what to do.”

Many people don’t realize how bad workplace violence really is, Dr. Terry added. “You assume you can serve as the safety net of this country, taking care of patients in the context of the pandemic, and feel safe – and not have to worry about your own safety. It’s past due that we put an end to this.”
 

Biggest win

Mr. Haines called the workplace violence bill a game changer for ED professionals, now and into the future. “We’re not going to totally eliminate violence in the emergency department. That is part of our business. But this legislation will support us and give a safer environment for us to do the work we love,” he said.

“The biggest win for this legislation is that it will create a supportive, nonretaliatory environment. It will give us as nurses a structured way to report things.” And, when these incidents do get reported, staff will get the help they need, Mr. Haines said. “The legislation will help show the importance of implementing systems and processes in emergency settings to address the risks and hazards that makes us all vulnerable to violence.”

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

WASHINGTON – Speaker after speaker, veteran emergency department physicians and nurses approached the podium for a May 4 press conference on the U.S. Capitol lawn across from the East Senate steps to describe violent incidents – being bitten, punched, slapped, kicked, choked, spat on, threatened – that they have both observed and have been subject to while working in EDs.

The press conference was cosponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Emergency Nurses Association, which have partnered since 2019 on the No Silence on ED Violence campaign.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

The numbers confirm their experience. A 2018 poll of 3,500 ED physicians nationwide, which was conducted by Marketing General and was reported at ACEP’s annual meeting, found that nearly half of respondents had been assaulted at work; 27% of them were injured from the assault. Nurses, who spend more time with patients, may face even higher rates.

Incidence was reported to be increasing in 2018, and that was before the social and psychological upheavals imposed by the COVID pandemic caused assaults on staff in the hospital to go up an estimated 200%-300%.

But what really grated was that more than 95% of such cases, mostly perpetrated by patients, were never prosecuted, said Jennifer Casaletto, MD, FACEP, a North Carolina emergency physician and president of the state’s ACEP chapter. “Hospital and law enforcement see violence as just part of the job in our EDs.”

It’s no secret that workplace violence is increasing, Dr. Casaletto said. Four weeks ago, she stitched up the face of a charge nurse who had been assaulted. The nurse didn’t report the incident because she didn’t believe anything would change.

“Listening to my colleagues, I know the terror they have felt in the moment – for themselves, their colleagues, their patients. I know that raw fear of being attacked, and the complex emotions that follow. I’ve been hit, bit, and punched and watched colleagues getting choked.”

Dr. Casaletto was present in the ED when an out-of-control patient clubbed a nurse with an IV pole as she tried to close the doors to other patients’ rooms. “Instinctively, I pulled my stethoscope from around my neck, hoping I wouldn’t be strangled with it.”

Tennessee emergency nurse Todd Haines, MSN, RN, AEMT, CEN, said he has stepped in to help pull patients off coworkers. “I’ve seen some staff so severely injured they could not return to the bedside. I’ve been verbally threatened. My family has been threatened by patients and their families,” he reported. “We’ve all seen it. And COVID has made some people even meaner. They just lose their minds, and ED staff take the brunt of their aggression. But then to report these incidents and hear: ‘It’s just part of your job,’ well, it’s not part of my job.”

Mr. Haines spent 10 years in law enforcement with a sheriff’s department in middle Tennessee and was on its special tactical response team before becoming an ED nurse. He said he saw many more verbal and physical assaults in 11 years in the ED than during his police career.

“I love emergency nursing at the bedside, but it got to the point where I took the first chance to leave the bedside. And I’m not alone. Other nurses are leaving in droves.” Mr. Haines now has a job directing a trauma program, and he volunteers on policy issues for the Tennessee ENA. But he worries about the toll of this violence on the ED workforce, with so many professionals already mulling over leaving the field because of job stress and burnout.

“We have to do something to keep experienced hospital emergency staff at the bedside.”

What’s the answer?

Also speaking at the press conference was Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who pledged to introduce the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Services Workers Act, which passed the House in April. This bill would direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to issue a standard requiring employers in health care and social services to develop and implement workplace violence prevention plans. It would cover a variety of health facilities but not doctor’s offices or home-based services.

An interim final standard would be due within a year of enactment, with a final version to follow. Covered employers would have 6 months to develop and implement their own comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, with the meaningful participation of direct care employees, tailored for and specific to the conditions and hazards of their facility, informed by past violent incidents, and subject to the size and complexity of the setting.

The plan would also name an individual responsible for its implementation, would include staff training and education, and would require facilities to track incidents and prohibit retaliation against employees who reported incidents of workplace violence.

On Wednesday, Sen. Baldwin called for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to fast-track this bill, but that was opposed by Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.). She will soon introduce legislation similar to HR 1195, which the House passed.

“This bill will provide long overdue protections and safety standards,” she said. It will ensure that workplaces adopt proven protection techniques, such as those in OSHA’s 2015 guideline for preventing health care workplace violence. The American Hospital Association opposed the House bill on the grounds that hospitals have already implemented policies and programs specifically tailored to address workplace violence, so the OSHA standards required by the bill are not warranted.

Another speaker at the press conference, Aisha Terry, MD, MPH, FACEP, an emergency physician for George Washington University and Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and current vice president of ACEP, described an incident that occurred when she was at work. A patient punched the nurse caring for him in the face, knocking her unconscious to the floor. “I’ll never forget that sound,” Dr. Terry said. “To this day, it has impacted her career. She hasn’t known what to do.”

Many people don’t realize how bad workplace violence really is, Dr. Terry added. “You assume you can serve as the safety net of this country, taking care of patients in the context of the pandemic, and feel safe – and not have to worry about your own safety. It’s past due that we put an end to this.”
 

Biggest win

Mr. Haines called the workplace violence bill a game changer for ED professionals, now and into the future. “We’re not going to totally eliminate violence in the emergency department. That is part of our business. But this legislation will support us and give a safer environment for us to do the work we love,” he said.

“The biggest win for this legislation is that it will create a supportive, nonretaliatory environment. It will give us as nurses a structured way to report things.” And, when these incidents do get reported, staff will get the help they need, Mr. Haines said. “The legislation will help show the importance of implementing systems and processes in emergency settings to address the risks and hazards that makes us all vulnerable to violence.”

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Losing weight for TikTok: Taco Bell edition

There are many reasons why a person would want to lose weight. Too numerous to list. Losing weight to improve your health, however, doesn’t bring in a few hundred thousand TikTok subscribers. Losing weight to convince Taco Bell to bring back an obscure menu item, on the other hand ...

Chris Sandberg, a 37-year-old man from San Francisco, has struggled with his weight for years, losing and gaining hundreds of pounds in an endless cycle of feast and famine. In an unrelated development, at the start of the pandemic he also started making videos on TikTok. As the pandemic wore on, he realized that his excess weight put him at increased risk for severe COVID, as well as other chronic diseases, and he resolved to lose weight. He decided to turn his weight-loss journey into a TikTok challenge but, as we said, losing weight for its own sake isn’t enough for the almighty algorithm. He needed a different goal, preferably something offbeat and a little silly.

Matt Prince/Taco Bell

Back in 2013, Taco Bell introduced the Grilled Stuft Nacho, “a flour tortilla, shaped like a nacho, stuffed with beef, cheesy jalapeño sauce, sour cream and crunchy red strips,” according to its website. Mr. Sandberg discovered the item in 2015 and instantly fell in love, purchasing one every day for a week. After that first week, however, he discovered, to his horror, that the Grilled Stuft Nacho had been discontinued.

That loss haunted him for years, until inspiration struck in 2021. He pledged to work out every day on TikTok until Taco Bell brought back the Grilled Stuft Nacho. A bit incongruous, exercising for notoriously unhealthy fast food, but that’s kind of the point. He began the challenge on Jan. 4, 2021, and has continued it every day since, nearly 500 days. Over that time, he’s lost 87 pounds (from 275 at the start to under 190) and currently has 450,000 TikTok subscribers.

A year into the challenge, a local Taco Bell made Mr. Sandberg his beloved Grilled Stuft Nacho, but since the challenge was to exercise until Taco Bell brings the item back to all its restaurants, not just for him, the great journey continues. And we admire him for it. In fact, he’s inspired us: We will write a LOTME every week until it receives a Pulitzer Prize. This is important journalism we do here. Don’t deny it!
 

Episode XIX: COVID strikes back

So what’s next for COVID? Is Disney going to turn it into a series? Can it support a spin-off? Did James Cameron really buy the movie rights? Can it compete against the NFL in the all-important 18-34 demographic? When are Star Wars characters going to get involved?

Adli Wahid/Pixabay

COVID’s motivations and negotiations are pretty much a mystery to us, but we can answer that last question. They already are involved. Well, one of them anyway.

The Chinese government has been enforcing a COVID lockdown in Shanghai for over a month now, but authorities had started letting people out of their homes for short periods of time. A recent push to bring down transmission, however, has made residents increasingly frustrated and argumentative, according to Reuters.

A now-unavailable video, which Reuters could not verify, surfaced on Chinese social media showing police in hazmat suits arguing with people who were being told that they were going to be quarantined because a neighbor had tested positive.

That’s when the Force kicks in, and this next bit comes directly from the Reuters report: “This is so that we can thoroughly remove any positive cases,” one of the officers is heard saying. “Stop asking me why, there is no why.”

There is no why? Does that remind you of someone? Someone short and green, with an odd syntax? That’s right. Clearly, Yoda it is. Yoda is alive and working for the Chinese government in Shanghai. You read it here first.
 

Your coffee may be guilty of sexual discrimination

How do you take your coffee? Espresso, drip, instant, or brewed from a regular old coffee machine? Well, a recent study published in Open Heart suggests that gender and brewing method can alter your coffee’s effect on cholesterol levels.

Art_rich/Getty Images

Besides caffeine, coffee beans have naturally occurring chemicals such as diterpenes, cafestol, and kahweol that raise cholesterol levels in the blood. And then there are the various brewing methods, which are going to release different amounts of chemicals from the beans. According to Consumer Reports, an ounce of espresso has 63 mg of caffeine and an ounce of regular coffee has 12-16 mg. That’s a bit deceiving, though, since no one ever drinks an ounce of regular coffee, so figure 96-128 mg of caffeine for an 8-ounce cup. That’s enough to make anyone’s heart race.

Data from 21,083 participants in the seventh survey of the Tromsø Study who were aged 40 and older showed that women drank a mean of 3.8 cups per day while men drank 4.9 cups. Drinking six or more cups of plunger-brewed coffee was associated with increased cholesterol in both genders, but drinking three to five cups of espresso was significantly associated with high cholesterol in men only. Having six or more cups of filtered coffee daily raised cholesterol in women, but instant coffee increased cholesterol levels in both genders, regardless of how many cups they drank.

People all over the planet drink coffee, some of us like our lives depend on it. Since “coffee is the most frequently consumed central stimulant worldwide,” the investigators said, “even small health effects can have considerable health consequences.”

We’ll drink to that.
 

Have you ever dreamed of having a clone?

When will science grace us with the ability to clone ourselves? It sounds like a dream come true. Our clones can do the stuff that we don’t want to do, like sit in on that 3-hour meeting or do our grocery shopping – really just all the boring stuff we don’t want to do.

Ria Sopala/Pixabay

In 1996, when a sheep named Dolly became the first mammal cloned successfully, people thought it was the start of an amazing cloning era, but, alas, we haven’t made it to cloning humans yet, as LiveScience discovered when it took a look at the subject.

The idea of cloning was quite exciting for science, as people looked forward to eradicating genetic diseases and birth defects. Research done in 1999, however, countered those hopes by suggesting that cloning might increase birth defects.

So why do you think we haven’t advanced to truly cloning humans? Ethics? Time and effort? Technological barriers? “Human cloning is a particularly dramatic action, and was one of the topics that helped launch American bioethics,” Hank Greely, professor of law and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, told LiveScience.

What if the clones turned evil and were bent on destroying the world?

We might imagine a clone of ourselves being completely identical to us in our thoughts, actions, and physical looks. However, that’s not necessarily true; a clone would be its own person even if it looks exactly like you.

So what do the professionals think? Is it worth giving human cloning a shot? Are there benefits? Mr. Greely said that “there are none that we should be willing to consider.”

The dream of having a clone to help your son with his math homework may have gone down the drain, but maybe it’s best not to open doors that could lead to drastic changes in our world.

Losing weight for TikTok: Taco Bell edition

There are many reasons why a person would want to lose weight. Too numerous to list. Losing weight to improve your health, however, doesn’t bring in a few hundred thousand TikTok subscribers. Losing weight to convince Taco Bell to bring back an obscure menu item, on the other hand ...

Chris Sandberg, a 37-year-old man from San Francisco, has struggled with his weight for years, losing and gaining hundreds of pounds in an endless cycle of feast and famine. In an unrelated development, at the start of the pandemic he also started making videos on TikTok. As the pandemic wore on, he realized that his excess weight put him at increased risk for severe COVID, as well as other chronic diseases, and he resolved to lose weight. He decided to turn his weight-loss journey into a TikTok challenge but, as we said, losing weight for its own sake isn’t enough for the almighty algorithm. He needed a different goal, preferably something offbeat and a little silly.

Matt Prince/Taco Bell

Back in 2013, Taco Bell introduced the Grilled Stuft Nacho, “a flour tortilla, shaped like a nacho, stuffed with beef, cheesy jalapeño sauce, sour cream and crunchy red strips,” according to its website. Mr. Sandberg discovered the item in 2015 and instantly fell in love, purchasing one every day for a week. After that first week, however, he discovered, to his horror, that the Grilled Stuft Nacho had been discontinued.

That loss haunted him for years, until inspiration struck in 2021. He pledged to work out every day on TikTok until Taco Bell brought back the Grilled Stuft Nacho. A bit incongruous, exercising for notoriously unhealthy fast food, but that’s kind of the point. He began the challenge on Jan. 4, 2021, and has continued it every day since, nearly 500 days. Over that time, he’s lost 87 pounds (from 275 at the start to under 190) and currently has 450,000 TikTok subscribers.

A year into the challenge, a local Taco Bell made Mr. Sandberg his beloved Grilled Stuft Nacho, but since the challenge was to exercise until Taco Bell brings the item back to all its restaurants, not just for him, the great journey continues. And we admire him for it. In fact, he’s inspired us: We will write a LOTME every week until it receives a Pulitzer Prize. This is important journalism we do here. Don’t deny it!
 

Episode XIX: COVID strikes back

So what’s next for COVID? Is Disney going to turn it into a series? Can it support a spin-off? Did James Cameron really buy the movie rights? Can it compete against the NFL in the all-important 18-34 demographic? When are Star Wars characters going to get involved?

Adli Wahid/Pixabay

COVID’s motivations and negotiations are pretty much a mystery to us, but we can answer that last question. They already are involved. Well, one of them anyway.

The Chinese government has been enforcing a COVID lockdown in Shanghai for over a month now, but authorities had started letting people out of their homes for short periods of time. A recent push to bring down transmission, however, has made residents increasingly frustrated and argumentative, according to Reuters.

A now-unavailable video, which Reuters could not verify, surfaced on Chinese social media showing police in hazmat suits arguing with people who were being told that they were going to be quarantined because a neighbor had tested positive.

That’s when the Force kicks in, and this next bit comes directly from the Reuters report: “This is so that we can thoroughly remove any positive cases,” one of the officers is heard saying. “Stop asking me why, there is no why.”

There is no why? Does that remind you of someone? Someone short and green, with an odd syntax? That’s right. Clearly, Yoda it is. Yoda is alive and working for the Chinese government in Shanghai. You read it here first.
 

Your coffee may be guilty of sexual discrimination

How do you take your coffee? Espresso, drip, instant, or brewed from a regular old coffee machine? Well, a recent study published in Open Heart suggests that gender and brewing method can alter your coffee’s effect on cholesterol levels.

Art_rich/Getty Images

Besides caffeine, coffee beans have naturally occurring chemicals such as diterpenes, cafestol, and kahweol that raise cholesterol levels in the blood. And then there are the various brewing methods, which are going to release different amounts of chemicals from the beans. According to Consumer Reports, an ounce of espresso has 63 mg of caffeine and an ounce of regular coffee has 12-16 mg. That’s a bit deceiving, though, since no one ever drinks an ounce of regular coffee, so figure 96-128 mg of caffeine for an 8-ounce cup. That’s enough to make anyone’s heart race.

Data from 21,083 participants in the seventh survey of the Tromsø Study who were aged 40 and older showed that women drank a mean of 3.8 cups per day while men drank 4.9 cups. Drinking six or more cups of plunger-brewed coffee was associated with increased cholesterol in both genders, but drinking three to five cups of espresso was significantly associated with high cholesterol in men only. Having six or more cups of filtered coffee daily raised cholesterol in women, but instant coffee increased cholesterol levels in both genders, regardless of how many cups they drank.

People all over the planet drink coffee, some of us like our lives depend on it. Since “coffee is the most frequently consumed central stimulant worldwide,” the investigators said, “even small health effects can have considerable health consequences.”

We’ll drink to that.
 

Have you ever dreamed of having a clone?

When will science grace us with the ability to clone ourselves? It sounds like a dream come true. Our clones can do the stuff that we don’t want to do, like sit in on that 3-hour meeting or do our grocery shopping – really just all the boring stuff we don’t want to do.

Ria Sopala/Pixabay

In 1996, when a sheep named Dolly became the first mammal cloned successfully, people thought it was the start of an amazing cloning era, but, alas, we haven’t made it to cloning humans yet, as LiveScience discovered when it took a look at the subject.

The idea of cloning was quite exciting for science, as people looked forward to eradicating genetic diseases and birth defects. Research done in 1999, however, countered those hopes by suggesting that cloning might increase birth defects.

So why do you think we haven’t advanced to truly cloning humans? Ethics? Time and effort? Technological barriers? “Human cloning is a particularly dramatic action, and was one of the topics that helped launch American bioethics,” Hank Greely, professor of law and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, told LiveScience.

What if the clones turned evil and were bent on destroying the world?

We might imagine a clone of ourselves being completely identical to us in our thoughts, actions, and physical looks. However, that’s not necessarily true; a clone would be its own person even if it looks exactly like you.

So what do the professionals think? Is it worth giving human cloning a shot? Are there benefits? Mr. Greely said that “there are none that we should be willing to consider.”

The dream of having a clone to help your son with his math homework may have gone down the drain, but maybe it’s best not to open doors that could lead to drastic changes in our world.

Losing weight for TikTok: Taco Bell edition

There are many reasons why a person would want to lose weight. Too numerous to list. Losing weight to improve your health, however, doesn’t bring in a few hundred thousand TikTok subscribers. Losing weight to convince Taco Bell to bring back an obscure menu item, on the other hand ...

Chris Sandberg, a 37-year-old man from San Francisco, has struggled with his weight for years, losing and gaining hundreds of pounds in an endless cycle of feast and famine. In an unrelated development, at the start of the pandemic he also started making videos on TikTok. As the pandemic wore on, he realized that his excess weight put him at increased risk for severe COVID, as well as other chronic diseases, and he resolved to lose weight. He decided to turn his weight-loss journey into a TikTok challenge but, as we said, losing weight for its own sake isn’t enough for the almighty algorithm. He needed a different goal, preferably something offbeat and a little silly.

Matt Prince/Taco Bell

Back in 2013, Taco Bell introduced the Grilled Stuft Nacho, “a flour tortilla, shaped like a nacho, stuffed with beef, cheesy jalapeño sauce, sour cream and crunchy red strips,” according to its website. Mr. Sandberg discovered the item in 2015 and instantly fell in love, purchasing one every day for a week. After that first week, however, he discovered, to his horror, that the Grilled Stuft Nacho had been discontinued.

That loss haunted him for years, until inspiration struck in 2021. He pledged to work out every day on TikTok until Taco Bell brought back the Grilled Stuft Nacho. A bit incongruous, exercising for notoriously unhealthy fast food, but that’s kind of the point. He began the challenge on Jan. 4, 2021, and has continued it every day since, nearly 500 days. Over that time, he’s lost 87 pounds (from 275 at the start to under 190) and currently has 450,000 TikTok subscribers.

A year into the challenge, a local Taco Bell made Mr. Sandberg his beloved Grilled Stuft Nacho, but since the challenge was to exercise until Taco Bell brings the item back to all its restaurants, not just for him, the great journey continues. And we admire him for it. In fact, he’s inspired us: We will write a LOTME every week until it receives a Pulitzer Prize. This is important journalism we do here. Don’t deny it!
 

Episode XIX: COVID strikes back

So what’s next for COVID? Is Disney going to turn it into a series? Can it support a spin-off? Did James Cameron really buy the movie rights? Can it compete against the NFL in the all-important 18-34 demographic? When are Star Wars characters going to get involved?

Adli Wahid/Pixabay

COVID’s motivations and negotiations are pretty much a mystery to us, but we can answer that last question. They already are involved. Well, one of them anyway.

The Chinese government has been enforcing a COVID lockdown in Shanghai for over a month now, but authorities had started letting people out of their homes for short periods of time. A recent push to bring down transmission, however, has made residents increasingly frustrated and argumentative, according to Reuters.

A now-unavailable video, which Reuters could not verify, surfaced on Chinese social media showing police in hazmat suits arguing with people who were being told that they were going to be quarantined because a neighbor had tested positive.

That’s when the Force kicks in, and this next bit comes directly from the Reuters report: “This is so that we can thoroughly remove any positive cases,” one of the officers is heard saying. “Stop asking me why, there is no why.”

There is no why? Does that remind you of someone? Someone short and green, with an odd syntax? That’s right. Clearly, Yoda it is. Yoda is alive and working for the Chinese government in Shanghai. You read it here first.
 

Your coffee may be guilty of sexual discrimination

How do you take your coffee? Espresso, drip, instant, or brewed from a regular old coffee machine? Well, a recent study published in Open Heart suggests that gender and brewing method can alter your coffee’s effect on cholesterol levels.

Art_rich/Getty Images

Besides caffeine, coffee beans have naturally occurring chemicals such as diterpenes, cafestol, and kahweol that raise cholesterol levels in the blood. And then there are the various brewing methods, which are going to release different amounts of chemicals from the beans. According to Consumer Reports, an ounce of espresso has 63 mg of caffeine and an ounce of regular coffee has 12-16 mg. That’s a bit deceiving, though, since no one ever drinks an ounce of regular coffee, so figure 96-128 mg of caffeine for an 8-ounce cup. That’s enough to make anyone’s heart race.

Data from 21,083 participants in the seventh survey of the Tromsø Study who were aged 40 and older showed that women drank a mean of 3.8 cups per day while men drank 4.9 cups. Drinking six or more cups of plunger-brewed coffee was associated with increased cholesterol in both genders, but drinking three to five cups of espresso was significantly associated with high cholesterol in men only. Having six or more cups of filtered coffee daily raised cholesterol in women, but instant coffee increased cholesterol levels in both genders, regardless of how many cups they drank.

People all over the planet drink coffee, some of us like our lives depend on it. Since “coffee is the most frequently consumed central stimulant worldwide,” the investigators said, “even small health effects can have considerable health consequences.”

We’ll drink to that.
 

Have you ever dreamed of having a clone?

When will science grace us with the ability to clone ourselves? It sounds like a dream come true. Our clones can do the stuff that we don’t want to do, like sit in on that 3-hour meeting or do our grocery shopping – really just all the boring stuff we don’t want to do.

Ria Sopala/Pixabay

In 1996, when a sheep named Dolly became the first mammal cloned successfully, people thought it was the start of an amazing cloning era, but, alas, we haven’t made it to cloning humans yet, as LiveScience discovered when it took a look at the subject.

The idea of cloning was quite exciting for science, as people looked forward to eradicating genetic diseases and birth defects. Research done in 1999, however, countered those hopes by suggesting that cloning might increase birth defects.

So why do you think we haven’t advanced to truly cloning humans? Ethics? Time and effort? Technological barriers? “Human cloning is a particularly dramatic action, and was one of the topics that helped launch American bioethics,” Hank Greely, professor of law and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, told LiveScience.

What if the clones turned evil and were bent on destroying the world?

We might imagine a clone of ourselves being completely identical to us in our thoughts, actions, and physical looks. However, that’s not necessarily true; a clone would be its own person even if it looks exactly like you.

So what do the professionals think? Is it worth giving human cloning a shot? Are there benefits? Mr. Greely said that “there are none that we should be willing to consider.”

The dream of having a clone to help your son with his math homework may have gone down the drain, but maybe it’s best not to open doors that could lead to drastic changes in our world.

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

BOSTON – As a former active-duty cavalry officer in the U.S. Army who served a 15-month tour in Iraq in 2003, Adam C. Byrd, MD, isn’t easily rattled.

On any given day, as the only dermatologist in his hometown of Louisville, Miss., which has a population of about 6,500, he sees 35-40 patients who present with conditions ranging from an infantile hemangioma to dermatomyositis and porphyria cutanea tarda. Being the go-to specialist for hundreds of miles with no on-site lab and no immediate personal access to Mohs surgeons and other subspecialists might unnerve some dermatologists, but not him.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

“They’re a text message away, but they’re not in my office,” he said during a session on rural dermatology at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “I don’t have a mid-level practitioner, either. It’s just me and the residents, so it can be somewhat isolating. But in a rural area, you’re doing your patients a disservice if you can’t handle broad-spectrum medical dermatology. I consider myself a family dermatologist; I do a little bit of everything.” This includes prescribing treatments ranging from methotrexate for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, eczema, and other conditions; cyclosporine and azathioprine for pediatric eczema; propranolol for infantile hemangiomas; to IV infusions for dermatomyositis; phlebotomy for porphyria cutanea tarda; and biologics.

With no on-site pathology lab, Dr. Byrd sends specimens twice a week to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson via FedEx to be read. “I have to wait 3 days for results instead of 2,” he said. At the end of each workday, he personally carries microbiology samples to Winston Medical Center in Louisville – the area’s only hospital and where he was born – for processing.

After completing a 5-year integrated internal medicine-dermatology residency at the University of Minnesota in 2016, Dr. Byrd worked with Robert T. Brodell, MD, who chairs the department of dermatology at UMMC, and other university officials to open a satellite clinic in Louisville, where he provides full-spectrum skin care for Northern Mississippians. The clinic, located about 95 miles from UMMC’s “mothership” in Jackson, has become a vital training ground for the university, which created the only rural-specific dermatology residency of the 142 accredited dermatology programs in the United States. Of the three to four residents accepted per year, one is a rural track resident who spends 3-month–long rotations at rural clinic sites such as Dr. Byrd’s during each of the 3 years of general dermatology training, and the remaining 9 months of each year alongside their non–rural track coresidents.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

One of the program’s rural track residents, Joshua R. Ortego, MD, worked in Dr. Byrd’s clinic during PGY-2. “It’s unique for one attending and one resident to work together for 3 months straight,” said Dr. Ortego, who grew up in Bay St. Louis on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, which has a population of about 9,200. “Dr. Byrd learns our weaknesses and knows our strengths and areas for improvement. You get close. And there’s continuity; you see some patients back. With all the shuffling in the traditional dermatology residency model, sometimes you’re not seeing patients for follow-up appointments. But here you do.”

Rural dermatology track residents who rotate through Dr. Byrd’s Louisville clinic spend each Monday at the main campus in Jackson for a continuity clinic and didactics with non–rural track residents, “which allows for collegiality,” Dr. Ortego said. “My coresidents are like family; it would be hard to spend 3 months or even a year away from family like that.” The department foots the cost of lodging in a Louisville hotel 4 nights per week during these 3 months of training.

Dr. Ortego said that he performed a far greater number of procedures during PGY-2, compared with the averages performed in UMMC’s general dermatology rotation: 75 excisions (vs. 17), 71 repairs (vs. 15), and 23 excisions on the face or scalp (vs. none). He also cared for patients who presented with advanced disease because of access issues, and others with rare conditions. For example, in one afternoon clinic he and Dr. Byrd saw two patients with porphyria cutanea tarda, and one case each of dermatomyositis, bullous pemphigoid, and pyoderma gangrenosum. “We have an autoimmune blistering disease clinic in Jackson, but patients don’t want to drive there,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

Then there are the perks that come with practicing in a rural area, including ready access to hiking, fishing, hunting, and spending time with family and friends. “Rural residents should be comfortable with the lifestyle,” he said. “Some cities don’t have the same amenities as San Francisco or Boston, but not everyone requires that. They just love where they’re from.”

The residency’s structure is designed to address the dire shortage of rural-based dermatologists in the United States. A study published in 2018 found that the difference in dermatologist density between metropolitan and rural counties in the United States increased from 3.41 per 100,000 people (3.47 vs. 0.065 per 100,000 people) in 1995 to 4.03 per 100, 000 people (4.11 vs. 0.085 per 100,000 people in 2013; P = .053). That’s about 40 times the number of dermatologists in metro areas, compared with rural areas.

Residents enrolled in UMMC’s rural dermatology track are expected to serve at least 3 years at a rural location upon graduation at a site mutually agreed upon by the resident and the UMMC. Dr. Ortego plans to practice in Bay St. Louis after completing his residency. “The idea is that you’re happy, that you’re in your hometown,” he said.

According to Dr. Byrd, the 3-year commitment brings job security to rural track residents in their preferred location while meeting the demands of an underserved population. “We are still tweaking this,” he said of the residency track, which includes plans to establish more satellite clinics in other areas of rural Mississippi. “Our department chair does not have 100% control over hiring and office expansion. We are subject to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, which is a branch of the state government. This has to be addressed at the council of chairs and university chancellor level and even state government. It can be done, but you really must be dedicated.”

Meanwhile, the effect that dermatologists like Dr. Byrd have on citizens of his area of rural Mississippi is palpable. Many refuse to travel outside of Louisville city limits to see a specialist, so when surgery for a suspicious lesion is indicated, they tell him, “You’re going to do it, or it’s not going to get done,” said Dr. Byrd, who continues to serve in the Mississippi Army National Guard as a field surgeon. “I don’t say ‘no’ a whole lot.” He refers patients to Mohs micrographic surgery colleagues in Jackson daily and is transparent with patients who hesitate to elect Mohs surgery. “I’ll say, ‘I can do the job, but there’s a higher risk of positive margins, and a Mohs surgeon could do a much better job.’”

He acknowledged that rural dermatology “isn’t for everyone. It requires a physician that has a good training foundation in medical and surgical dermatology, someone with a ‘can do’ attitude and a healthy level of confidence. I try to do the best for my patients. It’s endearing when they trust you.”

Mary Logue, MD, who practices dermatology in Minot, N.D., finds the structure of UMMC’s rural dermatology track inspiring. Upon completing her dermatology residency at the University of New Mexico, where she remains on the volunteer faculty, she had hoped to return to serve the community of Gallup, N.M., and help bridge the gap in dermatology health care access for residents of rural New Mexico, especially those on Native American reservations. That opportunity never transpired, but Dr. Logue was able to pursue her passion for rural medicine in North Dakota.

“It is my hope that more programs will implement a similar structure to UMMC’s rural dermatology track and get more dermatologists practicing in rural areas,” Dr. Logue told this news organization. “They have developed a very practical and financially sustainable model, which I think every state could benefit from.”

She added that the UMMC “has found a way to bring dermatology to disadvantaged rural communities while also addressing the problem of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Medical students of color and medical students from rural communities are the least represented groups in dermatology, but the most likely to return to their communities to practice. Every day I see patients with adverse dermatologic outcomes as a direct result of lack of access to a dermatologist. This is happening across the country, which is why the efforts of UMMC Dermatology and their department chair, Dr. Brodell, are so important.”

BOSTON – As a former active-duty cavalry officer in the U.S. Army who served a 15-month tour in Iraq in 2003, Adam C. Byrd, MD, isn’t easily rattled.

On any given day, as the only dermatologist in his hometown of Louisville, Miss., which has a population of about 6,500, he sees 35-40 patients who present with conditions ranging from an infantile hemangioma to dermatomyositis and porphyria cutanea tarda. Being the go-to specialist for hundreds of miles with no on-site lab and no immediate personal access to Mohs surgeons and other subspecialists might unnerve some dermatologists, but not him.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

“They’re a text message away, but they’re not in my office,” he said during a session on rural dermatology at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “I don’t have a mid-level practitioner, either. It’s just me and the residents, so it can be somewhat isolating. But in a rural area, you’re doing your patients a disservice if you can’t handle broad-spectrum medical dermatology. I consider myself a family dermatologist; I do a little bit of everything.” This includes prescribing treatments ranging from methotrexate for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, eczema, and other conditions; cyclosporine and azathioprine for pediatric eczema; propranolol for infantile hemangiomas; to IV infusions for dermatomyositis; phlebotomy for porphyria cutanea tarda; and biologics.

With no on-site pathology lab, Dr. Byrd sends specimens twice a week to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson via FedEx to be read. “I have to wait 3 days for results instead of 2,” he said. At the end of each workday, he personally carries microbiology samples to Winston Medical Center in Louisville – the area’s only hospital and where he was born – for processing.

After completing a 5-year integrated internal medicine-dermatology residency at the University of Minnesota in 2016, Dr. Byrd worked with Robert T. Brodell, MD, who chairs the department of dermatology at UMMC, and other university officials to open a satellite clinic in Louisville, where he provides full-spectrum skin care for Northern Mississippians. The clinic, located about 95 miles from UMMC’s “mothership” in Jackson, has become a vital training ground for the university, which created the only rural-specific dermatology residency of the 142 accredited dermatology programs in the United States. Of the three to four residents accepted per year, one is a rural track resident who spends 3-month–long rotations at rural clinic sites such as Dr. Byrd’s during each of the 3 years of general dermatology training, and the remaining 9 months of each year alongside their non–rural track coresidents.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

One of the program’s rural track residents, Joshua R. Ortego, MD, worked in Dr. Byrd’s clinic during PGY-2. “It’s unique for one attending and one resident to work together for 3 months straight,” said Dr. Ortego, who grew up in Bay St. Louis on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, which has a population of about 9,200. “Dr. Byrd learns our weaknesses and knows our strengths and areas for improvement. You get close. And there’s continuity; you see some patients back. With all the shuffling in the traditional dermatology residency model, sometimes you’re not seeing patients for follow-up appointments. But here you do.”

Rural dermatology track residents who rotate through Dr. Byrd’s Louisville clinic spend each Monday at the main campus in Jackson for a continuity clinic and didactics with non–rural track residents, “which allows for collegiality,” Dr. Ortego said. “My coresidents are like family; it would be hard to spend 3 months or even a year away from family like that.” The department foots the cost of lodging in a Louisville hotel 4 nights per week during these 3 months of training.

Dr. Ortego said that he performed a far greater number of procedures during PGY-2, compared with the averages performed in UMMC’s general dermatology rotation: 75 excisions (vs. 17), 71 repairs (vs. 15), and 23 excisions on the face or scalp (vs. none). He also cared for patients who presented with advanced disease because of access issues, and others with rare conditions. For example, in one afternoon clinic he and Dr. Byrd saw two patients with porphyria cutanea tarda, and one case each of dermatomyositis, bullous pemphigoid, and pyoderma gangrenosum. “We have an autoimmune blistering disease clinic in Jackson, but patients don’t want to drive there,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

Then there are the perks that come with practicing in a rural area, including ready access to hiking, fishing, hunting, and spending time with family and friends. “Rural residents should be comfortable with the lifestyle,” he said. “Some cities don’t have the same amenities as San Francisco or Boston, but not everyone requires that. They just love where they’re from.”

The residency’s structure is designed to address the dire shortage of rural-based dermatologists in the United States. A study published in 2018 found that the difference in dermatologist density between metropolitan and rural counties in the United States increased from 3.41 per 100,000 people (3.47 vs. 0.065 per 100,000 people) in 1995 to 4.03 per 100, 000 people (4.11 vs. 0.085 per 100,000 people in 2013; P = .053). That’s about 40 times the number of dermatologists in metro areas, compared with rural areas.

Residents enrolled in UMMC’s rural dermatology track are expected to serve at least 3 years at a rural location upon graduation at a site mutually agreed upon by the resident and the UMMC. Dr. Ortego plans to practice in Bay St. Louis after completing his residency. “The idea is that you’re happy, that you’re in your hometown,” he said.

According to Dr. Byrd, the 3-year commitment brings job security to rural track residents in their preferred location while meeting the demands of an underserved population. “We are still tweaking this,” he said of the residency track, which includes plans to establish more satellite clinics in other areas of rural Mississippi. “Our department chair does not have 100% control over hiring and office expansion. We are subject to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, which is a branch of the state government. This has to be addressed at the council of chairs and university chancellor level and even state government. It can be done, but you really must be dedicated.”

Meanwhile, the effect that dermatologists like Dr. Byrd have on citizens of his area of rural Mississippi is palpable. Many refuse to travel outside of Louisville city limits to see a specialist, so when surgery for a suspicious lesion is indicated, they tell him, “You’re going to do it, or it’s not going to get done,” said Dr. Byrd, who continues to serve in the Mississippi Army National Guard as a field surgeon. “I don’t say ‘no’ a whole lot.” He refers patients to Mohs micrographic surgery colleagues in Jackson daily and is transparent with patients who hesitate to elect Mohs surgery. “I’ll say, ‘I can do the job, but there’s a higher risk of positive margins, and a Mohs surgeon could do a much better job.’”

He acknowledged that rural dermatology “isn’t for everyone. It requires a physician that has a good training foundation in medical and surgical dermatology, someone with a ‘can do’ attitude and a healthy level of confidence. I try to do the best for my patients. It’s endearing when they trust you.”

Mary Logue, MD, who practices dermatology in Minot, N.D., finds the structure of UMMC’s rural dermatology track inspiring. Upon completing her dermatology residency at the University of New Mexico, where she remains on the volunteer faculty, she had hoped to return to serve the community of Gallup, N.M., and help bridge the gap in dermatology health care access for residents of rural New Mexico, especially those on Native American reservations. That opportunity never transpired, but Dr. Logue was able to pursue her passion for rural medicine in North Dakota.

“It is my hope that more programs will implement a similar structure to UMMC’s rural dermatology track and get more dermatologists practicing in rural areas,” Dr. Logue told this news organization. “They have developed a very practical and financially sustainable model, which I think every state could benefit from.”

She added that the UMMC “has found a way to bring dermatology to disadvantaged rural communities while also addressing the problem of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Medical students of color and medical students from rural communities are the least represented groups in dermatology, but the most likely to return to their communities to practice. Every day I see patients with adverse dermatologic outcomes as a direct result of lack of access to a dermatologist. This is happening across the country, which is why the efforts of UMMC Dermatology and their department chair, Dr. Brodell, are so important.”

BOSTON – As a former active-duty cavalry officer in the U.S. Army who served a 15-month tour in Iraq in 2003, Adam C. Byrd, MD, isn’t easily rattled.

On any given day, as the only dermatologist in his hometown of Louisville, Miss., which has a population of about 6,500, he sees 35-40 patients who present with conditions ranging from an infantile hemangioma to dermatomyositis and porphyria cutanea tarda. Being the go-to specialist for hundreds of miles with no on-site lab and no immediate personal access to Mohs surgeons and other subspecialists might unnerve some dermatologists, but not him.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

“They’re a text message away, but they’re not in my office,” he said during a session on rural dermatology at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “I don’t have a mid-level practitioner, either. It’s just me and the residents, so it can be somewhat isolating. But in a rural area, you’re doing your patients a disservice if you can’t handle broad-spectrum medical dermatology. I consider myself a family dermatologist; I do a little bit of everything.” This includes prescribing treatments ranging from methotrexate for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, eczema, and other conditions; cyclosporine and azathioprine for pediatric eczema; propranolol for infantile hemangiomas; to IV infusions for dermatomyositis; phlebotomy for porphyria cutanea tarda; and biologics.

With no on-site pathology lab, Dr. Byrd sends specimens twice a week to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson via FedEx to be read. “I have to wait 3 days for results instead of 2,” he said. At the end of each workday, he personally carries microbiology samples to Winston Medical Center in Louisville – the area’s only hospital and where he was born – for processing.

After completing a 5-year integrated internal medicine-dermatology residency at the University of Minnesota in 2016, Dr. Byrd worked with Robert T. Brodell, MD, who chairs the department of dermatology at UMMC, and other university officials to open a satellite clinic in Louisville, where he provides full-spectrum skin care for Northern Mississippians. The clinic, located about 95 miles from UMMC’s “mothership” in Jackson, has become a vital training ground for the university, which created the only rural-specific dermatology residency of the 142 accredited dermatology programs in the United States. Of the three to four residents accepted per year, one is a rural track resident who spends 3-month–long rotations at rural clinic sites such as Dr. Byrd’s during each of the 3 years of general dermatology training, and the remaining 9 months of each year alongside their non–rural track coresidents.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

One of the program’s rural track residents, Joshua R. Ortego, MD, worked in Dr. Byrd’s clinic during PGY-2. “It’s unique for one attending and one resident to work together for 3 months straight,” said Dr. Ortego, who grew up in Bay St. Louis on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, which has a population of about 9,200. “Dr. Byrd learns our weaknesses and knows our strengths and areas for improvement. You get close. And there’s continuity; you see some patients back. With all the shuffling in the traditional dermatology residency model, sometimes you’re not seeing patients for follow-up appointments. But here you do.”

Rural dermatology track residents who rotate through Dr. Byrd’s Louisville clinic spend each Monday at the main campus in Jackson for a continuity clinic and didactics with non–rural track residents, “which allows for collegiality,” Dr. Ortego said. “My coresidents are like family; it would be hard to spend 3 months or even a year away from family like that.” The department foots the cost of lodging in a Louisville hotel 4 nights per week during these 3 months of training.

Dr. Ortego said that he performed a far greater number of procedures during PGY-2, compared with the averages performed in UMMC’s general dermatology rotation: 75 excisions (vs. 17), 71 repairs (vs. 15), and 23 excisions on the face or scalp (vs. none). He also cared for patients who presented with advanced disease because of access issues, and others with rare conditions. For example, in one afternoon clinic he and Dr. Byrd saw two patients with porphyria cutanea tarda, and one case each of dermatomyositis, bullous pemphigoid, and pyoderma gangrenosum. “We have an autoimmune blistering disease clinic in Jackson, but patients don’t want to drive there,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

Then there are the perks that come with practicing in a rural area, including ready access to hiking, fishing, hunting, and spending time with family and friends. “Rural residents should be comfortable with the lifestyle,” he said. “Some cities don’t have the same amenities as San Francisco or Boston, but not everyone requires that. They just love where they’re from.”

The residency’s structure is designed to address the dire shortage of rural-based dermatologists in the United States. A study published in 2018 found that the difference in dermatologist density between metropolitan and rural counties in the United States increased from 3.41 per 100,000 people (3.47 vs. 0.065 per 100,000 people) in 1995 to 4.03 per 100, 000 people (4.11 vs. 0.085 per 100,000 people in 2013; P = .053). That’s about 40 times the number of dermatologists in metro areas, compared with rural areas.

Residents enrolled in UMMC’s rural dermatology track are expected to serve at least 3 years at a rural location upon graduation at a site mutually agreed upon by the resident and the UMMC. Dr. Ortego plans to practice in Bay St. Louis after completing his residency. “The idea is that you’re happy, that you’re in your hometown,” he said.

According to Dr. Byrd, the 3-year commitment brings job security to rural track residents in their preferred location while meeting the demands of an underserved population. “We are still tweaking this,” he said of the residency track, which includes plans to establish more satellite clinics in other areas of rural Mississippi. “Our department chair does not have 100% control over hiring and office expansion. We are subject to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, which is a branch of the state government. This has to be addressed at the council of chairs and university chancellor level and even state government. It can be done, but you really must be dedicated.”

Meanwhile, the effect that dermatologists like Dr. Byrd have on citizens of his area of rural Mississippi is palpable. Many refuse to travel outside of Louisville city limits to see a specialist, so when surgery for a suspicious lesion is indicated, they tell him, “You’re going to do it, or it’s not going to get done,” said Dr. Byrd, who continues to serve in the Mississippi Army National Guard as a field surgeon. “I don’t say ‘no’ a whole lot.” He refers patients to Mohs micrographic surgery colleagues in Jackson daily and is transparent with patients who hesitate to elect Mohs surgery. “I’ll say, ‘I can do the job, but there’s a higher risk of positive margins, and a Mohs surgeon could do a much better job.’”

He acknowledged that rural dermatology “isn’t for everyone. It requires a physician that has a good training foundation in medical and surgical dermatology, someone with a ‘can do’ attitude and a healthy level of confidence. I try to do the best for my patients. It’s endearing when they trust you.”

Mary Logue, MD, who practices dermatology in Minot, N.D., finds the structure of UMMC’s rural dermatology track inspiring. Upon completing her dermatology residency at the University of New Mexico, where she remains on the volunteer faculty, she had hoped to return to serve the community of Gallup, N.M., and help bridge the gap in dermatology health care access for residents of rural New Mexico, especially those on Native American reservations. That opportunity never transpired, but Dr. Logue was able to pursue her passion for rural medicine in North Dakota.

“It is my hope that more programs will implement a similar structure to UMMC’s rural dermatology track and get more dermatologists practicing in rural areas,” Dr. Logue told this news organization. “They have developed a very practical and financially sustainable model, which I think every state could benefit from.”

She added that the UMMC “has found a way to bring dermatology to disadvantaged rural communities while also addressing the problem of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Medical students of color and medical students from rural communities are the least represented groups in dermatology, but the most likely to return to their communities to practice. Every day I see patients with adverse dermatologic outcomes as a direct result of lack of access to a dermatologist. This is happening across the country, which is why the efforts of UMMC Dermatology and their department chair, Dr. Brodell, are so important.”

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Coronavirus-related hospital admissions and deaths in the United States are projected to increase over the next four weeks, according to a national forecast used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The national model also predicts that about 5,000 deaths will occur over the next two weeks, with Ohio, New Jersey, and New York projected to see the largest totals of daily deaths in upcoming weeks.

The numbers follow several weeks of steady increases in infections across the country. More than 67,000 new cases are being reported daily, according to the data tracker from The New York Times, marking a 59% increase in the past two weeks.

In the Northeast, infection rates have risen by nearly 65%. In the New York and New Jersey region, infection rates are up about 55% in the past two weeks.

Hospitalizations have already begun to climb as well, with about 19,000 COVID-19 patients hospitalized nationwide and 1,725 in intensive care, according to the latest data from the Department of Health and Human Services. In the last week, hospital admissions have jumped by 20%, and emergency department visits are up by 18%.

The CDC forecast shows that 42 states and territories will see increases in hospital admissions during the next two weeks. Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin will see some of the largest increases.

On average, more than 2,200 COVID-19 patients are entering the hospital each day, which has increased about 20% in the last week, according to ABC News. This also marks the highest number of COVID-19 patients needing hospital care since mid-March.

Public health officials have cited several factors for the increase in cases, such as states lifting mask mandates and other safety restrictions, ABC News reported. Highly contagious Omicron subvariants, such as BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, continue to spread in the United States and escape immunity from previous infections.

The BA.2 subvariant accounts for 62% of new national cases, according to the latest CDC data. The BA.2.12.1 subvariant makes up about 36% of new cases across the United States but 62% in the New York area.

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

Coronavirus-related hospital admissions and deaths in the United States are projected to increase over the next four weeks, according to a national forecast used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The national model also predicts that about 5,000 deaths will occur over the next two weeks, with Ohio, New Jersey, and New York projected to see the largest totals of daily deaths in upcoming weeks.

The numbers follow several weeks of steady increases in infections across the country. More than 67,000 new cases are being reported daily, according to the data tracker from The New York Times, marking a 59% increase in the past two weeks.

In the Northeast, infection rates have risen by nearly 65%. In the New York and New Jersey region, infection rates are up about 55% in the past two weeks.

Hospitalizations have already begun to climb as well, with about 19,000 COVID-19 patients hospitalized nationwide and 1,725 in intensive care, according to the latest data from the Department of Health and Human Services. In the last week, hospital admissions have jumped by 20%, and emergency department visits are up by 18%.

The CDC forecast shows that 42 states and territories will see increases in hospital admissions during the next two weeks. Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin will see some of the largest increases.

On average, more than 2,200 COVID-19 patients are entering the hospital each day, which has increased about 20% in the last week, according to ABC News. This also marks the highest number of COVID-19 patients needing hospital care since mid-March.

Public health officials have cited several factors for the increase in cases, such as states lifting mask mandates and other safety restrictions, ABC News reported. Highly contagious Omicron subvariants, such as BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, continue to spread in the United States and escape immunity from previous infections.

The BA.2 subvariant accounts for 62% of new national cases, according to the latest CDC data. The BA.2.12.1 subvariant makes up about 36% of new cases across the United States but 62% in the New York area.

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

Coronavirus-related hospital admissions and deaths in the United States are projected to increase over the next four weeks, according to a national forecast used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The national model also predicts that about 5,000 deaths will occur over the next two weeks, with Ohio, New Jersey, and New York projected to see the largest totals of daily deaths in upcoming weeks.

The numbers follow several weeks of steady increases in infections across the country. More than 67,000 new cases are being reported daily, according to the data tracker from The New York Times, marking a 59% increase in the past two weeks.

In the Northeast, infection rates have risen by nearly 65%. In the New York and New Jersey region, infection rates are up about 55% in the past two weeks.

Hospitalizations have already begun to climb as well, with about 19,000 COVID-19 patients hospitalized nationwide and 1,725 in intensive care, according to the latest data from the Department of Health and Human Services. In the last week, hospital admissions have jumped by 20%, and emergency department visits are up by 18%.

The CDC forecast shows that 42 states and territories will see increases in hospital admissions during the next two weeks. Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin will see some of the largest increases.

On average, more than 2,200 COVID-19 patients are entering the hospital each day, which has increased about 20% in the last week, according to ABC News. This also marks the highest number of COVID-19 patients needing hospital care since mid-March.

Public health officials have cited several factors for the increase in cases, such as states lifting mask mandates and other safety restrictions, ABC News reported. Highly contagious Omicron subvariants, such as BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, continue to spread in the United States and escape immunity from previous infections.

The BA.2 subvariant accounts for 62% of new national cases, according to the latest CDC data. The BA.2.12.1 subvariant makes up about 36% of new cases across the United States but 62% in the New York area.

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

Physician assistants (PAs) entered dermatology at a higher rate than all other specialties combined from 2013 to 2018, based on national certification data.

Dermatology added PAs at a mean rate of 11.6% annually over that 6-year period, compared with a mean of 7.8% for all other specialties (P <.001), as the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants (NCCPA) tallied 2,324 working in dermatology and 64,490 in all other specialties in 2013 and 3,938/94,616, respectively, in 2018, Justin D. Arnold, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and associates reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“There is, however, a lack of racial and ethnic diversity within the dermatology PA workforce,” they noted. A detailed comparison using the 2018 data showed that only 1.6% of dermatology PAs identified as Black, compared with 3.7% of those in all other specialties (P <.001), although “similar rates of Hispanic ethnicity were observed” in dermatology PAs (6.0%) and PAs in other fields (6.5%), the investigators added.

That was not the case for women in the profession, as 82% of PAs in dermatology were female in 2018, compared with 67% in the other specialties. Dermatology PAs also were significantly more likely to work in office-based practices than their nondermatology peers (93% vs. 37%, P < .001) and to reside in metropolitan areas (95% vs. 92%, P < .001), Dr. Arnold and associates said in the research letter.

The dermatology PAs also were more likely to work part time (30 or fewer hours per week) than those outside dermatology, 19.1% vs. 12.9% (P < .001). Despite that, the dermatology PAs reported seeing more patients per week (a mean of 119) than those in all of the other specialties (a mean of 71), the investigators said.

The total number of certified PAs was over 131,000 in 2018, but about 25% had not selected a principal specialty in their PA Professional Profiles and were not included in the study, they explained.

“Although this study did not assess the reasons for the substantial increase of dermatology PAs, numerous factors, such as a potential physician shortage or the expansion of private equity–owned practices, may contribute to the accelerating use of PAs within the field,” they wrote.

Physician assistants (PAs) entered dermatology at a higher rate than all other specialties combined from 2013 to 2018, based on national certification data.

Dermatology added PAs at a mean rate of 11.6% annually over that 6-year period, compared with a mean of 7.8% for all other specialties (P <.001), as the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants (NCCPA) tallied 2,324 working in dermatology and 64,490 in all other specialties in 2013 and 3,938/94,616, respectively, in 2018, Justin D. Arnold, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and associates reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“There is, however, a lack of racial and ethnic diversity within the dermatology PA workforce,” they noted. A detailed comparison using the 2018 data showed that only 1.6% of dermatology PAs identified as Black, compared with 3.7% of those in all other specialties (P <.001), although “similar rates of Hispanic ethnicity were observed” in dermatology PAs (6.0%) and PAs in other fields (6.5%), the investigators added.

That was not the case for women in the profession, as 82% of PAs in dermatology were female in 2018, compared with 67% in the other specialties. Dermatology PAs also were significantly more likely to work in office-based practices than their nondermatology peers (93% vs. 37%, P < .001) and to reside in metropolitan areas (95% vs. 92%, P < .001), Dr. Arnold and associates said in the research letter.

The dermatology PAs also were more likely to work part time (30 or fewer hours per week) than those outside dermatology, 19.1% vs. 12.9% (P < .001). Despite that, the dermatology PAs reported seeing more patients per week (a mean of 119) than those in all of the other specialties (a mean of 71), the investigators said.

The total number of certified PAs was over 131,000 in 2018, but about 25% had not selected a principal specialty in their PA Professional Profiles and were not included in the study, they explained.

“Although this study did not assess the reasons for the substantial increase of dermatology PAs, numerous factors, such as a potential physician shortage or the expansion of private equity–owned practices, may contribute to the accelerating use of PAs within the field,” they wrote.

Physician assistants (PAs) entered dermatology at a higher rate than all other specialties combined from 2013 to 2018, based on national certification data.

Dermatology added PAs at a mean rate of 11.6% annually over that 6-year period, compared with a mean of 7.8% for all other specialties (P <.001), as the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants (NCCPA) tallied 2,324 working in dermatology and 64,490 in all other specialties in 2013 and 3,938/94,616, respectively, in 2018, Justin D. Arnold, MD, of the University of California, Irvine, and associates reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“There is, however, a lack of racial and ethnic diversity within the dermatology PA workforce,” they noted. A detailed comparison using the 2018 data showed that only 1.6% of dermatology PAs identified as Black, compared with 3.7% of those in all other specialties (P <.001), although “similar rates of Hispanic ethnicity were observed” in dermatology PAs (6.0%) and PAs in other fields (6.5%), the investigators added.

That was not the case for women in the profession, as 82% of PAs in dermatology were female in 2018, compared with 67% in the other specialties. Dermatology PAs also were significantly more likely to work in office-based practices than their nondermatology peers (93% vs. 37%, P < .001) and to reside in metropolitan areas (95% vs. 92%, P < .001), Dr. Arnold and associates said in the research letter.

The dermatology PAs also were more likely to work part time (30 or fewer hours per week) than those outside dermatology, 19.1% vs. 12.9% (P < .001). Despite that, the dermatology PAs reported seeing more patients per week (a mean of 119) than those in all of the other specialties (a mean of 71), the investigators said.

The total number of certified PAs was over 131,000 in 2018, but about 25% had not selected a principal specialty in their PA Professional Profiles and were not included in the study, they explained.

“Although this study did not assess the reasons for the substantial increase of dermatology PAs, numerous factors, such as a potential physician shortage or the expansion of private equity–owned practices, may contribute to the accelerating use of PAs within the field,” they wrote.

A mutation in a gene involved in chromatin remodeling is associated with aggressive melanoma, according to a new study that combined in vitro and animal model data.

The gene, ARID2, is a part of the switch/sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) complex, which maneuvers cellular structures called nucleosomes to make cellular DNA accessible. About 20% of human cancers have a mutation within the SWI/SNF complex.

In the new study, published in Cell Reports, researchers reported that the ARID2 subunit was mutated in about 13% of melanoma patients identified through the Cancer Genome Atlas.

ARID2 mutations have been found in early melanoma lesions, which the authors suggested may play a role in early cancer cell dissemination. Other studies have shown SWI/SNF mutations, including ARID2 mutations, in melanoma metastases, especially the brain.

The researchers also found an up-regulation of synaptic pathways in melanoma cells as well as the Cancer Genome Atlas, which also suggests a potential role of ARID2 loss in metastasis or targeting the brain, since synaptic activation in cancer cells has been shown elsewhere to influence cell migration and survival in the brain.

“We look forward to future studies that investigate the role of the PBAF complex ... in order to better tailor treatments for melanoma patients,” wrote the study authors, who were led by Emily Bernstein, PhD, a professor in oncological sciences with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The SWI/SNF complex includes a subcomplex that targets specific DNA sequences or chromatin reader domains. There are multiple versions of the targeting subcomplex, but two of the most frequently occurring are BAF and PBAF. The most commonly mutated subunit in melanoma is ARID2, which is part of PBAF, and contains an AT-rich region responsible for non–sequence-specific DNA interactions. There is evidence that it plays a role in tumor suppression. In mouse tumors, depletion of ARID2 is associated with increased sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibition and destruction by T cells.

To better understand the role of ARID2 in tumor suppression, the researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 to create ARID2 deficiency in a known human metastatic melanoma cell line. They found there was reduced chromatin accessibility and accompanying gene expression among some PBAF and shared BAF-PBAF–occupied regions. There was also increased chromatin accessibility and gene expression in BAF-occupied regions, and these changes were associated with tumor aggression. In mice, they led to metastasis of distal organs.

This mechanism appears to be conserved between different melanoma cell lines, but deregulated transcriptional targets were different depending on the dominant transcription factors in the cell line. That suggests that the effect of ARID2 mutation or loss may be different depending on the stage of melanoma progression or level of invasiveness. “As melanoma comprises transcriptionally distinct, heterogeneous cell populations, we envision future studies utilizing single-cell methodologies to better understand the nuanced effects of ARID2 loss within subpopulations of cells in human melanoma tumors,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by the fact that not all ARID2 mutations lead to complete loss of protein, and may lead instead to aberrant complexes.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

A mutation in a gene involved in chromatin remodeling is associated with aggressive melanoma, according to a new study that combined in vitro and animal model data.

The gene, ARID2, is a part of the switch/sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) complex, which maneuvers cellular structures called nucleosomes to make cellular DNA accessible. About 20% of human cancers have a mutation within the SWI/SNF complex.

In the new study, published in Cell Reports, researchers reported that the ARID2 subunit was mutated in about 13% of melanoma patients identified through the Cancer Genome Atlas.

ARID2 mutations have been found in early melanoma lesions, which the authors suggested may play a role in early cancer cell dissemination. Other studies have shown SWI/SNF mutations, including ARID2 mutations, in melanoma metastases, especially the brain.

The researchers also found an up-regulation of synaptic pathways in melanoma cells as well as the Cancer Genome Atlas, which also suggests a potential role of ARID2 loss in metastasis or targeting the brain, since synaptic activation in cancer cells has been shown elsewhere to influence cell migration and survival in the brain.

“We look forward to future studies that investigate the role of the PBAF complex ... in order to better tailor treatments for melanoma patients,” wrote the study authors, who were led by Emily Bernstein, PhD, a professor in oncological sciences with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The SWI/SNF complex includes a subcomplex that targets specific DNA sequences or chromatin reader domains. There are multiple versions of the targeting subcomplex, but two of the most frequently occurring are BAF and PBAF. The most commonly mutated subunit in melanoma is ARID2, which is part of PBAF, and contains an AT-rich region responsible for non–sequence-specific DNA interactions. There is evidence that it plays a role in tumor suppression. In mouse tumors, depletion of ARID2 is associated with increased sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibition and destruction by T cells.

To better understand the role of ARID2 in tumor suppression, the researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 to create ARID2 deficiency in a known human metastatic melanoma cell line. They found there was reduced chromatin accessibility and accompanying gene expression among some PBAF and shared BAF-PBAF–occupied regions. There was also increased chromatin accessibility and gene expression in BAF-occupied regions, and these changes were associated with tumor aggression. In mice, they led to metastasis of distal organs.

This mechanism appears to be conserved between different melanoma cell lines, but deregulated transcriptional targets were different depending on the dominant transcription factors in the cell line. That suggests that the effect of ARID2 mutation or loss may be different depending on the stage of melanoma progression or level of invasiveness. “As melanoma comprises transcriptionally distinct, heterogeneous cell populations, we envision future studies utilizing single-cell methodologies to better understand the nuanced effects of ARID2 loss within subpopulations of cells in human melanoma tumors,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by the fact that not all ARID2 mutations lead to complete loss of protein, and may lead instead to aberrant complexes.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

A mutation in a gene involved in chromatin remodeling is associated with aggressive melanoma, according to a new study that combined in vitro and animal model data.

The gene, ARID2, is a part of the switch/sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) complex, which maneuvers cellular structures called nucleosomes to make cellular DNA accessible. About 20% of human cancers have a mutation within the SWI/SNF complex.

In the new study, published in Cell Reports, researchers reported that the ARID2 subunit was mutated in about 13% of melanoma patients identified through the Cancer Genome Atlas.

ARID2 mutations have been found in early melanoma lesions, which the authors suggested may play a role in early cancer cell dissemination. Other studies have shown SWI/SNF mutations, including ARID2 mutations, in melanoma metastases, especially the brain.

The researchers also found an up-regulation of synaptic pathways in melanoma cells as well as the Cancer Genome Atlas, which also suggests a potential role of ARID2 loss in metastasis or targeting the brain, since synaptic activation in cancer cells has been shown elsewhere to influence cell migration and survival in the brain.

“We look forward to future studies that investigate the role of the PBAF complex ... in order to better tailor treatments for melanoma patients,” wrote the study authors, who were led by Emily Bernstein, PhD, a professor in oncological sciences with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The SWI/SNF complex includes a subcomplex that targets specific DNA sequences or chromatin reader domains. There are multiple versions of the targeting subcomplex, but two of the most frequently occurring are BAF and PBAF. The most commonly mutated subunit in melanoma is ARID2, which is part of PBAF, and contains an AT-rich region responsible for non–sequence-specific DNA interactions. There is evidence that it plays a role in tumor suppression. In mouse tumors, depletion of ARID2 is associated with increased sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibition and destruction by T cells.

To better understand the role of ARID2 in tumor suppression, the researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 to create ARID2 deficiency in a known human metastatic melanoma cell line. They found there was reduced chromatin accessibility and accompanying gene expression among some PBAF and shared BAF-PBAF–occupied regions. There was also increased chromatin accessibility and gene expression in BAF-occupied regions, and these changes were associated with tumor aggression. In mice, they led to metastasis of distal organs.

This mechanism appears to be conserved between different melanoma cell lines, but deregulated transcriptional targets were different depending on the dominant transcription factors in the cell line. That suggests that the effect of ARID2 mutation or loss may be different depending on the stage of melanoma progression or level of invasiveness. “As melanoma comprises transcriptionally distinct, heterogeneous cell populations, we envision future studies utilizing single-cell methodologies to better understand the nuanced effects of ARID2 loss within subpopulations of cells in human melanoma tumors,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by the fact that not all ARID2 mutations lead to complete loss of protein, and may lead instead to aberrant complexes.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.