The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer patients with advanced disease may be contradictory and cause more harm than good, according to a new study in JAMA Oncology.

The study, by Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, is an analysis of patient data from 280 U.S.-based community oncology practices. It included 34,131 patients who received first-line systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), or other treatment, between January 2014 and December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cell cancer (UCC), renal cell cancer (RCC), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Researchers examined survival outcomes between patients who were eligible to participate in clinical trials with those who were deemed ineligible but may have still received ICIs.

For patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction, participating in randomized clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors is largely out of reach because of advanced disease, but it is not unusual for these patients to be accepted into clinical trials, a decision sometimes referred to as “desperation oncology,” the authors wrote.

In this study of 34,131 patients, 9,318 were considered ineligible to participate in ICI clinical trials because of advanced disease or organ dysfunction, yet up to 30% of these patients were treated with ICIs by their physician outside of a clinical trial. Dr. Parikh and colleagues found no overall survival differences between patients deemed ineligible for clinical trials, but were ultimately treated with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or other treatments at 12 and 36 months. In fact, ICI monotherapy appeared to be harmful within 6 months of starting treatment.

“Clinicians who care for patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction should be cautious about ICI use and carefully weigh expected survival gains against the potential for early mortality and adverse effects,” the authors wrote. They found the efficacy of ICI treatment alone, or in combination with other treatment, can be worse among trial-ineligible patients than patients who met the criteria for clinical trials.

No survival benefit was found for trial-ineligible patients who were treated with ICI monotherapy or combination therapy. Overall survival rates were similar at 12 and 36 months for both treatment groups. The overall median survival was less than 10 months, but 40% of trial ineligible patients treated with ICIs died within 6 months.

The use of ICIs for patients with poor performance status was found to be associated with lower hospice enrollment, more inpatient deaths, and more treatment during the last month of life. “It is critical to ensure that vulnerable, trial-ineligible patients are not exposed to non–evidence-based therapies that could cause harm and contradict patient goals,” the authors wrote.
 

The harms of treating unfit patients

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in trial-ineligible patients is concerning, the authors said, because for patients with UCC and NSCLC, the standard of care is platinum-based chemotherapy. For patients with HCC and RCC, the standard of care is oral anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be prescribed in these cases to avoid side effects associated with other therapies, despite the lack of evidence showing that ICIs are effective in these cases.

“Individuals with poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction are vulnerable to receiving treatments that may not benefit them or cause disproportionately high side effects,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “Immunotherapy causes fewer side effects overall and is an attractive option, but there is no good phase 3 evidence that immunotherapy has benefits in this population.

“Physicians are preferentially using immunotherapy for unfit patients despite the fact that these individuals are usually excluded from clinical trials. Trial-ineligible patients – despite making up 30% of the cancer population – are different from patients studied in clinical trials. They are generally sicker, older and more prone to treatment adverse effects (including death), However, excluding these groups means that we don’t have good data on what treatments could benefit this vulnerable group. Thus, we are usually left to extrapolating results from healthier patients to unhealthy patients which risks giving them the wrong treatment,” he said.

A review that looked at immunotherapy in older adults suggested that, while those aged 65 or older represent most cancer patients, they are under-represented in clinical trials, including studies that led to approval of immunotherapy agents. A 2019 report suggested that, while 11 pivotal phase 3, randomized clinical trials have estimated the activity of ICIs in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC, each trial excluded patients with poor performance status.
 

Phase 3 trials needed for patients with poor performance

This retrospective study included 34,131 patients (median age, 70 years; 42% women) of which 27.3% had poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction and were classed as trial ineligible. The researchers assessed the use and overall survival outcomes following first-line ICI and non-ICI therapy that was initiated from January 2014 through December 2019.

Over the course of the study, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0%-30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and from 0.1%-19.4% among eligible patients. However, among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between treatment with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy and non-ICI therapy at 12 and 36 months.

Among trial-ineligible patients, ICI use was linked to a 14%-19% greater risk of death during the first 6 months after ICI initiation, but a 20% lower risk of death among those who survived 6 months after ICI initiation. Further, ICI combination therapy was associated with potential early harm among trial-ineligible patients.

“Phase 3 trials are sorely needed in patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction so that we can adequately counsel patients who are unfit about expectations with novel cancer therapies,” Dr. Parikh said.

The cohort only included patients who received systemic therapy, which is a limitation of the study, so conclusions cannot be made about the efficacy of systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy in trial-ineligible patients.

Dr. Parikh reported nonfinancial support from Flatiron Health, grants from Humana, personal fees and equity from GNS Healthcare and Onc.AI, along with personal fees from the Cancer Study Group and Nanology outside the submitted work.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer patients with advanced disease may be contradictory and cause more harm than good, according to a new study in JAMA Oncology.

The study, by Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, is an analysis of patient data from 280 U.S.-based community oncology practices. It included 34,131 patients who received first-line systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), or other treatment, between January 2014 and December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cell cancer (UCC), renal cell cancer (RCC), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Researchers examined survival outcomes between patients who were eligible to participate in clinical trials with those who were deemed ineligible but may have still received ICIs.

For patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction, participating in randomized clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors is largely out of reach because of advanced disease, but it is not unusual for these patients to be accepted into clinical trials, a decision sometimes referred to as “desperation oncology,” the authors wrote.

In this study of 34,131 patients, 9,318 were considered ineligible to participate in ICI clinical trials because of advanced disease or organ dysfunction, yet up to 30% of these patients were treated with ICIs by their physician outside of a clinical trial. Dr. Parikh and colleagues found no overall survival differences between patients deemed ineligible for clinical trials, but were ultimately treated with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or other treatments at 12 and 36 months. In fact, ICI monotherapy appeared to be harmful within 6 months of starting treatment.

“Clinicians who care for patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction should be cautious about ICI use and carefully weigh expected survival gains against the potential for early mortality and adverse effects,” the authors wrote. They found the efficacy of ICI treatment alone, or in combination with other treatment, can be worse among trial-ineligible patients than patients who met the criteria for clinical trials.

No survival benefit was found for trial-ineligible patients who were treated with ICI monotherapy or combination therapy. Overall survival rates were similar at 12 and 36 months for both treatment groups. The overall median survival was less than 10 months, but 40% of trial ineligible patients treated with ICIs died within 6 months.

The use of ICIs for patients with poor performance status was found to be associated with lower hospice enrollment, more inpatient deaths, and more treatment during the last month of life. “It is critical to ensure that vulnerable, trial-ineligible patients are not exposed to non–evidence-based therapies that could cause harm and contradict patient goals,” the authors wrote.
 

The harms of treating unfit patients

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in trial-ineligible patients is concerning, the authors said, because for patients with UCC and NSCLC, the standard of care is platinum-based chemotherapy. For patients with HCC and RCC, the standard of care is oral anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be prescribed in these cases to avoid side effects associated with other therapies, despite the lack of evidence showing that ICIs are effective in these cases.

“Individuals with poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction are vulnerable to receiving treatments that may not benefit them or cause disproportionately high side effects,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “Immunotherapy causes fewer side effects overall and is an attractive option, but there is no good phase 3 evidence that immunotherapy has benefits in this population.

“Physicians are preferentially using immunotherapy for unfit patients despite the fact that these individuals are usually excluded from clinical trials. Trial-ineligible patients – despite making up 30% of the cancer population – are different from patients studied in clinical trials. They are generally sicker, older and more prone to treatment adverse effects (including death), However, excluding these groups means that we don’t have good data on what treatments could benefit this vulnerable group. Thus, we are usually left to extrapolating results from healthier patients to unhealthy patients which risks giving them the wrong treatment,” he said.

A review that looked at immunotherapy in older adults suggested that, while those aged 65 or older represent most cancer patients, they are under-represented in clinical trials, including studies that led to approval of immunotherapy agents. A 2019 report suggested that, while 11 pivotal phase 3, randomized clinical trials have estimated the activity of ICIs in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC, each trial excluded patients with poor performance status.
 

Phase 3 trials needed for patients with poor performance

This retrospective study included 34,131 patients (median age, 70 years; 42% women) of which 27.3% had poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction and were classed as trial ineligible. The researchers assessed the use and overall survival outcomes following first-line ICI and non-ICI therapy that was initiated from January 2014 through December 2019.

Over the course of the study, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0%-30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and from 0.1%-19.4% among eligible patients. However, among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between treatment with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy and non-ICI therapy at 12 and 36 months.

Among trial-ineligible patients, ICI use was linked to a 14%-19% greater risk of death during the first 6 months after ICI initiation, but a 20% lower risk of death among those who survived 6 months after ICI initiation. Further, ICI combination therapy was associated with potential early harm among trial-ineligible patients.

“Phase 3 trials are sorely needed in patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction so that we can adequately counsel patients who are unfit about expectations with novel cancer therapies,” Dr. Parikh said.

The cohort only included patients who received systemic therapy, which is a limitation of the study, so conclusions cannot be made about the efficacy of systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy in trial-ineligible patients.

Dr. Parikh reported nonfinancial support from Flatiron Health, grants from Humana, personal fees and equity from GNS Healthcare and Onc.AI, along with personal fees from the Cancer Study Group and Nanology outside the submitted work.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer patients with advanced disease may be contradictory and cause more harm than good, according to a new study in JAMA Oncology.

The study, by Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, is an analysis of patient data from 280 U.S.-based community oncology practices. It included 34,131 patients who received first-line systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), or other treatment, between January 2014 and December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cell cancer (UCC), renal cell cancer (RCC), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Researchers examined survival outcomes between patients who were eligible to participate in clinical trials with those who were deemed ineligible but may have still received ICIs.

For patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction, participating in randomized clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors is largely out of reach because of advanced disease, but it is not unusual for these patients to be accepted into clinical trials, a decision sometimes referred to as “desperation oncology,” the authors wrote.

In this study of 34,131 patients, 9,318 were considered ineligible to participate in ICI clinical trials because of advanced disease or organ dysfunction, yet up to 30% of these patients were treated with ICIs by their physician outside of a clinical trial. Dr. Parikh and colleagues found no overall survival differences between patients deemed ineligible for clinical trials, but were ultimately treated with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or other treatments at 12 and 36 months. In fact, ICI monotherapy appeared to be harmful within 6 months of starting treatment.

“Clinicians who care for patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction should be cautious about ICI use and carefully weigh expected survival gains against the potential for early mortality and adverse effects,” the authors wrote. They found the efficacy of ICI treatment alone, or in combination with other treatment, can be worse among trial-ineligible patients than patients who met the criteria for clinical trials.

No survival benefit was found for trial-ineligible patients who were treated with ICI monotherapy or combination therapy. Overall survival rates were similar at 12 and 36 months for both treatment groups. The overall median survival was less than 10 months, but 40% of trial ineligible patients treated with ICIs died within 6 months.

The use of ICIs for patients with poor performance status was found to be associated with lower hospice enrollment, more inpatient deaths, and more treatment during the last month of life. “It is critical to ensure that vulnerable, trial-ineligible patients are not exposed to non–evidence-based therapies that could cause harm and contradict patient goals,” the authors wrote.
 

The harms of treating unfit patients

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in trial-ineligible patients is concerning, the authors said, because for patients with UCC and NSCLC, the standard of care is platinum-based chemotherapy. For patients with HCC and RCC, the standard of care is oral anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be prescribed in these cases to avoid side effects associated with other therapies, despite the lack of evidence showing that ICIs are effective in these cases.

“Individuals with poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction are vulnerable to receiving treatments that may not benefit them or cause disproportionately high side effects,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “Immunotherapy causes fewer side effects overall and is an attractive option, but there is no good phase 3 evidence that immunotherapy has benefits in this population.

“Physicians are preferentially using immunotherapy for unfit patients despite the fact that these individuals are usually excluded from clinical trials. Trial-ineligible patients – despite making up 30% of the cancer population – are different from patients studied in clinical trials. They are generally sicker, older and more prone to treatment adverse effects (including death), However, excluding these groups means that we don’t have good data on what treatments could benefit this vulnerable group. Thus, we are usually left to extrapolating results from healthier patients to unhealthy patients which risks giving them the wrong treatment,” he said.

A review that looked at immunotherapy in older adults suggested that, while those aged 65 or older represent most cancer patients, they are under-represented in clinical trials, including studies that led to approval of immunotherapy agents. A 2019 report suggested that, while 11 pivotal phase 3, randomized clinical trials have estimated the activity of ICIs in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC, each trial excluded patients with poor performance status.
 

Phase 3 trials needed for patients with poor performance

This retrospective study included 34,131 patients (median age, 70 years; 42% women) of which 27.3% had poor performance status and/or organ dysfunction and were classed as trial ineligible. The researchers assessed the use and overall survival outcomes following first-line ICI and non-ICI therapy that was initiated from January 2014 through December 2019.

Over the course of the study, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0%-30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and from 0.1%-19.4% among eligible patients. However, among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between treatment with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy and non-ICI therapy at 12 and 36 months.

Among trial-ineligible patients, ICI use was linked to a 14%-19% greater risk of death during the first 6 months after ICI initiation, but a 20% lower risk of death among those who survived 6 months after ICI initiation. Further, ICI combination therapy was associated with potential early harm among trial-ineligible patients.

“Phase 3 trials are sorely needed in patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction so that we can adequately counsel patients who are unfit about expectations with novel cancer therapies,” Dr. Parikh said.

The cohort only included patients who received systemic therapy, which is a limitation of the study, so conclusions cannot be made about the efficacy of systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy in trial-ineligible patients.

Dr. Parikh reported nonfinancial support from Flatiron Health, grants from Humana, personal fees and equity from GNS Healthcare and Onc.AI, along with personal fees from the Cancer Study Group and Nanology outside the submitted work.

Physicians, clinicians, providers, healers, and now heroes, are some of the names we have been given throughout history. These titles bring together a universal concept in medicine that all human beings deserve compassion, understanding, and care. However, as health care providers we forget to show ourselves the same compassion we bestow upon others.

Self-compassion is a new way of relating to ourselves. As clinicians, we are trained investigators, delving deeper into what our patient is thinking and feeling. “Tell me more about that. How does that make you feel? That must have been (very painful/scary/frustrating).” These are a few statements we learned in patient interviewing to actively engage with patients, build rapport, solidify trust, validate their concerns, and ultimately obtain the information needed to diagnose and heal.

We know the importance of looking beyond the surface, as more often than not a deeper inspection reveals more to the story. We have uncovered cracks in the foundation, erosion of the roof, worn out siding, and a glimpse into the complexities that make up each individual. We look at our patients, loved ones, and the world with night-vision lenses to uncover what is deeper.

Clinicians are good at directing compassion toward others, but not as good at giving it to themselves.¹ Many health care providers may see self-compassion as soft, weak, selfish, or unnecessary. However, mindful self-compassion is a positive practice that opens a pathway for healing, personal growth, and protection against the negative consequences of self-judgment, isolation, anxiety, burnout, and depression.
 

What is self-compassion?

Kristin Neff, PhD, an associate professor in educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, was the first to academically define self-compassion. Self-compassion brings together three core elements – kindness, humanity, and mindfulness.² Self-compassion involves acting the same way toward yourself when you are having a difficult time as you would toward another person. Instead of mercilessly judging and criticizing yourself for self-perceived inadequacies or shortcomings, self-compassion allows you to ask yourself: “How can I give myself comfort and care in this moment?”

Mindfulness acknowledges a painful experience without resistance or judgment, while being present in the moment with things as they are. Self-compassion provides the emotional safety needed to mindfully open to our pain, disappointments, and defeats. Mindfulness and self-compassion both allow us to live with more acceptance toward ourselves and our lives. Mindfulness asks: “What am I experiencing right now?” Self-compassion asks: “What do I need right now?” When you feel compassion for yourself or another, you recognize that suffering, failure, and imperfection are all part of the shared human experience.
 

The physiology of self-compassion

When we practice self-compassion, we feel safe and cared for because there is a physiological pathway that explains this response. Self-compassion helps down-regulate the stress response (fight-flight-freeze). When we are triggered by a threat to our self-concept, we are likely to do one, two, or all of three things: we fight ourselves (self-criticism – often our first reaction when things go wrong), we flee from others (isolation), or we freeze (rumination).

Feeling threatened puts stress on the mind and body, and chronic stress leads to anxiety and depression, which hinders emotional and physical well-being. With self-criticism, we are both the attacker and the attacked. When we practice self-compassion, we are deactivating the threat-defense system and activating the care system, releasing oxytocin and endorphins, which reduce stress and increase feelings of safety and security.³
 

Why is self-compassion important to provider well-being?

Research has shown that individuals who are more self-compassionate tend to have greater happiness, life satisfaction, and motivation; better relationships and physical health; and less anxiety and depression. They also have the resilience needed to cope with stressful life events. The more we practice being kind and compassionate with ourselves, the more we’ll increase the habit of self-compassion, and extend compassion to our patients and loved ones in daily life.⁴

Why is self-compassion important? When we experience a setback at work or in life, we can become defensive, accuse others, or blame ourselves, especially when we are already under immense stress. These responses are not helpful, productive, or effective to the situation or our personal well-being. Although in the moment it may feel good to be reactive, it is a short-lived feeling that we trade for the longer-lasting effects of learning, resilience, and personal growth. Self-compassion teaches us to connect with our inner imperfections, and what makes us human, as to err is human.

To cultivate a habit of self-compassion itself, it is important to understand that self-compassion is a practice of goodwill, not good feelings. Self-compassion is aimed at the alleviation of suffering, but it does not erase any pain and suffering that does exist. The truth is, we can’t always control external forces – the events of 2020-2021 are a perfect example of this. As a result, we cannot utilize self-compassion as a practice to make our pain disappear or suppress strong emotions.

Instead, self-compassion helps us cultivate the resilience needed to mindfully acknowledge and accept a painful moment or experience, while reminding us to embrace ourselves with kindness and care in response. This builds our internal foundation with support, love, and self-care, while providing the optimal conditions for growth, resilience, and transformation
 

Self-compassion and the backdraft phenomenon

When you start the practice of self-compassion, you may experience backdraft, a phenomenon in which pain initially increases.⁵ Backdraft is similar to the stages of grief or when the flames of a burning house become larger when a door is opened and oxygen surges in. Practicing self-compassion may cause a tidal wave of emotions to come to the forefront, but it is likely that if this happens, it needs to happen.

Imagine yourself in a room with two versions of yourself. To the left is your best self that you present to the world, standing tall, organized, well kept, and without any noticeable imperfections. To the right, is the deepest part of your being, laying on the floor, filled with raw emotions – sadness, fear, anger, and love. This version of yourself is vulnerable, open, honest, and imperfect. When looking at each version of yourself, which one is the real you? The right? The left? Maybe it’s both?

Imagine what would happen if you walked over to the version of yourself on the right, sat down, and provided it comfort, and embraced yourself with love and kindness. What would happen if you gave that version of yourself a hug? Seeing your true self, with all the layers peeled away, at the very core of your being, vulnerable, and possibly broken, is a powerful and gut-wrenching experience. It may hurt at first, but once we embrace our own pain and suffering, that is where mindfulness and self-compassion intersect to begin the path to healing. It takes more strength and courage to be the version of ourselves on the right than the version on the left.
 

What is not self compassion?

Self-compassion is not self-pity, weakness, self-esteem, or selfishness. When individuals feel self-pity, they become immersed in their own problems and feel that they are the only ones in the world who are suffering. Self-compassion makes us more willing to accept, experience, and acknowledge difficult feelings with kindness. This paradoxically helps us process and let go of these feelings without long-term negative consequences, and with a better ability to recognize the suffering of others.

Self-compassion allows us to be our own inner ally and strengthens our ability to cope successfully when life gets hard. Self-compassion will not make you weak and vulnerable. It is a reliable source of inner strength that enhances resilience when faced with difficulties. Research shows self-compassionate people are better able to cope with tough situations like divorce, trauma, and crisis.

Self-compassion and self-esteem are important to well-being; however, they are not the same. Self-esteem refers to a judgment or evaluation of our sense of self-worth, perceived value, or how much we like ourselves. While self-compassion relates to the changing landscape of who we are with kindness and acceptance – especially in times when we feel useless, inadequate, or hopeless – self-esteem allows for greater self-clarity, independent of external circumstances, and acknowledges that all human beings deserve compassion and understanding, not because they possess certain traits or have a certain perceive valued, but because we share the human experience and the human condition of imperfection. Finally, self-compassion is not selfish, as practicing it helps people sustain the act of caring for others and decrease caregiver burnout.^6,7
 

Strategies to practice self-compassion

There are many ways to practice self-compassion. Here are a few experiences created by Dr. Neff, a leader in the field.⁸

Experience 1: How would you treat a friend?

How do you think things might change if you responded to yourself in the same way you typically respond to a close friend when he or she is suffering? Why not try treating yourself like a good friend and see what happens.

Take out a sheet of paper and write down your answer to the following questions:

• First, think about times when a close friend feels really bad about him or herself or is really struggling in some way. How would you respond to your friend in this situation (especially when you’re at your best)? Write down what you typically do and say and note the tone in which you typically talk to your friends.
• Second, think about times when you feel bad about yourself or are struggling. How do you typically respond to yourself in these situations? Write down what you typically do and say, and note the tone in which you typically talk to your friends.
• Did you notice a difference? If so, ask yourself why. What factors or fears come into play that lead you to treat yourself and others so differently?
• Please write down how you think things might change if you responded to yourself in the same way you typically respond to a close friend when you’re suffering.

Experience 2: Take a self-compassion break

This practice can be used any time of day or night, with others or alone. It will help you remember to evoke the three aspects of self-compassion when you need it most.

Think of a situation in your life that is difficult, that is causing you stress. Call the situation to mind, and if you feel comfortable, allow yourself to experience these feelings and emotions, without judgment and without altering them to what you think they should be.

• Say to yourself one of the following: “This is a difficult moment,” “This is a moment of suffering,” “This is stress,” “This hurts,” or “Ouch.” Doing this step is “mindfulness”: A willingness to observe negative thoughts and emotions with openness and clarity, so that they are held in mindful awareness, without judgment.
• Find your equilibrium of observation with thoughts and feelings. Try not to suppress or deny them and try not to get caught up and swept away by them.
• Remind yourself of the shared human experience. Recognize that suffering and personal difficulty is something that we all go through rather than being something that happens to “me” alone. Remind yourself that “other people feel this way,” “I’m not alone,” and “we all have struggles in life.”
• Be kind to yourself and ask: “What do I need to hear right now to express kindness to myself?” Is there a phrase that speaks to you in your particular situation? For example: “May I give myself the compassion that I need; may I learn to accept myself as I am; may I forgive myself; may I be strong; may I be patient.” There is no wrong answer.

Exercise 3: Explore self-compassion through writing

Everybody has something about themselves that they don’t like; something that causes them to feel shame, to feel insecure, or not “good enough.” This exercise will help you write a letter to yourself about this issue from a place of acceptance and compassion. It can feel uncomfortable at first, but it gets easier with practice.

• Write about an issue you have that makes you feel inadequate or bad about yourself (physical appearance, work, or relationship issue) What emotions do you experience when you think about this aspect of yourself? Try to only feel your emotions exactly as they are – no more, no less – and then write about them.
• Write a letter as if you were talking to a dearly beloved friend who was struggling with the same concerns as you and has the same strengths and weaknesses as you. How would you convey deep compassion, especially for the pain you feel when they judge themselves so harshly? What would you write to your friend to remind them that they are only human, that all people have both strengths and weaknesses? As you write, try to infuse your letter with a strong sense of acceptance, kindness, caring, and desire for their health and happiness.
• After writing the letter, put it aside for a little while. Then come back and read it again, really letting the words sink in. Feel the compassion as it pours into you, soothing and comforting you. Love, connection, and acceptance are a part of your human right. To claim them you need only look within yourself.

Experience 4: Taking care of the caregiver

We work in the very stressful time of the COVID pandemic. As medical providers, we are caregivers to our patients and our families. Yet, we do not give ourselves time to rest, recover, and recharge. Remember, to care for others, you cannot pour from an empty cup.

• Give yourself permission to meet your own needs, recognizing that this will not only enhance your quality of life, it will also enhance your ability to be there for those that rely on you. Our time is limited but self-care can occur both at work and outside of work.
• When you are “off the clock,” be off the clock! Turn off notifications, don’t check email, and be present in your personal lives. If you are constantly answering patient calls or nursing questions until 10 p.m., that means your health care system is in need of an upgrade, as you need the appropriate coverage to give you time to care for yourself, just as well as you care for your patients.
• While at work you can practice self-care. Take 2 minutes to practice relaxation breathing. Take 1 minute to show yourself or another person gratitude. Take 5 minutes before you start writing your notes for the day to listen to relaxing music or a mindful podcast. Take 3 minutes to share three good things that happened in the day with your family or colleagues. Take 5-10 minutes to do chair yoga. Take a self-compassion break.
• Implement a 5-minute wellness break into your group’s daily function with some of the previous mentioned examples. This will allow you to care for and nurture yourself, while also caring for and nurturing others in an environment that cultivates your wellness goals.

As a hospitalist, I can attest that I did not show myself self-compassion nearly as often as I showed compassion to others. I am my own worst critic and my training taught me to suffer in silence, and not seek out others who are experiencing the same thing for fear of being perceived as weak, inadequate, or flawed.

This false notion that we need to always be tough, strong, and without emotion in order to be taken seriously, to advance, or be held in high regard is rubbish and only perpetuated by accepting it. In order to change the culture of medicine, we have to change the way we think and behave. I have practiced self-compassion exercises and it has enhanced my perspective to see that many of us are going through varying degrees of the same thing. It has shown me the positive effects on my inner being and my life. If you are ready to try something new that will benefit your psychological and emotional well-being, and help you through pain, suffering, struggles, and crisis, you have nothing to lose. Be the change, and show yourself self-compassion.

In summary, self-compassion is an attitude of warmth, curiosity, connection, and care. Learning to become more self-compassionate is a process of moving from striving to change our experience and ourselves toward embracing who we are already.⁹ The practice of self-compassion is giving ourselves what we need in the moment. Even if we are not ready, or it is too painful to fully accept or embrace, we can still plant the seeds that will, with time and patience, grow and bloom.

When we are mindful of our struggles, when we respond to ourselves with compassion, kindness, and give ourselves support in times of difficulty, we learn to embrace ourselves and our lives, our inner and outer imperfections, and provide ourselves with the strength needed to thrive in the most precarious and difficult situations. With self-compassion, we give the world the best of us, instead of what is left of us.

Dr. Williams is vice president of the Hampton Roads chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine. She is a hospitalist at Sentara Careplex Hospital in Hampton, Va., where she also serves as vice president of the medical executive committee.

References

1. Sanchez-Reilly S et al. Caring for oneself to care for others: Physicians and their self-care. J Community Support Oncol. 2013;11(2):75-81. doi: 10.12788/j.suponc.0003.

2. Neff K. Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self Identity. 2010;2(2):85-101. doi: 10.1080/15298860309032.

3. Neff K et al. The forest and the trees: Examining the association of self-compassion and its positive and negative components with psychological functioning. Self Identity. 2018;17(6):627-45. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2018.1436587.

4. Zessin U et al. The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analysis. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2015;7(3):340-64. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12051.

5. Warren R et al. Self-criticism and self-compassion: Risk and resilience. Current Psychiatry. 2016 Dec;15(12):18-21,24-28,32.

6. Neff K. The Five Myths of Self-Compassion. Greater Good Magazine. 2015 Sep 30. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_five_myths_of_self_compassion.

7. Neff KD and Germer CK. A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. J Clin Psychol. 2013 Jan;69(1):28-44. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21923.

8. Neff K. Self-Compassion Guided Meditations and Exercises. https://self-compassion.org/category/exercises/#exercises.

9. Germer C and Neff KD. Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC), in “The handbook of mindfulness-based programs.” (London: Routledge, 2019, pp. 357-67).

Physicians, clinicians, providers, healers, and now heroes, are some of the names we have been given throughout history. These titles bring together a universal concept in medicine that all human beings deserve compassion, understanding, and care. However, as health care providers we forget to show ourselves the same compassion we bestow upon others.

Self-compassion is a new way of relating to ourselves. As clinicians, we are trained investigators, delving deeper into what our patient is thinking and feeling. “Tell me more about that. How does that make you feel? That must have been (very painful/scary/frustrating).” These are a few statements we learned in patient interviewing to actively engage with patients, build rapport, solidify trust, validate their concerns, and ultimately obtain the information needed to diagnose and heal.

We know the importance of looking beyond the surface, as more often than not a deeper inspection reveals more to the story. We have uncovered cracks in the foundation, erosion of the roof, worn out siding, and a glimpse into the complexities that make up each individual. We look at our patients, loved ones, and the world with night-vision lenses to uncover what is deeper.

Clinicians are good at directing compassion toward others, but not as good at giving it to themselves.¹ Many health care providers may see self-compassion as soft, weak, selfish, or unnecessary. However, mindful self-compassion is a positive practice that opens a pathway for healing, personal growth, and protection against the negative consequences of self-judgment, isolation, anxiety, burnout, and depression.
 

What is self-compassion?

Kristin Neff, PhD, an associate professor in educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, was the first to academically define self-compassion. Self-compassion brings together three core elements – kindness, humanity, and mindfulness.² Self-compassion involves acting the same way toward yourself when you are having a difficult time as you would toward another person. Instead of mercilessly judging and criticizing yourself for self-perceived inadequacies or shortcomings, self-compassion allows you to ask yourself: “How can I give myself comfort and care in this moment?”

Mindfulness acknowledges a painful experience without resistance or judgment, while being present in the moment with things as they are. Self-compassion provides the emotional safety needed to mindfully open to our pain, disappointments, and defeats. Mindfulness and self-compassion both allow us to live with more acceptance toward ourselves and our lives. Mindfulness asks: “What am I experiencing right now?” Self-compassion asks: “What do I need right now?” When you feel compassion for yourself or another, you recognize that suffering, failure, and imperfection are all part of the shared human experience.
 

The physiology of self-compassion

When we practice self-compassion, we feel safe and cared for because there is a physiological pathway that explains this response. Self-compassion helps down-regulate the stress response (fight-flight-freeze). When we are triggered by a threat to our self-concept, we are likely to do one, two, or all of three things: we fight ourselves (self-criticism – often our first reaction when things go wrong), we flee from others (isolation), or we freeze (rumination).

Feeling threatened puts stress on the mind and body, and chronic stress leads to anxiety and depression, which hinders emotional and physical well-being. With self-criticism, we are both the attacker and the attacked. When we practice self-compassion, we are deactivating the threat-defense system and activating the care system, releasing oxytocin and endorphins, which reduce stress and increase feelings of safety and security.³
 

Why is self-compassion important to provider well-being?

Research has shown that individuals who are more self-compassionate tend to have greater happiness, life satisfaction, and motivation; better relationships and physical health; and less anxiety and depression. They also have the resilience needed to cope with stressful life events. The more we practice being kind and compassionate with ourselves, the more we’ll increase the habit of self-compassion, and extend compassion to our patients and loved ones in daily life.⁴

Why is self-compassion important? When we experience a setback at work or in life, we can become defensive, accuse others, or blame ourselves, especially when we are already under immense stress. These responses are not helpful, productive, or effective to the situation or our personal well-being. Although in the moment it may feel good to be reactive, it is a short-lived feeling that we trade for the longer-lasting effects of learning, resilience, and personal growth. Self-compassion teaches us to connect with our inner imperfections, and what makes us human, as to err is human.

To cultivate a habit of self-compassion itself, it is important to understand that self-compassion is a practice of goodwill, not good feelings. Self-compassion is aimed at the alleviation of suffering, but it does not erase any pain and suffering that does exist. The truth is, we can’t always control external forces – the events of 2020-2021 are a perfect example of this. As a result, we cannot utilize self-compassion as a practice to make our pain disappear or suppress strong emotions.

Instead, self-compassion helps us cultivate the resilience needed to mindfully acknowledge and accept a painful moment or experience, while reminding us to embrace ourselves with kindness and care in response. This builds our internal foundation with support, love, and self-care, while providing the optimal conditions for growth, resilience, and transformation
 

Self-compassion and the backdraft phenomenon

When you start the practice of self-compassion, you may experience backdraft, a phenomenon in which pain initially increases.⁵ Backdraft is similar to the stages of grief or when the flames of a burning house become larger when a door is opened and oxygen surges in. Practicing self-compassion may cause a tidal wave of emotions to come to the forefront, but it is likely that if this happens, it needs to happen.

Imagine yourself in a room with two versions of yourself. To the left is your best self that you present to the world, standing tall, organized, well kept, and without any noticeable imperfections. To the right, is the deepest part of your being, laying on the floor, filled with raw emotions – sadness, fear, anger, and love. This version of yourself is vulnerable, open, honest, and imperfect. When looking at each version of yourself, which one is the real you? The right? The left? Maybe it’s both?

Imagine what would happen if you walked over to the version of yourself on the right, sat down, and provided it comfort, and embraced yourself with love and kindness. What would happen if you gave that version of yourself a hug? Seeing your true self, with all the layers peeled away, at the very core of your being, vulnerable, and possibly broken, is a powerful and gut-wrenching experience. It may hurt at first, but once we embrace our own pain and suffering, that is where mindfulness and self-compassion intersect to begin the path to healing. It takes more strength and courage to be the version of ourselves on the right than the version on the left.
 

What is not self compassion?

Self-compassion is not self-pity, weakness, self-esteem, or selfishness. When individuals feel self-pity, they become immersed in their own problems and feel that they are the only ones in the world who are suffering. Self-compassion makes us more willing to accept, experience, and acknowledge difficult feelings with kindness. This paradoxically helps us process and let go of these feelings without long-term negative consequences, and with a better ability to recognize the suffering of others.

Self-compassion allows us to be our own inner ally and strengthens our ability to cope successfully when life gets hard. Self-compassion will not make you weak and vulnerable. It is a reliable source of inner strength that enhances resilience when faced with difficulties. Research shows self-compassionate people are better able to cope with tough situations like divorce, trauma, and crisis.

Self-compassion and self-esteem are important to well-being; however, they are not the same. Self-esteem refers to a judgment or evaluation of our sense of self-worth, perceived value, or how much we like ourselves. While self-compassion relates to the changing landscape of who we are with kindness and acceptance – especially in times when we feel useless, inadequate, or hopeless – self-esteem allows for greater self-clarity, independent of external circumstances, and acknowledges that all human beings deserve compassion and understanding, not because they possess certain traits or have a certain perceive valued, but because we share the human experience and the human condition of imperfection. Finally, self-compassion is not selfish, as practicing it helps people sustain the act of caring for others and decrease caregiver burnout.^6,7
 

Strategies to practice self-compassion

There are many ways to practice self-compassion. Here are a few experiences created by Dr. Neff, a leader in the field.⁸

Experience 1: How would you treat a friend?

How do you think things might change if you responded to yourself in the same way you typically respond to a close friend when he or she is suffering? Why not try treating yourself like a good friend and see what happens.

Take out a sheet of paper and write down your answer to the following questions:

• First, think about times when a close friend feels really bad about him or herself or is really struggling in some way. How would you respond to your friend in this situation (especially when you’re at your best)? Write down what you typically do and say and note the tone in which you typically talk to your friends.
• Second, think about times when you feel bad about yourself or are struggling. How do you typically respond to yourself in these situations? Write down what you typically do and say, and note the tone in which you typically talk to your friends.
• Did you notice a difference? If so, ask yourself why. What factors or fears come into play that lead you to treat yourself and others so differently?
• Please write down how you think things might change if you responded to yourself in the same way you typically respond to a close friend when you’re suffering.

Experience 2: Take a self-compassion break

This practice can be used any time of day or night, with others or alone. It will help you remember to evoke the three aspects of self-compassion when you need it most.

Think of a situation in your life that is difficult, that is causing you stress. Call the situation to mind, and if you feel comfortable, allow yourself to experience these feelings and emotions, without judgment and without altering them to what you think they should be.

• Say to yourself one of the following: “This is a difficult moment,” “This is a moment of suffering,” “This is stress,” “This hurts,” or “Ouch.” Doing this step is “mindfulness”: A willingness to observe negative thoughts and emotions with openness and clarity, so that they are held in mindful awareness, without judgment.
• Find your equilibrium of observation with thoughts and feelings. Try not to suppress or deny them and try not to get caught up and swept away by them.
• Remind yourself of the shared human experience. Recognize that suffering and personal difficulty is something that we all go through rather than being something that happens to “me” alone. Remind yourself that “other people feel this way,” “I’m not alone,” and “we all have struggles in life.”
• Be kind to yourself and ask: “What do I need to hear right now to express kindness to myself?” Is there a phrase that speaks to you in your particular situation? For example: “May I give myself the compassion that I need; may I learn to accept myself as I am; may I forgive myself; may I be strong; may I be patient.” There is no wrong answer.

Exercise 3: Explore self-compassion through writing

Everybody has something about themselves that they don’t like; something that causes them to feel shame, to feel insecure, or not “good enough.” This exercise will help you write a letter to yourself about this issue from a place of acceptance and compassion. It can feel uncomfortable at first, but it gets easier with practice.

• Write about an issue you have that makes you feel inadequate or bad about yourself (physical appearance, work, or relationship issue) What emotions do you experience when you think about this aspect of yourself? Try to only feel your emotions exactly as they are – no more, no less – and then write about them.
• Write a letter as if you were talking to a dearly beloved friend who was struggling with the same concerns as you and has the same strengths and weaknesses as you. How would you convey deep compassion, especially for the pain you feel when they judge themselves so harshly? What would you write to your friend to remind them that they are only human, that all people have both strengths and weaknesses? As you write, try to infuse your letter with a strong sense of acceptance, kindness, caring, and desire for their health and happiness.
• After writing the letter, put it aside for a little while. Then come back and read it again, really letting the words sink in. Feel the compassion as it pours into you, soothing and comforting you. Love, connection, and acceptance are a part of your human right. To claim them you need only look within yourself.

Experience 4: Taking care of the caregiver

We work in the very stressful time of the COVID pandemic. As medical providers, we are caregivers to our patients and our families. Yet, we do not give ourselves time to rest, recover, and recharge. Remember, to care for others, you cannot pour from an empty cup.

• Give yourself permission to meet your own needs, recognizing that this will not only enhance your quality of life, it will also enhance your ability to be there for those that rely on you. Our time is limited but self-care can occur both at work and outside of work.
• When you are “off the clock,” be off the clock! Turn off notifications, don’t check email, and be present in your personal lives. If you are constantly answering patient calls or nursing questions until 10 p.m., that means your health care system is in need of an upgrade, as you need the appropriate coverage to give you time to care for yourself, just as well as you care for your patients.
• While at work you can practice self-care. Take 2 minutes to practice relaxation breathing. Take 1 minute to show yourself or another person gratitude. Take 5 minutes before you start writing your notes for the day to listen to relaxing music or a mindful podcast. Take 3 minutes to share three good things that happened in the day with your family or colleagues. Take 5-10 minutes to do chair yoga. Take a self-compassion break.
• Implement a 5-minute wellness break into your group’s daily function with some of the previous mentioned examples. This will allow you to care for and nurture yourself, while also caring for and nurturing others in an environment that cultivates your wellness goals.

As a hospitalist, I can attest that I did not show myself self-compassion nearly as often as I showed compassion to others. I am my own worst critic and my training taught me to suffer in silence, and not seek out others who are experiencing the same thing for fear of being perceived as weak, inadequate, or flawed.

This false notion that we need to always be tough, strong, and without emotion in order to be taken seriously, to advance, or be held in high regard is rubbish and only perpetuated by accepting it. In order to change the culture of medicine, we have to change the way we think and behave. I have practiced self-compassion exercises and it has enhanced my perspective to see that many of us are going through varying degrees of the same thing. It has shown me the positive effects on my inner being and my life. If you are ready to try something new that will benefit your psychological and emotional well-being, and help you through pain, suffering, struggles, and crisis, you have nothing to lose. Be the change, and show yourself self-compassion.

In summary, self-compassion is an attitude of warmth, curiosity, connection, and care. Learning to become more self-compassionate is a process of moving from striving to change our experience and ourselves toward embracing who we are already.⁹ The practice of self-compassion is giving ourselves what we need in the moment. Even if we are not ready, or it is too painful to fully accept or embrace, we can still plant the seeds that will, with time and patience, grow and bloom.

When we are mindful of our struggles, when we respond to ourselves with compassion, kindness, and give ourselves support in times of difficulty, we learn to embrace ourselves and our lives, our inner and outer imperfections, and provide ourselves with the strength needed to thrive in the most precarious and difficult situations. With self-compassion, we give the world the best of us, instead of what is left of us.

Dr. Williams is vice president of the Hampton Roads chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine. She is a hospitalist at Sentara Careplex Hospital in Hampton, Va., where she also serves as vice president of the medical executive committee.

References

1. Sanchez-Reilly S et al. Caring for oneself to care for others: Physicians and their self-care. J Community Support Oncol. 2013;11(2):75-81. doi: 10.12788/j.suponc.0003.

2. Neff K. Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self Identity. 2010;2(2):85-101. doi: 10.1080/15298860309032.

3. Neff K et al. The forest and the trees: Examining the association of self-compassion and its positive and negative components with psychological functioning. Self Identity. 2018;17(6):627-45. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2018.1436587.

4. Zessin U et al. The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analysis. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2015;7(3):340-64. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12051.

5. Warren R et al. Self-criticism and self-compassion: Risk and resilience. Current Psychiatry. 2016 Dec;15(12):18-21,24-28,32.

6. Neff K. The Five Myths of Self-Compassion. Greater Good Magazine. 2015 Sep 30. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_five_myths_of_self_compassion.

7. Neff KD and Germer CK. A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. J Clin Psychol. 2013 Jan;69(1):28-44. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21923.

8. Neff K. Self-Compassion Guided Meditations and Exercises. https://self-compassion.org/category/exercises/#exercises.

9. Germer C and Neff KD. Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC), in “The handbook of mindfulness-based programs.” (London: Routledge, 2019, pp. 357-67).

Physicians, clinicians, providers, healers, and now heroes, are some of the names we have been given throughout history. These titles bring together a universal concept in medicine that all human beings deserve compassion, understanding, and care. However, as health care providers we forget to show ourselves the same compassion we bestow upon others.

Self-compassion is a new way of relating to ourselves. As clinicians, we are trained investigators, delving deeper into what our patient is thinking and feeling. “Tell me more about that. How does that make you feel? That must have been (very painful/scary/frustrating).” These are a few statements we learned in patient interviewing to actively engage with patients, build rapport, solidify trust, validate their concerns, and ultimately obtain the information needed to diagnose and heal.

We know the importance of looking beyond the surface, as more often than not a deeper inspection reveals more to the story. We have uncovered cracks in the foundation, erosion of the roof, worn out siding, and a glimpse into the complexities that make up each individual. We look at our patients, loved ones, and the world with night-vision lenses to uncover what is deeper.

Clinicians are good at directing compassion toward others, but not as good at giving it to themselves.¹ Many health care providers may see self-compassion as soft, weak, selfish, or unnecessary. However, mindful self-compassion is a positive practice that opens a pathway for healing, personal growth, and protection against the negative consequences of self-judgment, isolation, anxiety, burnout, and depression.
 

What is self-compassion?

Kristin Neff, PhD, an associate professor in educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, was the first to academically define self-compassion. Self-compassion brings together three core elements – kindness, humanity, and mindfulness.² Self-compassion involves acting the same way toward yourself when you are having a difficult time as you would toward another person. Instead of mercilessly judging and criticizing yourself for self-perceived inadequacies or shortcomings, self-compassion allows you to ask yourself: “How can I give myself comfort and care in this moment?”

Mindfulness acknowledges a painful experience without resistance or judgment, while being present in the moment with things as they are. Self-compassion provides the emotional safety needed to mindfully open to our pain, disappointments, and defeats. Mindfulness and self-compassion both allow us to live with more acceptance toward ourselves and our lives. Mindfulness asks: “What am I experiencing right now?” Self-compassion asks: “What do I need right now?” When you feel compassion for yourself or another, you recognize that suffering, failure, and imperfection are all part of the shared human experience.
 

The physiology of self-compassion

When we practice self-compassion, we feel safe and cared for because there is a physiological pathway that explains this response. Self-compassion helps down-regulate the stress response (fight-flight-freeze). When we are triggered by a threat to our self-concept, we are likely to do one, two, or all of three things: we fight ourselves (self-criticism – often our first reaction when things go wrong), we flee from others (isolation), or we freeze (rumination).

Feeling threatened puts stress on the mind and body, and chronic stress leads to anxiety and depression, which hinders emotional and physical well-being. With self-criticism, we are both the attacker and the attacked. When we practice self-compassion, we are deactivating the threat-defense system and activating the care system, releasing oxytocin and endorphins, which reduce stress and increase feelings of safety and security.³
 

Why is self-compassion important to provider well-being?

Research has shown that individuals who are more self-compassionate tend to have greater happiness, life satisfaction, and motivation; better relationships and physical health; and less anxiety and depression. They also have the resilience needed to cope with stressful life events. The more we practice being kind and compassionate with ourselves, the more we’ll increase the habit of self-compassion, and extend compassion to our patients and loved ones in daily life.⁴

Why is self-compassion important? When we experience a setback at work or in life, we can become defensive, accuse others, or blame ourselves, especially when we are already under immense stress. These responses are not helpful, productive, or effective to the situation or our personal well-being. Although in the moment it may feel good to be reactive, it is a short-lived feeling that we trade for the longer-lasting effects of learning, resilience, and personal growth. Self-compassion teaches us to connect with our inner imperfections, and what makes us human, as to err is human.

To cultivate a habit of self-compassion itself, it is important to understand that self-compassion is a practice of goodwill, not good feelings. Self-compassion is aimed at the alleviation of suffering, but it does not erase any pain and suffering that does exist. The truth is, we can’t always control external forces – the events of 2020-2021 are a perfect example of this. As a result, we cannot utilize self-compassion as a practice to make our pain disappear or suppress strong emotions.

Instead, self-compassion helps us cultivate the resilience needed to mindfully acknowledge and accept a painful moment or experience, while reminding us to embrace ourselves with kindness and care in response. This builds our internal foundation with support, love, and self-care, while providing the optimal conditions for growth, resilience, and transformation
 

Self-compassion and the backdraft phenomenon

When you start the practice of self-compassion, you may experience backdraft, a phenomenon in which pain initially increases.⁵ Backdraft is similar to the stages of grief or when the flames of a burning house become larger when a door is opened and oxygen surges in. Practicing self-compassion may cause a tidal wave of emotions to come to the forefront, but it is likely that if this happens, it needs to happen.

Imagine yourself in a room with two versions of yourself. To the left is your best self that you present to the world, standing tall, organized, well kept, and without any noticeable imperfections. To the right, is the deepest part of your being, laying on the floor, filled with raw emotions – sadness, fear, anger, and love. This version of yourself is vulnerable, open, honest, and imperfect. When looking at each version of yourself, which one is the real you? The right? The left? Maybe it’s both?

Imagine what would happen if you walked over to the version of yourself on the right, sat down, and provided it comfort, and embraced yourself with love and kindness. What would happen if you gave that version of yourself a hug? Seeing your true self, with all the layers peeled away, at the very core of your being, vulnerable, and possibly broken, is a powerful and gut-wrenching experience. It may hurt at first, but once we embrace our own pain and suffering, that is where mindfulness and self-compassion intersect to begin the path to healing. It takes more strength and courage to be the version of ourselves on the right than the version on the left.
 

What is not self compassion?

Self-compassion is not self-pity, weakness, self-esteem, or selfishness. When individuals feel self-pity, they become immersed in their own problems and feel that they are the only ones in the world who are suffering. Self-compassion makes us more willing to accept, experience, and acknowledge difficult feelings with kindness. This paradoxically helps us process and let go of these feelings without long-term negative consequences, and with a better ability to recognize the suffering of others.

Self-compassion allows us to be our own inner ally and strengthens our ability to cope successfully when life gets hard. Self-compassion will not make you weak and vulnerable. It is a reliable source of inner strength that enhances resilience when faced with difficulties. Research shows self-compassionate people are better able to cope with tough situations like divorce, trauma, and crisis.

Self-compassion and self-esteem are important to well-being; however, they are not the same. Self-esteem refers to a judgment or evaluation of our sense of self-worth, perceived value, or how much we like ourselves. While self-compassion relates to the changing landscape of who we are with kindness and acceptance – especially in times when we feel useless, inadequate, or hopeless – self-esteem allows for greater self-clarity, independent of external circumstances, and acknowledges that all human beings deserve compassion and understanding, not because they possess certain traits or have a certain perceive valued, but because we share the human experience and the human condition of imperfection. Finally, self-compassion is not selfish, as practicing it helps people sustain the act of caring for others and decrease caregiver burnout.^6,7
 

Strategies to practice self-compassion

There are many ways to practice self-compassion. Here are a few experiences created by Dr. Neff, a leader in the field.⁸

Experience 1: How would you treat a friend?

How do you think things might change if you responded to yourself in the same way you typically respond to a close friend when he or she is suffering? Why not try treating yourself like a good friend and see what happens.

Take out a sheet of paper and write down your answer to the following questions:

• First, think about times when a close friend feels really bad about him or herself or is really struggling in some way. How would you respond to your friend in this situation (especially when you’re at your best)? Write down what you typically do and say and note the tone in which you typically talk to your friends.
• Second, think about times when you feel bad about yourself or are struggling. How do you typically respond to yourself in these situations? Write down what you typically do and say, and note the tone in which you typically talk to your friends.
• Did you notice a difference? If so, ask yourself why. What factors or fears come into play that lead you to treat yourself and others so differently?
• Please write down how you think things might change if you responded to yourself in the same way you typically respond to a close friend when you’re suffering.

Experience 2: Take a self-compassion break

This practice can be used any time of day or night, with others or alone. It will help you remember to evoke the three aspects of self-compassion when you need it most.

Think of a situation in your life that is difficult, that is causing you stress. Call the situation to mind, and if you feel comfortable, allow yourself to experience these feelings and emotions, without judgment and without altering them to what you think they should be.

• Say to yourself one of the following: “This is a difficult moment,” “This is a moment of suffering,” “This is stress,” “This hurts,” or “Ouch.” Doing this step is “mindfulness”: A willingness to observe negative thoughts and emotions with openness and clarity, so that they are held in mindful awareness, without judgment.
• Find your equilibrium of observation with thoughts and feelings. Try not to suppress or deny them and try not to get caught up and swept away by them.
• Remind yourself of the shared human experience. Recognize that suffering and personal difficulty is something that we all go through rather than being something that happens to “me” alone. Remind yourself that “other people feel this way,” “I’m not alone,” and “we all have struggles in life.”
• Be kind to yourself and ask: “What do I need to hear right now to express kindness to myself?” Is there a phrase that speaks to you in your particular situation? For example: “May I give myself the compassion that I need; may I learn to accept myself as I am; may I forgive myself; may I be strong; may I be patient.” There is no wrong answer.

Exercise 3: Explore self-compassion through writing

Everybody has something about themselves that they don’t like; something that causes them to feel shame, to feel insecure, or not “good enough.” This exercise will help you write a letter to yourself about this issue from a place of acceptance and compassion. It can feel uncomfortable at first, but it gets easier with practice.

• Write about an issue you have that makes you feel inadequate or bad about yourself (physical appearance, work, or relationship issue) What emotions do you experience when you think about this aspect of yourself? Try to only feel your emotions exactly as they are – no more, no less – and then write about them.
• Write a letter as if you were talking to a dearly beloved friend who was struggling with the same concerns as you and has the same strengths and weaknesses as you. How would you convey deep compassion, especially for the pain you feel when they judge themselves so harshly? What would you write to your friend to remind them that they are only human, that all people have both strengths and weaknesses? As you write, try to infuse your letter with a strong sense of acceptance, kindness, caring, and desire for their health and happiness.
• After writing the letter, put it aside for a little while. Then come back and read it again, really letting the words sink in. Feel the compassion as it pours into you, soothing and comforting you. Love, connection, and acceptance are a part of your human right. To claim them you need only look within yourself.

Experience 4: Taking care of the caregiver

We work in the very stressful time of the COVID pandemic. As medical providers, we are caregivers to our patients and our families. Yet, we do not give ourselves time to rest, recover, and recharge. Remember, to care for others, you cannot pour from an empty cup.

• Give yourself permission to meet your own needs, recognizing that this will not only enhance your quality of life, it will also enhance your ability to be there for those that rely on you. Our time is limited but self-care can occur both at work and outside of work.
• When you are “off the clock,” be off the clock! Turn off notifications, don’t check email, and be present in your personal lives. If you are constantly answering patient calls or nursing questions until 10 p.m., that means your health care system is in need of an upgrade, as you need the appropriate coverage to give you time to care for yourself, just as well as you care for your patients.
• While at work you can practice self-care. Take 2 minutes to practice relaxation breathing. Take 1 minute to show yourself or another person gratitude. Take 5 minutes before you start writing your notes for the day to listen to relaxing music or a mindful podcast. Take 3 minutes to share three good things that happened in the day with your family or colleagues. Take 5-10 minutes to do chair yoga. Take a self-compassion break.
• Implement a 5-minute wellness break into your group’s daily function with some of the previous mentioned examples. This will allow you to care for and nurture yourself, while also caring for and nurturing others in an environment that cultivates your wellness goals.

As a hospitalist, I can attest that I did not show myself self-compassion nearly as often as I showed compassion to others. I am my own worst critic and my training taught me to suffer in silence, and not seek out others who are experiencing the same thing for fear of being perceived as weak, inadequate, or flawed.

This false notion that we need to always be tough, strong, and without emotion in order to be taken seriously, to advance, or be held in high regard is rubbish and only perpetuated by accepting it. In order to change the culture of medicine, we have to change the way we think and behave. I have practiced self-compassion exercises and it has enhanced my perspective to see that many of us are going through varying degrees of the same thing. It has shown me the positive effects on my inner being and my life. If you are ready to try something new that will benefit your psychological and emotional well-being, and help you through pain, suffering, struggles, and crisis, you have nothing to lose. Be the change, and show yourself self-compassion.

In summary, self-compassion is an attitude of warmth, curiosity, connection, and care. Learning to become more self-compassionate is a process of moving from striving to change our experience and ourselves toward embracing who we are already.⁹ The practice of self-compassion is giving ourselves what we need in the moment. Even if we are not ready, or it is too painful to fully accept or embrace, we can still plant the seeds that will, with time and patience, grow and bloom.

When we are mindful of our struggles, when we respond to ourselves with compassion, kindness, and give ourselves support in times of difficulty, we learn to embrace ourselves and our lives, our inner and outer imperfections, and provide ourselves with the strength needed to thrive in the most precarious and difficult situations. With self-compassion, we give the world the best of us, instead of what is left of us.

Dr. Williams is vice president of the Hampton Roads chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine. She is a hospitalist at Sentara Careplex Hospital in Hampton, Va., where she also serves as vice president of the medical executive committee.

References

1. Sanchez-Reilly S et al. Caring for oneself to care for others: Physicians and their self-care. J Community Support Oncol. 2013;11(2):75-81. doi: 10.12788/j.suponc.0003.

2. Neff K. Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self Identity. 2010;2(2):85-101. doi: 10.1080/15298860309032.

3. Neff K et al. The forest and the trees: Examining the association of self-compassion and its positive and negative components with psychological functioning. Self Identity. 2018;17(6):627-45. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2018.1436587.

4. Zessin U et al. The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analysis. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2015;7(3):340-64. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12051.

5. Warren R et al. Self-criticism and self-compassion: Risk and resilience. Current Psychiatry. 2016 Dec;15(12):18-21,24-28,32.

6. Neff K. The Five Myths of Self-Compassion. Greater Good Magazine. 2015 Sep 30. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_five_myths_of_self_compassion.

7. Neff KD and Germer CK. A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. J Clin Psychol. 2013 Jan;69(1):28-44. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21923.

8. Neff K. Self-Compassion Guided Meditations and Exercises. https://self-compassion.org/category/exercises/#exercises.

9. Germer C and Neff KD. Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC), in “The handbook of mindfulness-based programs.” (London: Routledge, 2019, pp. 357-67).

Total COVID-19 cases in children surpassed the 7-million mark as new cases rose slightly after the previous week’s decline, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 133,000 new cases reported for the week ending Dec. 2 mark the 17th consecutive week that the count has exceeded 100,000 and brought the cumulative national count to 7.03 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. New cases had dropped the previous week after 3 straight weeks of increases since late October.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the total number of child COVID-19 cases at 6.2 million, but both estimates are based on all-age totals – 40 million for the CDC and 41 million for the AAP/CHA – that are well short of the CDC’s latest cumulative figure, which is now just over 49 million, so the actual figures are undoubtedly higher.

Meanwhile, the 1-month anniversary of 5- to 11-year-olds’ vaccine eligibility brought many completions: 923,000 received their second dose during the week ending Dec. 6, compared with 405,000 the previous week. About 16.9% (4.9 million) of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine thus far, of whom almost 1.5 million children (5.1% of the age group) are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID-19 Data Tracker.

The pace of vaccinations, however, is much lower for older children. Weekly numbers for all COVID-19 vaccinations, both first and second doses, dropped from 84,000 (Nov. 23-29) to 70,000 (Nov. 30 to Dec. 6), for those aged 12-17 years. In that group, 61.6% have received at least one dose and 51.8% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

The pace of vaccinations varies for younger children as well, when geography is considered. The AAP analyzed the CDC’s data and found that 42% of all 5- to 11-year-olds in Vermont had received at least one dose as of Dec. 1, followed by Massachusetts (33%), Maine (30%), and Rhode Island (28%). At the other end of the vaccination scale are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia, all with 4%, the AAP reported.

As the United States puts 7 million children infected with COVID-19 in its rear view mirror, another milestone is looming ahead: The CDC’s current count of deaths in children is 974.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Total COVID-19 cases in children surpassed the 7-million mark as new cases rose slightly after the previous week’s decline, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 133,000 new cases reported for the week ending Dec. 2 mark the 17th consecutive week that the count has exceeded 100,000 and brought the cumulative national count to 7.03 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. New cases had dropped the previous week after 3 straight weeks of increases since late October.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the total number of child COVID-19 cases at 6.2 million, but both estimates are based on all-age totals – 40 million for the CDC and 41 million for the AAP/CHA – that are well short of the CDC’s latest cumulative figure, which is now just over 49 million, so the actual figures are undoubtedly higher.

Meanwhile, the 1-month anniversary of 5- to 11-year-olds’ vaccine eligibility brought many completions: 923,000 received their second dose during the week ending Dec. 6, compared with 405,000 the previous week. About 16.9% (4.9 million) of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine thus far, of whom almost 1.5 million children (5.1% of the age group) are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID-19 Data Tracker.

The pace of vaccinations, however, is much lower for older children. Weekly numbers for all COVID-19 vaccinations, both first and second doses, dropped from 84,000 (Nov. 23-29) to 70,000 (Nov. 30 to Dec. 6), for those aged 12-17 years. In that group, 61.6% have received at least one dose and 51.8% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

The pace of vaccinations varies for younger children as well, when geography is considered. The AAP analyzed the CDC’s data and found that 42% of all 5- to 11-year-olds in Vermont had received at least one dose as of Dec. 1, followed by Massachusetts (33%), Maine (30%), and Rhode Island (28%). At the other end of the vaccination scale are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia, all with 4%, the AAP reported.

As the United States puts 7 million children infected with COVID-19 in its rear view mirror, another milestone is looming ahead: The CDC’s current count of deaths in children is 974.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Total COVID-19 cases in children surpassed the 7-million mark as new cases rose slightly after the previous week’s decline, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 133,000 new cases reported for the week ending Dec. 2 mark the 17th consecutive week that the count has exceeded 100,000 and brought the cumulative national count to 7.03 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. New cases had dropped the previous week after 3 straight weeks of increases since late October.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the total number of child COVID-19 cases at 6.2 million, but both estimates are based on all-age totals – 40 million for the CDC and 41 million for the AAP/CHA – that are well short of the CDC’s latest cumulative figure, which is now just over 49 million, so the actual figures are undoubtedly higher.

Meanwhile, the 1-month anniversary of 5- to 11-year-olds’ vaccine eligibility brought many completions: 923,000 received their second dose during the week ending Dec. 6, compared with 405,000 the previous week. About 16.9% (4.9 million) of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine thus far, of whom almost 1.5 million children (5.1% of the age group) are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID-19 Data Tracker.

The pace of vaccinations, however, is much lower for older children. Weekly numbers for all COVID-19 vaccinations, both first and second doses, dropped from 84,000 (Nov. 23-29) to 70,000 (Nov. 30 to Dec. 6), for those aged 12-17 years. In that group, 61.6% have received at least one dose and 51.8% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

The pace of vaccinations varies for younger children as well, when geography is considered. The AAP analyzed the CDC’s data and found that 42% of all 5- to 11-year-olds in Vermont had received at least one dose as of Dec. 1, followed by Massachusetts (33%), Maine (30%), and Rhode Island (28%). At the other end of the vaccination scale are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia, all with 4%, the AAP reported.

As the United States puts 7 million children infected with COVID-19 in its rear view mirror, another milestone is looming ahead: The CDC’s current count of deaths in children is 974.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest short sleep increases obesity risk

Three recent, large systematic reviews of prospective cohort studies with meta-analyses in infants, children, and adolescents all found associations between short sleep at intake and later excessive weight.

The largest meta-analysis included 42 prospective studies with 75,499 patients ranging in age from infancy to adolescence and with follow-up ranging from 1 to 27 years. In a pooled analysis, short sleep—variously defined across trials and mostly assessed by parental report—was associated with an increased risk of obesity or overweight (relative risk [RR] = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.85; I²= 92%), compared to normal and long sleep. When the authors adjusted for suspected publication bias using a “trim and fill” method, short sleep remained associated with later overweight or obesity (RR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.81). Short sleep was associated with later unhealthy weight status in all age groups: 0 to < 3 years (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65); 3 to < 9 years (RR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.4-1.76);9 to < 12 years (RR = 2.23; 95% CI, 2.18-2.27); and 12 to 18 years (RR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.11-1.53). In addition to high heterogeneity, limitations of the review included variability in the definition of short sleep, use of parent- or self-reported sleep duration, and variability in classification of overweight and obesity in primary studies.¹

A second systematic review and meta-analysis included 25 longitudinal studies (20 of which overlapped with the previously discussed meta-analysis) of children and adolescents (N = 56,584). Patients ranged in age from infancy to 16 years, and follow-up ranged from 6 months to 10 years (mean, 3.4 years). Children and adolescents with the shortest sleep duration were more likely to be overweight or obese at follow-up (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.39-2.23; I² = 70.5%) than those with the longest sleep duration. Due to the overlap in studies, the limitations of this analysis were similar to those already mentioned. Lack of a linear association between sleep duration and weight was cited as evidence of possible publication bias; the authors did not attempt to correct for it.²

Three large systematic reviews all found associations between short sleep at intake and later excessive weight.

The third systematic review and meta-analysis included 22 longitudinal studies (18 overlapped with first meta-analysis and 17 with the second) of children and adolescents (N = 24,821) ages 6 months to 18 years. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 27 years. This meta-analysis standardized the categories of sleep duration using recommendations from the Sleep Health Foundation. Patients with short sleep duration had an increased risk of overweight or obesity compared with patients sleeping “normal” or “longer than normal” durations (pooled OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.64-2.81; I² = 67%). The authors indicated that their analysis could have been more robust if information about daytime sleep (ie, napping) had been available, but it was not collected in many of the included studies.³

Accelerometer data quantify the sleep/obesity association

A subsequent cohort study (N = 202) sought to better examine the association between sleep characteristics and adiposity by measuring sleep duration using accelerometers. Toddlers (ages 12 to 26 months) without previous medical history were recruited from early childhood education centers. Patients wore accelerometers for 7 consecutive days and then returned to the clinic after 12 months for collection of biometric information. Researchers measured body morphology with the BMI z-score (ie, the number of standard deviations from the mean). Every additional hour of total sleep time was associated with a 0.12-unit lower BMI z-score (95% CI, –0.23 to –0.01) at 1 year. However, every hour increase in nap duration was associated with a 0.41-unit higher BMI z-score (95% CI, 0.14-0.68).⁴

Recommendations from others

In 2016, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recommended the following sleep durations (per 24 hours): infants ages 4 to 12 months, 12-16 hours; children 1 to 2 years, 11-14 hours; children 3 to 5 years, 10-13 hours; children 6 to 12 years, 9-12 hours; and teenagers 13 to 18 years, 8-10 hours. The AASM further stated that sleeping the recommended number of hours was associated with better health outcomes, and that sleeping too few hours increased the risk of various health conditions, including obesity.⁵ In 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition acknowledged the association between obesity and short sleep duration and recommended that health care professionals counsel parents about age-appropriate sleep guidelines.⁶

Editor’s takeaway

Studies demonstrate that short sleep duration in pediatric patients is associated with later weight gain. However, associations do not prove a causal link, and other factors may contribute to both weight gain and poor sleep.

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest short sleep increases obesity risk

Three recent, large systematic reviews of prospective cohort studies with meta-analyses in infants, children, and adolescents all found associations between short sleep at intake and later excessive weight.

The largest meta-analysis included 42 prospective studies with 75,499 patients ranging in age from infancy to adolescence and with follow-up ranging from 1 to 27 years. In a pooled analysis, short sleep—variously defined across trials and mostly assessed by parental report—was associated with an increased risk of obesity or overweight (relative risk [RR] = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.85; I²= 92%), compared to normal and long sleep. When the authors adjusted for suspected publication bias using a “trim and fill” method, short sleep remained associated with later overweight or obesity (RR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.81). Short sleep was associated with later unhealthy weight status in all age groups: 0 to < 3 years (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65); 3 to < 9 years (RR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.4-1.76);9 to < 12 years (RR = 2.23; 95% CI, 2.18-2.27); and 12 to 18 years (RR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.11-1.53). In addition to high heterogeneity, limitations of the review included variability in the definition of short sleep, use of parent- or self-reported sleep duration, and variability in classification of overweight and obesity in primary studies.¹

A second systematic review and meta-analysis included 25 longitudinal studies (20 of which overlapped with the previously discussed meta-analysis) of children and adolescents (N = 56,584). Patients ranged in age from infancy to 16 years, and follow-up ranged from 6 months to 10 years (mean, 3.4 years). Children and adolescents with the shortest sleep duration were more likely to be overweight or obese at follow-up (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.39-2.23; I² = 70.5%) than those with the longest sleep duration. Due to the overlap in studies, the limitations of this analysis were similar to those already mentioned. Lack of a linear association between sleep duration and weight was cited as evidence of possible publication bias; the authors did not attempt to correct for it.²

Three large systematic reviews all found associations between short sleep at intake and later excessive weight.

The third systematic review and meta-analysis included 22 longitudinal studies (18 overlapped with first meta-analysis and 17 with the second) of children and adolescents (N = 24,821) ages 6 months to 18 years. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 27 years. This meta-analysis standardized the categories of sleep duration using recommendations from the Sleep Health Foundation. Patients with short sleep duration had an increased risk of overweight or obesity compared with patients sleeping “normal” or “longer than normal” durations (pooled OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.64-2.81; I² = 67%). The authors indicated that their analysis could have been more robust if information about daytime sleep (ie, napping) had been available, but it was not collected in many of the included studies.³

Accelerometer data quantify the sleep/obesity association

A subsequent cohort study (N = 202) sought to better examine the association between sleep characteristics and adiposity by measuring sleep duration using accelerometers. Toddlers (ages 12 to 26 months) without previous medical history were recruited from early childhood education centers. Patients wore accelerometers for 7 consecutive days and then returned to the clinic after 12 months for collection of biometric information. Researchers measured body morphology with the BMI z-score (ie, the number of standard deviations from the mean). Every additional hour of total sleep time was associated with a 0.12-unit lower BMI z-score (95% CI, –0.23 to –0.01) at 1 year. However, every hour increase in nap duration was associated with a 0.41-unit higher BMI z-score (95% CI, 0.14-0.68).⁴

Recommendations from others

In 2016, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recommended the following sleep durations (per 24 hours): infants ages 4 to 12 months, 12-16 hours; children 1 to 2 years, 11-14 hours; children 3 to 5 years, 10-13 hours; children 6 to 12 years, 9-12 hours; and teenagers 13 to 18 years, 8-10 hours. The AASM further stated that sleeping the recommended number of hours was associated with better health outcomes, and that sleeping too few hours increased the risk of various health conditions, including obesity.⁵ In 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition acknowledged the association between obesity and short sleep duration and recommended that health care professionals counsel parents about age-appropriate sleep guidelines.⁶

Editor’s takeaway

Studies demonstrate that short sleep duration in pediatric patients is associated with later weight gain. However, associations do not prove a causal link, and other factors may contribute to both weight gain and poor sleep.

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest short sleep increases obesity risk

Three recent, large systematic reviews of prospective cohort studies with meta-analyses in infants, children, and adolescents all found associations between short sleep at intake and later excessive weight.

The largest meta-analysis included 42 prospective studies with 75,499 patients ranging in age from infancy to adolescence and with follow-up ranging from 1 to 27 years. In a pooled analysis, short sleep—variously defined across trials and mostly assessed by parental report—was associated with an increased risk of obesity or overweight (relative risk [RR] = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.85; I²= 92%), compared to normal and long sleep. When the authors adjusted for suspected publication bias using a “trim and fill” method, short sleep remained associated with later overweight or obesity (RR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.81). Short sleep was associated with later unhealthy weight status in all age groups: 0 to < 3 years (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65); 3 to < 9 years (RR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.4-1.76);9 to < 12 years (RR = 2.23; 95% CI, 2.18-2.27); and 12 to 18 years (RR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.11-1.53). In addition to high heterogeneity, limitations of the review included variability in the definition of short sleep, use of parent- or self-reported sleep duration, and variability in classification of overweight and obesity in primary studies.¹

A second systematic review and meta-analysis included 25 longitudinal studies (20 of which overlapped with the previously discussed meta-analysis) of children and adolescents (N = 56,584). Patients ranged in age from infancy to 16 years, and follow-up ranged from 6 months to 10 years (mean, 3.4 years). Children and adolescents with the shortest sleep duration were more likely to be overweight or obese at follow-up (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.39-2.23; I² = 70.5%) than those with the longest sleep duration. Due to the overlap in studies, the limitations of this analysis were similar to those already mentioned. Lack of a linear association between sleep duration and weight was cited as evidence of possible publication bias; the authors did not attempt to correct for it.²

Three large systematic reviews all found associations between short sleep at intake and later excessive weight.

The third systematic review and meta-analysis included 22 longitudinal studies (18 overlapped with first meta-analysis and 17 with the second) of children and adolescents (N = 24,821) ages 6 months to 18 years. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 27 years. This meta-analysis standardized the categories of sleep duration using recommendations from the Sleep Health Foundation. Patients with short sleep duration had an increased risk of overweight or obesity compared with patients sleeping “normal” or “longer than normal” durations (pooled OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.64-2.81; I² = 67%). The authors indicated that their analysis could have been more robust if information about daytime sleep (ie, napping) had been available, but it was not collected in many of the included studies.³

Accelerometer data quantify the sleep/obesity association

A subsequent cohort study (N = 202) sought to better examine the association between sleep characteristics and adiposity by measuring sleep duration using accelerometers. Toddlers (ages 12 to 26 months) without previous medical history were recruited from early childhood education centers. Patients wore accelerometers for 7 consecutive days and then returned to the clinic after 12 months for collection of biometric information. Researchers measured body morphology with the BMI z-score (ie, the number of standard deviations from the mean). Every additional hour of total sleep time was associated with a 0.12-unit lower BMI z-score (95% CI, –0.23 to –0.01) at 1 year. However, every hour increase in nap duration was associated with a 0.41-unit higher BMI z-score (95% CI, 0.14-0.68).⁴

Recommendations from others

In 2016, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recommended the following sleep durations (per 24 hours): infants ages 4 to 12 months, 12-16 hours; children 1 to 2 years, 11-14 hours; children 3 to 5 years, 10-13 hours; children 6 to 12 years, 9-12 hours; and teenagers 13 to 18 years, 8-10 hours. The AASM further stated that sleeping the recommended number of hours was associated with better health outcomes, and that sleeping too few hours increased the risk of various health conditions, including obesity.⁵ In 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition acknowledged the association between obesity and short sleep duration and recommended that health care professionals counsel parents about age-appropriate sleep guidelines.⁶

Editor’s takeaway

Studies demonstrate that short sleep duration in pediatric patients is associated with later weight gain. However, associations do not prove a causal link, and other factors may contribute to both weight gain and poor sleep.

I write a lot about watershed moments in my career, things that proved to be moments of tremendous growth, as a person and as a doctor.

One of these occurred early in my career when I met a new patient with ovarian cancer. When I walked into the exam room, I made eye contact with the woman who was accompanied by a man. I assumed they were married, so I went to her first. I introduced myself, stating that I was here to talk about how best to treat her cancer. She stopped me quickly. “Doctor, I am not the patient,” she said. “He is.”

It was the first time I had cared for a transgender man with ovarian cancer. I recall how awkward the following moments were – for all of us. It was the first time I realized that cancer does not have a gender. Men can get breast cancer. Trans women can get prostate cancer. Trans men can get ovarian cancer.

But even many years later, we are not much further along in how prepared we are as a medical community to care for LGBTQ persons. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are not part of the normal medical school curriculum. For most medical students, LGBTQ health is still approached as an aside – perhaps during an infectious disease clerkship, while learning about STDs and HIV. Students do not learn how to approach the male couple seeking to become parents, STD risk reduction for gays and lesbians, or the trans man with ovarian cancer.

But they should, particularly in light of a 2015 study evaluating bias among U.S. medical students. The analysis found that about 45% of medical students exhibited explicit bias against LGBTQ individuals and 8 in 10 held an implicit bias. Fewer than 20% showed no evidence of bias. This lack of preparedness to treat LGBTQ individuals against a backdrop of bias in the medical community often leads patients to mistrust medicine.

To gain perspective outside of oncology, I spoke to Michelle Forcier (she/they), MD, MPH, assistant dean of admissions and professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Forcier agreed that “LGBTQ/rainbow health has been harmfully treated by the system, by both intention and by ignorance.”

“I have had patients who report that EMTs have tried to look under their clothes to determine their gender and transgender patients who have asked point blank to show a provider the results of gender reassignment surgery, not because it was relevant to the issue at hand, but purely out of curiosity,” Dr. Forcier continued. “Then there are the patients who are addressed by the name on their legal record rather than the name that reflects their actual lived experience and identity. These experiences foster this anticipation that is pervasive in this community, that something will be said or done that doesn’t fit who they are, and that ultimately will out them as ‘other.’ ”

I have also felt this sense of being “other” – something I thought I would be immune to as a physician. I have been asked on multiple occasions what my wife does for a living. Moments like this are always awkward. I’m either forced to come out of the closet yet again, or answer vaguely, as if I should be ashamed of my sexuality.

So, how can we move toward equity? Dr. Forcier explained how she lays the groundwork early. “I love pediatrics because kids know when you are being authentic,” she said. “I say who I am, I use she/they pronouns. I also teach by example. If there are more than just my patient in a room, I say, ‘Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves’ so all have a chance to tell me who they are and how they have come together. If it’s not clear to me, sometimes I prod: ‘How are you here to support [the patient]?’ ”

The point, according to Dr. Forcier: Don’t make assumptions about relationships when you walk into a room with more than one person. Don’t even make assumptions about who the patient is.

But bringing up gender and sexuality can be awkward. Even I sometimes have a hard time. In oncology, patients are there to talk about their cancer and what can be done about it.

“I think it’s really about how it’s framed,” Dr. Forcier said. “In pediatrics, I might start by prefacing it with ‘I am going to ask you some personal questions, and it might seem invasive, but it’s important for your health care. How do you see yourself in the world? What gender identity fits you the best? Who are you attracted to?’ And then I shut up. Doctors need to learn how to stop and wait, provide the space to answer.”

I can see why understanding our patients more deeply is important. We treat people with cancer, not cancer people. As such, understanding someone more fully includes being cognizant of how they identify.

“I am continuously inspired by my LGBTQ patients who have fought to realize who they are and become their truer selves,” Dr. Forcier said. “They know who they are, and they know what they need. They have learned to demand it, to demand that their rights be respected – both civil and human rights.”

As we look toward a future in medicine where diversity, equity, and inclusion have gained prominence and urgency, I think there is reason to be hopeful. In oncology, one institutional study published in 2017 found that, although only about a third of practicing clinicians surveyed were comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, 92% of them acknowledged our unique needs, 78% wanted more education on how to appropriately care for our community, and 64% wanted to be listed as an LGBTQ-friendly provider.

“As an optimist, I believe that those struggling with homophobia/transphobia are open to doing things better,” Dr. Forcier said. “After all, we all strive to be better doctors. Whether explicit or implicit bias is at play, turning moments where colleagues are being inappropriate and showing them an alternative, more inclusive way to handle things is one mechanism to educate, rather than to shame. The bottom line is simple: You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to try.”

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence. He is also a professor of medicine at Brown University. His research interests are in novel treatments of women’s cancers and issues related to survivorship, particularly as they relate to sexual health after cancer for both men and women.

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

I write a lot about watershed moments in my career, things that proved to be moments of tremendous growth, as a person and as a doctor.

One of these occurred early in my career when I met a new patient with ovarian cancer. When I walked into the exam room, I made eye contact with the woman who was accompanied by a man. I assumed they were married, so I went to her first. I introduced myself, stating that I was here to talk about how best to treat her cancer. She stopped me quickly. “Doctor, I am not the patient,” she said. “He is.”

It was the first time I had cared for a transgender man with ovarian cancer. I recall how awkward the following moments were – for all of us. It was the first time I realized that cancer does not have a gender. Men can get breast cancer. Trans women can get prostate cancer. Trans men can get ovarian cancer.

But even many years later, we are not much further along in how prepared we are as a medical community to care for LGBTQ persons. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are not part of the normal medical school curriculum. For most medical students, LGBTQ health is still approached as an aside – perhaps during an infectious disease clerkship, while learning about STDs and HIV. Students do not learn how to approach the male couple seeking to become parents, STD risk reduction for gays and lesbians, or the trans man with ovarian cancer.

But they should, particularly in light of a 2015 study evaluating bias among U.S. medical students. The analysis found that about 45% of medical students exhibited explicit bias against LGBTQ individuals and 8 in 10 held an implicit bias. Fewer than 20% showed no evidence of bias. This lack of preparedness to treat LGBTQ individuals against a backdrop of bias in the medical community often leads patients to mistrust medicine.

To gain perspective outside of oncology, I spoke to Michelle Forcier (she/they), MD, MPH, assistant dean of admissions and professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Forcier agreed that “LGBTQ/rainbow health has been harmfully treated by the system, by both intention and by ignorance.”

“I have had patients who report that EMTs have tried to look under their clothes to determine their gender and transgender patients who have asked point blank to show a provider the results of gender reassignment surgery, not because it was relevant to the issue at hand, but purely out of curiosity,” Dr. Forcier continued. “Then there are the patients who are addressed by the name on their legal record rather than the name that reflects their actual lived experience and identity. These experiences foster this anticipation that is pervasive in this community, that something will be said or done that doesn’t fit who they are, and that ultimately will out them as ‘other.’ ”

I have also felt this sense of being “other” – something I thought I would be immune to as a physician. I have been asked on multiple occasions what my wife does for a living. Moments like this are always awkward. I’m either forced to come out of the closet yet again, or answer vaguely, as if I should be ashamed of my sexuality.

So, how can we move toward equity? Dr. Forcier explained how she lays the groundwork early. “I love pediatrics because kids know when you are being authentic,” she said. “I say who I am, I use she/they pronouns. I also teach by example. If there are more than just my patient in a room, I say, ‘Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves’ so all have a chance to tell me who they are and how they have come together. If it’s not clear to me, sometimes I prod: ‘How are you here to support [the patient]?’ ”

The point, according to Dr. Forcier: Don’t make assumptions about relationships when you walk into a room with more than one person. Don’t even make assumptions about who the patient is.

But bringing up gender and sexuality can be awkward. Even I sometimes have a hard time. In oncology, patients are there to talk about their cancer and what can be done about it.

“I think it’s really about how it’s framed,” Dr. Forcier said. “In pediatrics, I might start by prefacing it with ‘I am going to ask you some personal questions, and it might seem invasive, but it’s important for your health care. How do you see yourself in the world? What gender identity fits you the best? Who are you attracted to?’ And then I shut up. Doctors need to learn how to stop and wait, provide the space to answer.”

I can see why understanding our patients more deeply is important. We treat people with cancer, not cancer people. As such, understanding someone more fully includes being cognizant of how they identify.

“I am continuously inspired by my LGBTQ patients who have fought to realize who they are and become their truer selves,” Dr. Forcier said. “They know who they are, and they know what they need. They have learned to demand it, to demand that their rights be respected – both civil and human rights.”

As we look toward a future in medicine where diversity, equity, and inclusion have gained prominence and urgency, I think there is reason to be hopeful. In oncology, one institutional study published in 2017 found that, although only about a third of practicing clinicians surveyed were comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, 92% of them acknowledged our unique needs, 78% wanted more education on how to appropriately care for our community, and 64% wanted to be listed as an LGBTQ-friendly provider.

“As an optimist, I believe that those struggling with homophobia/transphobia are open to doing things better,” Dr. Forcier said. “After all, we all strive to be better doctors. Whether explicit or implicit bias is at play, turning moments where colleagues are being inappropriate and showing them an alternative, more inclusive way to handle things is one mechanism to educate, rather than to shame. The bottom line is simple: You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to try.”

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence. He is also a professor of medicine at Brown University. His research interests are in novel treatments of women’s cancers and issues related to survivorship, particularly as they relate to sexual health after cancer for both men and women.

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

I write a lot about watershed moments in my career, things that proved to be moments of tremendous growth, as a person and as a doctor.

One of these occurred early in my career when I met a new patient with ovarian cancer. When I walked into the exam room, I made eye contact with the woman who was accompanied by a man. I assumed they were married, so I went to her first. I introduced myself, stating that I was here to talk about how best to treat her cancer. She stopped me quickly. “Doctor, I am not the patient,” she said. “He is.”

It was the first time I had cared for a transgender man with ovarian cancer. I recall how awkward the following moments were – for all of us. It was the first time I realized that cancer does not have a gender. Men can get breast cancer. Trans women can get prostate cancer. Trans men can get ovarian cancer.

But even many years later, we are not much further along in how prepared we are as a medical community to care for LGBTQ persons. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are not part of the normal medical school curriculum. For most medical students, LGBTQ health is still approached as an aside – perhaps during an infectious disease clerkship, while learning about STDs and HIV. Students do not learn how to approach the male couple seeking to become parents, STD risk reduction for gays and lesbians, or the trans man with ovarian cancer.

But they should, particularly in light of a 2015 study evaluating bias among U.S. medical students. The analysis found that about 45% of medical students exhibited explicit bias against LGBTQ individuals and 8 in 10 held an implicit bias. Fewer than 20% showed no evidence of bias. This lack of preparedness to treat LGBTQ individuals against a backdrop of bias in the medical community often leads patients to mistrust medicine.

To gain perspective outside of oncology, I spoke to Michelle Forcier (she/they), MD, MPH, assistant dean of admissions and professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Forcier agreed that “LGBTQ/rainbow health has been harmfully treated by the system, by both intention and by ignorance.”

“I have had patients who report that EMTs have tried to look under their clothes to determine their gender and transgender patients who have asked point blank to show a provider the results of gender reassignment surgery, not because it was relevant to the issue at hand, but purely out of curiosity,” Dr. Forcier continued. “Then there are the patients who are addressed by the name on their legal record rather than the name that reflects their actual lived experience and identity. These experiences foster this anticipation that is pervasive in this community, that something will be said or done that doesn’t fit who they are, and that ultimately will out them as ‘other.’ ”

I have also felt this sense of being “other” – something I thought I would be immune to as a physician. I have been asked on multiple occasions what my wife does for a living. Moments like this are always awkward. I’m either forced to come out of the closet yet again, or answer vaguely, as if I should be ashamed of my sexuality.

So, how can we move toward equity? Dr. Forcier explained how she lays the groundwork early. “I love pediatrics because kids know when you are being authentic,” she said. “I say who I am, I use she/they pronouns. I also teach by example. If there are more than just my patient in a room, I say, ‘Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves’ so all have a chance to tell me who they are and how they have come together. If it’s not clear to me, sometimes I prod: ‘How are you here to support [the patient]?’ ”

The point, according to Dr. Forcier: Don’t make assumptions about relationships when you walk into a room with more than one person. Don’t even make assumptions about who the patient is.

But bringing up gender and sexuality can be awkward. Even I sometimes have a hard time. In oncology, patients are there to talk about their cancer and what can be done about it.

“I think it’s really about how it’s framed,” Dr. Forcier said. “In pediatrics, I might start by prefacing it with ‘I am going to ask you some personal questions, and it might seem invasive, but it’s important for your health care. How do you see yourself in the world? What gender identity fits you the best? Who are you attracted to?’ And then I shut up. Doctors need to learn how to stop and wait, provide the space to answer.”

I can see why understanding our patients more deeply is important. We treat people with cancer, not cancer people. As such, understanding someone more fully includes being cognizant of how they identify.

“I am continuously inspired by my LGBTQ patients who have fought to realize who they are and become their truer selves,” Dr. Forcier said. “They know who they are, and they know what they need. They have learned to demand it, to demand that their rights be respected – both civil and human rights.”

As we look toward a future in medicine where diversity, equity, and inclusion have gained prominence and urgency, I think there is reason to be hopeful. In oncology, one institutional study published in 2017 found that, although only about a third of practicing clinicians surveyed were comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, 92% of them acknowledged our unique needs, 78% wanted more education on how to appropriately care for our community, and 64% wanted to be listed as an LGBTQ-friendly provider.

“As an optimist, I believe that those struggling with homophobia/transphobia are open to doing things better,” Dr. Forcier said. “After all, we all strive to be better doctors. Whether explicit or implicit bias is at play, turning moments where colleagues are being inappropriate and showing them an alternative, more inclusive way to handle things is one mechanism to educate, rather than to shame. The bottom line is simple: You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to try.”

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, both in Providence. He is also a professor of medicine at Brown University. His research interests are in novel treatments of women’s cancers and issues related to survivorship, particularly as they relate to sexual health after cancer for both men and women.

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

More clinical data suggesting that men may have a better response to immunotherapy than women in certain circumstances have been reported.

In a population-based cohort study, women with advanced melanoma and prior ipilimumab treatment who then received combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy had a more than twofold increase in the risk for death in comparison with their male counterparts.

The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality among women versus men treated with the combination immunotherapy after prior ipilimumab treatment was 2.06 (P = .003). No such difference was observed among those receiving single-agent therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab (HR for mortality in women vs. men, 0.97; P = .85) or among patients without prior ipilimumab use (HR, 0.85; P = .16).

Women with prior ipilimumab use also had a nearly threefold increase in the risk for death with combination immunotherapy versus with single-agent anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (anti-PD-1) therapy (HR, 2.82), but no such difference was seen among the men in the study.

The findings were published online Dec. 2 in JAMA Network Open.

They come from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERS)–Medicare linked data for 982 men and 387 women with stage III or IV melanoma whose median age was 75 years.

The findings suggest that the patient’s sex should be considered in treatment planning to optimize outcomes, the authors noted.

“These novel findings suggest that, for women with a prior history of ipilimumab, treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy may be preferable to combination therapy, whereas for men, it is unclear which treatment is better,” they wrote.

In a press release, principal author Grace Lu-Yao, PhD, a professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, acknowledged that it remains unclear whether the increased risk for death in women is a result of treatment side effects or lack of efficacy, but she stressed that “this is a powerful signal in real-world data that we need to investigate further.

“This data is a wake-up call based on the experience of hundreds of patients on these drugs,” said Dr. Lu-Yao. “This real-world data demonstrates that the results derived from men might not be applicable to women and it is critical to design studies with sufficient power to evaluate treatment effectiveness by sex.”
 

Relevance for routine practice is unclear

The relevance of the findings for routine practice is unclear, given the median age of the cohort and a lack of data on whether excess mortality was cancer- or toxicity-related or due to another cause, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Weber is a professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University.

“The study is interesting and detailed, but it is a rather narrowly defined cohort that is over 65 and has a median of age 75, [which is] very different than most melanoma patient cohorts of patients treated with immunotherapy, whose median age is 10 years younger,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.

Furthermore, “in practice, almost no current patients will have been previously treated with ipilimumab and then receive combination immunotherapy,” he said. “Overall, these data would not impact on how I treat patients,” he said.
 

Gender differences in response

This study is not the first to show a gender-based difference in outcomes after immunotherapy. As previously reported by this news organization, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet Oncology in 2018 showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors are twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in men with advanced solid tumors, compared with their female counterparts.

However, sex-based differences remain under-assessed despite “accumulating evidence of the potential role played by sex in drug effectiveness owing to the biological differences between men and women,” wrote the authors of the latest study in melanoma.

“This lack of attention on the association of sex with the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based immunotherapy may have significant negative consequences, especially because these treatments are associated with high toxicity and high treatment cost. For future trials, it would be crucial to examine effect modification by sex,” they added.

The study was funded by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Dr. Lu-Yao and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber is a regular contributor to Medscape. He reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck & Co, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.

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

More clinical data suggesting that men may have a better response to immunotherapy than women in certain circumstances have been reported.

In a population-based cohort study, women with advanced melanoma and prior ipilimumab treatment who then received combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy had a more than twofold increase in the risk for death in comparison with their male counterparts.

The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality among women versus men treated with the combination immunotherapy after prior ipilimumab treatment was 2.06 (P = .003). No such difference was observed among those receiving single-agent therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab (HR for mortality in women vs. men, 0.97; P = .85) or among patients without prior ipilimumab use (HR, 0.85; P = .16).

Women with prior ipilimumab use also had a nearly threefold increase in the risk for death with combination immunotherapy versus with single-agent anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (anti-PD-1) therapy (HR, 2.82), but no such difference was seen among the men in the study.

The findings were published online Dec. 2 in JAMA Network Open.

They come from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERS)–Medicare linked data for 982 men and 387 women with stage III or IV melanoma whose median age was 75 years.

The findings suggest that the patient’s sex should be considered in treatment planning to optimize outcomes, the authors noted.

“These novel findings suggest that, for women with a prior history of ipilimumab, treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy may be preferable to combination therapy, whereas for men, it is unclear which treatment is better,” they wrote.

In a press release, principal author Grace Lu-Yao, PhD, a professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, acknowledged that it remains unclear whether the increased risk for death in women is a result of treatment side effects or lack of efficacy, but she stressed that “this is a powerful signal in real-world data that we need to investigate further.

“This data is a wake-up call based on the experience of hundreds of patients on these drugs,” said Dr. Lu-Yao. “This real-world data demonstrates that the results derived from men might not be applicable to women and it is critical to design studies with sufficient power to evaluate treatment effectiveness by sex.”
 

Relevance for routine practice is unclear

The relevance of the findings for routine practice is unclear, given the median age of the cohort and a lack of data on whether excess mortality was cancer- or toxicity-related or due to another cause, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Weber is a professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University.

“The study is interesting and detailed, but it is a rather narrowly defined cohort that is over 65 and has a median of age 75, [which is] very different than most melanoma patient cohorts of patients treated with immunotherapy, whose median age is 10 years younger,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.

Furthermore, “in practice, almost no current patients will have been previously treated with ipilimumab and then receive combination immunotherapy,” he said. “Overall, these data would not impact on how I treat patients,” he said.
 

Gender differences in response

This study is not the first to show a gender-based difference in outcomes after immunotherapy. As previously reported by this news organization, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet Oncology in 2018 showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors are twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in men with advanced solid tumors, compared with their female counterparts.

However, sex-based differences remain under-assessed despite “accumulating evidence of the potential role played by sex in drug effectiveness owing to the biological differences between men and women,” wrote the authors of the latest study in melanoma.

“This lack of attention on the association of sex with the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based immunotherapy may have significant negative consequences, especially because these treatments are associated with high toxicity and high treatment cost. For future trials, it would be crucial to examine effect modification by sex,” they added.

The study was funded by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Dr. Lu-Yao and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber is a regular contributor to Medscape. He reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck & Co, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.

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

More clinical data suggesting that men may have a better response to immunotherapy than women in certain circumstances have been reported.

In a population-based cohort study, women with advanced melanoma and prior ipilimumab treatment who then received combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy had a more than twofold increase in the risk for death in comparison with their male counterparts.

The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality among women versus men treated with the combination immunotherapy after prior ipilimumab treatment was 2.06 (P = .003). No such difference was observed among those receiving single-agent therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab (HR for mortality in women vs. men, 0.97; P = .85) or among patients without prior ipilimumab use (HR, 0.85; P = .16).

Women with prior ipilimumab use also had a nearly threefold increase in the risk for death with combination immunotherapy versus with single-agent anti–programmed cell death protein–1 (anti-PD-1) therapy (HR, 2.82), but no such difference was seen among the men in the study.

The findings were published online Dec. 2 in JAMA Network Open.

They come from an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEERS)–Medicare linked data for 982 men and 387 women with stage III or IV melanoma whose median age was 75 years.

The findings suggest that the patient’s sex should be considered in treatment planning to optimize outcomes, the authors noted.

“These novel findings suggest that, for women with a prior history of ipilimumab, treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy may be preferable to combination therapy, whereas for men, it is unclear which treatment is better,” they wrote.

In a press release, principal author Grace Lu-Yao, PhD, a professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, acknowledged that it remains unclear whether the increased risk for death in women is a result of treatment side effects or lack of efficacy, but she stressed that “this is a powerful signal in real-world data that we need to investigate further.

“This data is a wake-up call based on the experience of hundreds of patients on these drugs,” said Dr. Lu-Yao. “This real-world data demonstrates that the results derived from men might not be applicable to women and it is critical to design studies with sufficient power to evaluate treatment effectiveness by sex.”
 

Relevance for routine practice is unclear

The relevance of the findings for routine practice is unclear, given the median age of the cohort and a lack of data on whether excess mortality was cancer- or toxicity-related or due to another cause, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Weber is a professor and deputy director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University.

“The study is interesting and detailed, but it is a rather narrowly defined cohort that is over 65 and has a median of age 75, [which is] very different than most melanoma patient cohorts of patients treated with immunotherapy, whose median age is 10 years younger,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.

Furthermore, “in practice, almost no current patients will have been previously treated with ipilimumab and then receive combination immunotherapy,” he said. “Overall, these data would not impact on how I treat patients,” he said.
 

Gender differences in response

This study is not the first to show a gender-based difference in outcomes after immunotherapy. As previously reported by this news organization, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet Oncology in 2018 showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors are twice as effective as standard cancer therapies in men with advanced solid tumors, compared with their female counterparts.

However, sex-based differences remain under-assessed despite “accumulating evidence of the potential role played by sex in drug effectiveness owing to the biological differences between men and women,” wrote the authors of the latest study in melanoma.

“This lack of attention on the association of sex with the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based immunotherapy may have significant negative consequences, especially because these treatments are associated with high toxicity and high treatment cost. For future trials, it would be crucial to examine effect modification by sex,” they added.

The study was funded by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Dr. Lu-Yao and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber is a regular contributor to Medscape. He reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech BioOncology, Merck & Co, Novartis, EMD Serono, Celldex, CytomX, Nektar, Roche, Altor, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly and is named on patents filed for biomarkers for ipilimumab and nivolumab.

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

International consensus recommendations on the use of energy‐based devices (EBDs) for the treatment of acne scars, published in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, call for EBDs to be used as first-line treatment.

Peter R. Shumaker, MD, a dermatologist and dermatologic surgeon at the VA San Diego Healthcare System and one of the authors of the paper, noted that a panel of 24 international experts in dermatology and plastic surgery assembled to develop the recommendations for integrating EBDs into the management of acne scarring.

“The advent of fractional laser technology in the mid-2000s ushered in an exciting new period of exploration and advances in scar treatment with EBDs,” Dr. Shumaker said in an interview. “Despite intense interest and a wealth of available literature, international treatment guidelines and patient access to these potentially life-changing treatments are currently lagging behind our capabilities.”

One of the key recommendations of the paper is that EBDs should have an expanded role in the treatment of acne scars, according to Dr. Shumaker, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego. “Panel members were unanimous in their view that EBDs, particularly ablative and nonablative fractional lasers, vascular lasers, and fractional radiofrequency devices, have an important role in the management of acne scars and should be considered a first-line treatment for a variety of scar types,” he said.

The process leading to the recommendations included developing clinical questions, based on input from the panelists and a literature review, and using a two-step modified Delphi method, “an iterative process used to achieve consensus for a defined clinical problem where there is little or conflicting published evidence and where expert opinion is decisive,” the authors wrote. This involved email questionnaires highlighting different topics, including the role of EBDs in mitigating and treating acne scars in patients with active acne, the use of different EBDs for treating different types of acne scars, and considerations in treating skin of color.

The panel noted considerations in the treatment of acne scars in skin of color. “Regardless of the platform, patients with darker skin types may require treatment modifications including: a reduction in fluence/pulse energy; decreased microcolumn density; greater intervals between treatments; longer pulse durations; epidermal cooling with fastidious technique to ensure appropriate cooling, additional cooling in between passes to decrease bulk heating; and pretreatment and posttreatment topical regimens (e.g., retinoids, bleaching creams, etc.) and strict sun precautions,” wrote the authors.

Panelists agreed that there is an absence of large, well-controlled, multicenter comparative trials of various laser and energy treatments for acne scars. “Such trials would be helpful in establishing the relative utility and persistence of benefit of various laser treatments and also in comparing their effectiveness versus that of nonenergy treatments,” the authors noted.

Asked to comment on the paper, Andrei Metelitsa, MD, a dermatologist in Calgary, Alta., and clinical associate professor at the University of Calgary, said the consensus recommendations on EBDs in acne scarring are “providing an international expert perspective, potentially changing a long-perceived paradigm of treatments.”

Dr. Metelitsa pointed out that the authors are taking a solid position with respect to reducing the delay to initiation of laser treatment following isotretinoin therapy. “The authors take a strong stance against the old dogma of postponing laser resurfacing for at least 6 months post isotretinoin,” he said. “According to the authors, there is sufficient evidence to support the idea of safely starting laser therapies, including fractional ablative and nonablative, within 1 month post isotretinoin, much sooner than previously suggested.”

He added that the authors point to the fact most experts utilize vascular lasers, such as pulsed-dye, to treat active acne in combination with medical therapy, thus reducing duration and severity of inflammation and potentially reducing further scar formation. “According to this published consensus, such laser therapies can even be used while the patient is actively treated with isotretinoin,” he said.

Dr. Metelitsa noted that the consensus recommendations outline how the choice of device should be guided by the clinical subtype of acne scars.

Dr. Shumaker, Dr. Metelitsa, and the authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

International consensus recommendations on the use of energy‐based devices (EBDs) for the treatment of acne scars, published in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, call for EBDs to be used as first-line treatment.

Peter R. Shumaker, MD, a dermatologist and dermatologic surgeon at the VA San Diego Healthcare System and one of the authors of the paper, noted that a panel of 24 international experts in dermatology and plastic surgery assembled to develop the recommendations for integrating EBDs into the management of acne scarring.

“The advent of fractional laser technology in the mid-2000s ushered in an exciting new period of exploration and advances in scar treatment with EBDs,” Dr. Shumaker said in an interview. “Despite intense interest and a wealth of available literature, international treatment guidelines and patient access to these potentially life-changing treatments are currently lagging behind our capabilities.”

One of the key recommendations of the paper is that EBDs should have an expanded role in the treatment of acne scars, according to Dr. Shumaker, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego. “Panel members were unanimous in their view that EBDs, particularly ablative and nonablative fractional lasers, vascular lasers, and fractional radiofrequency devices, have an important role in the management of acne scars and should be considered a first-line treatment for a variety of scar types,” he said.

The process leading to the recommendations included developing clinical questions, based on input from the panelists and a literature review, and using a two-step modified Delphi method, “an iterative process used to achieve consensus for a defined clinical problem where there is little or conflicting published evidence and where expert opinion is decisive,” the authors wrote. This involved email questionnaires highlighting different topics, including the role of EBDs in mitigating and treating acne scars in patients with active acne, the use of different EBDs for treating different types of acne scars, and considerations in treating skin of color.

The panel noted considerations in the treatment of acne scars in skin of color. “Regardless of the platform, patients with darker skin types may require treatment modifications including: a reduction in fluence/pulse energy; decreased microcolumn density; greater intervals between treatments; longer pulse durations; epidermal cooling with fastidious technique to ensure appropriate cooling, additional cooling in between passes to decrease bulk heating; and pretreatment and posttreatment topical regimens (e.g., retinoids, bleaching creams, etc.) and strict sun precautions,” wrote the authors.

Panelists agreed that there is an absence of large, well-controlled, multicenter comparative trials of various laser and energy treatments for acne scars. “Such trials would be helpful in establishing the relative utility and persistence of benefit of various laser treatments and also in comparing their effectiveness versus that of nonenergy treatments,” the authors noted.

Asked to comment on the paper, Andrei Metelitsa, MD, a dermatologist in Calgary, Alta., and clinical associate professor at the University of Calgary, said the consensus recommendations on EBDs in acne scarring are “providing an international expert perspective, potentially changing a long-perceived paradigm of treatments.”

Dr. Metelitsa pointed out that the authors are taking a solid position with respect to reducing the delay to initiation of laser treatment following isotretinoin therapy. “The authors take a strong stance against the old dogma of postponing laser resurfacing for at least 6 months post isotretinoin,” he said. “According to the authors, there is sufficient evidence to support the idea of safely starting laser therapies, including fractional ablative and nonablative, within 1 month post isotretinoin, much sooner than previously suggested.”

He added that the authors point to the fact most experts utilize vascular lasers, such as pulsed-dye, to treat active acne in combination with medical therapy, thus reducing duration and severity of inflammation and potentially reducing further scar formation. “According to this published consensus, such laser therapies can even be used while the patient is actively treated with isotretinoin,” he said.

Dr. Metelitsa noted that the consensus recommendations outline how the choice of device should be guided by the clinical subtype of acne scars.

Dr. Shumaker, Dr. Metelitsa, and the authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

International consensus recommendations on the use of energy‐based devices (EBDs) for the treatment of acne scars, published in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, call for EBDs to be used as first-line treatment.

Peter R. Shumaker, MD, a dermatologist and dermatologic surgeon at the VA San Diego Healthcare System and one of the authors of the paper, noted that a panel of 24 international experts in dermatology and plastic surgery assembled to develop the recommendations for integrating EBDs into the management of acne scarring.

“The advent of fractional laser technology in the mid-2000s ushered in an exciting new period of exploration and advances in scar treatment with EBDs,” Dr. Shumaker said in an interview. “Despite intense interest and a wealth of available literature, international treatment guidelines and patient access to these potentially life-changing treatments are currently lagging behind our capabilities.”

One of the key recommendations of the paper is that EBDs should have an expanded role in the treatment of acne scars, according to Dr. Shumaker, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego. “Panel members were unanimous in their view that EBDs, particularly ablative and nonablative fractional lasers, vascular lasers, and fractional radiofrequency devices, have an important role in the management of acne scars and should be considered a first-line treatment for a variety of scar types,” he said.

The process leading to the recommendations included developing clinical questions, based on input from the panelists and a literature review, and using a two-step modified Delphi method, “an iterative process used to achieve consensus for a defined clinical problem where there is little or conflicting published evidence and where expert opinion is decisive,” the authors wrote. This involved email questionnaires highlighting different topics, including the role of EBDs in mitigating and treating acne scars in patients with active acne, the use of different EBDs for treating different types of acne scars, and considerations in treating skin of color.

The panel noted considerations in the treatment of acne scars in skin of color. “Regardless of the platform, patients with darker skin types may require treatment modifications including: a reduction in fluence/pulse energy; decreased microcolumn density; greater intervals between treatments; longer pulse durations; epidermal cooling with fastidious technique to ensure appropriate cooling, additional cooling in between passes to decrease bulk heating; and pretreatment and posttreatment topical regimens (e.g., retinoids, bleaching creams, etc.) and strict sun precautions,” wrote the authors.

Panelists agreed that there is an absence of large, well-controlled, multicenter comparative trials of various laser and energy treatments for acne scars. “Such trials would be helpful in establishing the relative utility and persistence of benefit of various laser treatments and also in comparing their effectiveness versus that of nonenergy treatments,” the authors noted.

Asked to comment on the paper, Andrei Metelitsa, MD, a dermatologist in Calgary, Alta., and clinical associate professor at the University of Calgary, said the consensus recommendations on EBDs in acne scarring are “providing an international expert perspective, potentially changing a long-perceived paradigm of treatments.”

Dr. Metelitsa pointed out that the authors are taking a solid position with respect to reducing the delay to initiation of laser treatment following isotretinoin therapy. “The authors take a strong stance against the old dogma of postponing laser resurfacing for at least 6 months post isotretinoin,” he said. “According to the authors, there is sufficient evidence to support the idea of safely starting laser therapies, including fractional ablative and nonablative, within 1 month post isotretinoin, much sooner than previously suggested.”

He added that the authors point to the fact most experts utilize vascular lasers, such as pulsed-dye, to treat active acne in combination with medical therapy, thus reducing duration and severity of inflammation and potentially reducing further scar formation. “According to this published consensus, such laser therapies can even be used while the patient is actively treated with isotretinoin,” he said.

Dr. Metelitsa noted that the consensus recommendations outline how the choice of device should be guided by the clinical subtype of acne scars.

Dr. Shumaker, Dr. Metelitsa, and the authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house dust mite (HDM) extract showed some benefit in improving the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis in mite-sensitized patients, but improvement in the primary outcome was not significant, new data show.

Results of the small, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were published recently in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

Lead author Sarah Sella Langer, MD, of the department of medicine, Ribeirão Preto (Brazil) Medical School, University of São Paulo, and colleagues said their results suggest HDM SLIT is safe and effective as an add-on treatment.

The dust mite extract therapy had no major side effects after 18 months of treatment, the authors reported.

The researchers included data from 66 patients who completed the study. The participants were at least 3 years old, registered at least 15 on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) measure, and had a skin prick test and/or immunoglobulin E (IgE) test for sensitization to dust mites.

Patients were grouped by age (younger than 12 years or 12 years and older) to receive HDM SLIT (n = 35) or placebo (n = 31) 3 days a week for the study period – between May 2018 and June 2020 – at the Clinical Research Unit of Ribeirão Preto Medical School Hospital.

At baseline, the mean SCORAD was 46.9 (range, 17-87).

After 18 months, 74.2% and 58% of patients in HDM SLIT and placebo groups, respectively, showed at least a15-point decrease in SCORAD (relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.83). However, those primary outcome results did not reach statistical significance.

On the other hand, some secondary outcomes did show significant results.

At 95% CI, the researchers reported significant objective-SCORAD decreases of 56.8% and 34.9% in HDM SLIT and placebo groups (average difference, 21.3). Significantly more patients had a score of 0 or 1 on the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment scale in the intervention group than in the placebo group (14/35 vs. 5/31; RR, 2.63).

There were no significant changes in the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the visual analogue scale for symptoms, the pruritus scale, or the Dermatology Life Quality Index.

Patients in the trial, most of whom had moderate to severe disease, continued to be treated with usual, individualized therapy for AD, in accordance with current guidelines and experts’ recommendations.

Tina Sindher, MD, an allergist with the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, , told this news organization that the results are not robust enough to recommend the immunotherapy widely.

She pointed out that even in the placebo group, more than half the patients met the primary endpoint.

However, she did say HDM SLIT could be considered as an add-on treatment for the right patients, especially since risk for an allergic reaction or other adverse condition is small. The most common adverse effects were headache and abdominal pain, and they were reported in both the treatment and placebo groups.

With AD, she said, “there is no one drug that’s right for everyone,” because genetics and environment make the kind of symptoms and severity and duration different for each patient.

It all comes down to risk and benefits, she said.

She said if she had a patient with an environmental allergy who’s trying to manage nasal congestion and also happened to have eczema, “I think they’re a great candidate for sublingual dust mite therapy because then not only am I treating their nasal congestions, their other symptoms, it may also help their eczema,” Dr. Sindher said.

Without those concurrent conditions, she said, the benefits of dust mite immunotherapy would not outweigh the risks or the potential burden on the patient of having to take the SLIT.

She said she would present the choice to the patient, and if other treatments haven’t been successful and the patient wants to try it, she would be open to a trial period.

The study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Institute of Investigation in Immunology, the National Institutes of Science and Technology, the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the São Paulo Research Foundation. The mite extract for immunotherapy was provided by the laboratory IPI-ASAC Brasil/ASAC Pharma Brasil. Dr. Langer received a doctoral scholarship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). Dr. Sindher reported no relevant financial relationships.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Environmental triggers of atopic dermatitis (AD) may be difficult to assess, especially as children with AD commonly develop “overlap” conditions of allergic rhinitis, food allergy, and asthma. The place of immunotherapy in treatment of AD has been controversial over the years, with mixed results from studies on its effect on eczema in different subpopulations. However, a holistic view of allergy care makes consideration of environmental allergies reasonable. The study by Dr. Langer and colleagues was a well-designed double-blind placebo-controlled trial of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in mite-sensitized AD patients aged 3 and older with at least mild AD, though the mean eczema severity was severe. After 18 months, there was an impressive 74% decrease in eczema score (SCORAD), but also a 58% decrease in the placebo group. While the primary outcome measure wasn’t statistically significant, some secondary ones were. I agree with the commentary in the article that the data doesn’t support immunotherapy being advised to everyone, while its use as an add-on treatment for certain patients in whom the eczema may overlap with other allergic manifestations is reasonable. For several years at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, we have run a multidisciplinary atopic dermatitis program where patients are comanaged by dermatology and allergy. We have learned to appreciate that a broad perspective on managing comorbid conditions in children with AD really helps the patients and families to understand the many effects of inflammatory and allergic conditions, with improved outcomes and quality of life. 

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house dust mite (HDM) extract showed some benefit in improving the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis in mite-sensitized patients, but improvement in the primary outcome was not significant, new data show.

Results of the small, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were published recently in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

Lead author Sarah Sella Langer, MD, of the department of medicine, Ribeirão Preto (Brazil) Medical School, University of São Paulo, and colleagues said their results suggest HDM SLIT is safe and effective as an add-on treatment.

The dust mite extract therapy had no major side effects after 18 months of treatment, the authors reported.

The researchers included data from 66 patients who completed the study. The participants were at least 3 years old, registered at least 15 on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) measure, and had a skin prick test and/or immunoglobulin E (IgE) test for sensitization to dust mites.

Patients were grouped by age (younger than 12 years or 12 years and older) to receive HDM SLIT (n = 35) or placebo (n = 31) 3 days a week for the study period – between May 2018 and June 2020 – at the Clinical Research Unit of Ribeirão Preto Medical School Hospital.

At baseline, the mean SCORAD was 46.9 (range, 17-87).

After 18 months, 74.2% and 58% of patients in HDM SLIT and placebo groups, respectively, showed at least a15-point decrease in SCORAD (relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.83). However, those primary outcome results did not reach statistical significance.

On the other hand, some secondary outcomes did show significant results.

At 95% CI, the researchers reported significant objective-SCORAD decreases of 56.8% and 34.9% in HDM SLIT and placebo groups (average difference, 21.3). Significantly more patients had a score of 0 or 1 on the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment scale in the intervention group than in the placebo group (14/35 vs. 5/31; RR, 2.63).

There were no significant changes in the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the visual analogue scale for symptoms, the pruritus scale, or the Dermatology Life Quality Index.

Patients in the trial, most of whom had moderate to severe disease, continued to be treated with usual, individualized therapy for AD, in accordance with current guidelines and experts’ recommendations.

Tina Sindher, MD, an allergist with the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, , told this news organization that the results are not robust enough to recommend the immunotherapy widely.

She pointed out that even in the placebo group, more than half the patients met the primary endpoint.

However, she did say HDM SLIT could be considered as an add-on treatment for the right patients, especially since risk for an allergic reaction or other adverse condition is small. The most common adverse effects were headache and abdominal pain, and they were reported in both the treatment and placebo groups.

With AD, she said, “there is no one drug that’s right for everyone,” because genetics and environment make the kind of symptoms and severity and duration different for each patient.

It all comes down to risk and benefits, she said.

She said if she had a patient with an environmental allergy who’s trying to manage nasal congestion and also happened to have eczema, “I think they’re a great candidate for sublingual dust mite therapy because then not only am I treating their nasal congestions, their other symptoms, it may also help their eczema,” Dr. Sindher said.

Without those concurrent conditions, she said, the benefits of dust mite immunotherapy would not outweigh the risks or the potential burden on the patient of having to take the SLIT.

She said she would present the choice to the patient, and if other treatments haven’t been successful and the patient wants to try it, she would be open to a trial period.

The study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Institute of Investigation in Immunology, the National Institutes of Science and Technology, the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the São Paulo Research Foundation. The mite extract for immunotherapy was provided by the laboratory IPI-ASAC Brasil/ASAC Pharma Brasil. Dr. Langer received a doctoral scholarship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). Dr. Sindher reported no relevant financial relationships.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Environmental triggers of atopic dermatitis (AD) may be difficult to assess, especially as children with AD commonly develop “overlap” conditions of allergic rhinitis, food allergy, and asthma. The place of immunotherapy in treatment of AD has been controversial over the years, with mixed results from studies on its effect on eczema in different subpopulations. However, a holistic view of allergy care makes consideration of environmental allergies reasonable. The study by Dr. Langer and colleagues was a well-designed double-blind placebo-controlled trial of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in mite-sensitized AD patients aged 3 and older with at least mild AD, though the mean eczema severity was severe. After 18 months, there was an impressive 74% decrease in eczema score (SCORAD), but also a 58% decrease in the placebo group. While the primary outcome measure wasn’t statistically significant, some secondary ones were. I agree with the commentary in the article that the data doesn’t support immunotherapy being advised to everyone, while its use as an add-on treatment for certain patients in whom the eczema may overlap with other allergic manifestations is reasonable. For several years at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, we have run a multidisciplinary atopic dermatitis program where patients are comanaged by dermatology and allergy. We have learned to appreciate that a broad perspective on managing comorbid conditions in children with AD really helps the patients and families to understand the many effects of inflammatory and allergic conditions, with improved outcomes and quality of life. 

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house dust mite (HDM) extract showed some benefit in improving the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis in mite-sensitized patients, but improvement in the primary outcome was not significant, new data show.

Results of the small, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were published recently in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

Lead author Sarah Sella Langer, MD, of the department of medicine, Ribeirão Preto (Brazil) Medical School, University of São Paulo, and colleagues said their results suggest HDM SLIT is safe and effective as an add-on treatment.

The dust mite extract therapy had no major side effects after 18 months of treatment, the authors reported.

The researchers included data from 66 patients who completed the study. The participants were at least 3 years old, registered at least 15 on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) measure, and had a skin prick test and/or immunoglobulin E (IgE) test for sensitization to dust mites.

Patients were grouped by age (younger than 12 years or 12 years and older) to receive HDM SLIT (n = 35) or placebo (n = 31) 3 days a week for the study period – between May 2018 and June 2020 – at the Clinical Research Unit of Ribeirão Preto Medical School Hospital.

At baseline, the mean SCORAD was 46.9 (range, 17-87).

After 18 months, 74.2% and 58% of patients in HDM SLIT and placebo groups, respectively, showed at least a15-point decrease in SCORAD (relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.83). However, those primary outcome results did not reach statistical significance.

On the other hand, some secondary outcomes did show significant results.

At 95% CI, the researchers reported significant objective-SCORAD decreases of 56.8% and 34.9% in HDM SLIT and placebo groups (average difference, 21.3). Significantly more patients had a score of 0 or 1 on the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment scale in the intervention group than in the placebo group (14/35 vs. 5/31; RR, 2.63).

There were no significant changes in the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the visual analogue scale for symptoms, the pruritus scale, or the Dermatology Life Quality Index.

Patients in the trial, most of whom had moderate to severe disease, continued to be treated with usual, individualized therapy for AD, in accordance with current guidelines and experts’ recommendations.

Tina Sindher, MD, an allergist with the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, , told this news organization that the results are not robust enough to recommend the immunotherapy widely.

She pointed out that even in the placebo group, more than half the patients met the primary endpoint.

However, she did say HDM SLIT could be considered as an add-on treatment for the right patients, especially since risk for an allergic reaction or other adverse condition is small. The most common adverse effects were headache and abdominal pain, and they were reported in both the treatment and placebo groups.

With AD, she said, “there is no one drug that’s right for everyone,” because genetics and environment make the kind of symptoms and severity and duration different for each patient.

It all comes down to risk and benefits, she said.

She said if she had a patient with an environmental allergy who’s trying to manage nasal congestion and also happened to have eczema, “I think they’re a great candidate for sublingual dust mite therapy because then not only am I treating their nasal congestions, their other symptoms, it may also help their eczema,” Dr. Sindher said.

Without those concurrent conditions, she said, the benefits of dust mite immunotherapy would not outweigh the risks or the potential burden on the patient of having to take the SLIT.

She said she would present the choice to the patient, and if other treatments haven’t been successful and the patient wants to try it, she would be open to a trial period.

The study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Institute of Investigation in Immunology, the National Institutes of Science and Technology, the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the São Paulo Research Foundation. The mite extract for immunotherapy was provided by the laboratory IPI-ASAC Brasil/ASAC Pharma Brasil. Dr. Langer received a doctoral scholarship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). Dr. Sindher reported no relevant financial relationships.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Environmental triggers of atopic dermatitis (AD) may be difficult to assess, especially as children with AD commonly develop “overlap” conditions of allergic rhinitis, food allergy, and asthma. The place of immunotherapy in treatment of AD has been controversial over the years, with mixed results from studies on its effect on eczema in different subpopulations. However, a holistic view of allergy care makes consideration of environmental allergies reasonable. The study by Dr. Langer and colleagues was a well-designed double-blind placebo-controlled trial of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in mite-sensitized AD patients aged 3 and older with at least mild AD, though the mean eczema severity was severe. After 18 months, there was an impressive 74% decrease in eczema score (SCORAD), but also a 58% decrease in the placebo group. While the primary outcome measure wasn’t statistically significant, some secondary ones were. I agree with the commentary in the article that the data doesn’t support immunotherapy being advised to everyone, while its use as an add-on treatment for certain patients in whom the eczema may overlap with other allergic manifestations is reasonable. For several years at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, we have run a multidisciplinary atopic dermatitis program where patients are comanaged by dermatology and allergy. We have learned to appreciate that a broad perspective on managing comorbid conditions in children with AD really helps the patients and families to understand the many effects of inflammatory and allergic conditions, with improved outcomes and quality of life. 

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

How did you realize medical education was the pathway for you?

Near the end of medical school, I recall my friends and I casting predictions about what each person would be doing in twenty years. The projections offered up about my ultimate landing place were unanimous: a clinical researcher leading a gastroenterology division. I was excited when they said this to me. It made sense, as I had already done over 3 years of clinical research on inflammatory bowel disease at the time. But as I began leading various clinical research projects during my internal medicine residency, I realized that they were not generating a strong sense of fulfillment or passion for me. I greatly enjoyed the process of research and writing, but there still was something missing; I could no longer see the role of a funded clinical researcher sustaining me for the length of my medical and academic career.

Thus, at the end of my 2nd year of residency, I began to self-reflect more on the various aspects of my medical journey to elucidate my path forward. This process was jump-started by a humbling recognition from that year’s graduating class of medical students for my contributions to their education over the past 3 years. I had served as a teaching assistant for their pathophysiology course and then subsequently worked alongside many of them on their medicine rotations. I realized that helping foster their growth as physicians in a longitudinal way was unquestionably the most rewarding experience that I had had to date. With further reflection, I recognized that, amid the chaos of a busy call day, I most looked forward to the moments when I could teach the interns and students about the nuances of the patients being admitted. It never felt like an obligation but rather always left me feeling revitalized. So, by the beginning of my 3rd year of residency, I knew that I wanted to pursue a career within medical education.
 

Once you decided to become a medical educator, what were your next steps?

As I began to vocalize this change in career trajectory, I did not always encounter enthusiastic support. Because the medical educator pathway is more typical amongst the general medicine community, some faculty members advised me to avoid solely focusing on medical education as a specialist because academic success would be difficult to attain. But I had just recognized this could be my vocation within medicine, so I could not turn back now. Thus, I began to seek the mentorship of educators at my institution, and many of them wisely advised me to consider pursuing additional training in medical education to accrue the skill sets needed to lay the groundwork for a lifelong career. So, I participated in a 1-year medical education fellowship in conjunction with my chief residency year. This training was profoundly formative; I learned about the various theories on adult learning, as well as how to create curricula, how to teach effectively in a clinical environment, and how to deliver meaningful feedback to learners. But perhaps most importantly, I learned how to generate tangible evidence of productivity within medical education to allow for advancement in academia. This included rigorously studying the impact of educational interventions. It became clear to me by the end of this year that the pathways of medical education and researcher were not incongruent but could actually be quite complementary. In light of this, I designed and implemented a mandatory inpatient hepatology curriculum for internal medicine residents, for which I studied its immediate and long-term effects throughout my gastroenterology and hepatology fellowships as well as during my time as an attending. Currently, I am also investigating medical students’ exposure to liver disease through a multicenter assessment. Projects such as these would not have been feasible without dedicated mentorship, but as alluded to above, in contrast to the traditional clinical research paradigm, my mentors have often been from outside the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology.

What advice would you offer a junior faculty member interested in a career in medical education within gastroenterology and hepatology?

1. Just before I completed fellowship, I asked Holly Humphrey, MD, the former dean of the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago, this same question. Her answer was simple and is worth sharing: “In the beginning, just focus on becoming the best clinician possible. The rest will fall into place with time.” So, I did exactly this. I continually tried to push the limits of my knowledge, always questioning standard clinical practices to understand the evidence behind (or not behind) them. This knowledge then naturally became the content of my teaching for trainees in the clinical environment so that eventually patient care and teaching were seamlessly integrated into the same day-to-day workflow. The more I taught trainees, the more my commitment to education was recognized by my institution.

2. Meet with leadership of your medical school, internal medicine residency program, and gastroenterology and hepatology fellowships early in the course of your career to assert your desire to contribute to their respective educational missions.

3. Create a teaching philosophy that clearly communicates “your fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning, why you hold those values and beliefs, and how you translate these claims into practice.”¹ This document will act as a guiding force in your career by highlighting the themes and principles that you have already incorporated and will continue to incorporate into your teaching practices and educational activities. For example, it can provide clarity when you are in doubt of how to address a difficult learning environment or whether to accept a certain position.

4. Because of No. 1 and No. 2, you will start to be offered opportunities to formally become involved in curricula within undergraduate (UME) and graduate medical education (GME). It will likely begin with requests to lecture or precept small group sessions. Use these smaller opportunities not only to refine your teaching skills but to explore whether your career aspirations better align with UME or GME. With hard work and perseverance, the opportunities can progress to invitations to become a course director, join a curriculum committee, or become an associate program director for a residency or fellowship program (which at this point is why you want to know if you prefer working in UME, GME, or both).

5. Seek feedback often from your learners. It is the only way you will continue to improve your teaching skills and the learning environment you create. Furthermore, formal evaluations can be used in the promotion process.

6. Collaborate with and seek mentorship from fellow medical educators both at your own institution and at others. As previously mentioned, these relationships do not need to be (and are often not) with other gastroenterologists or hepatologists.

7. Seek out national opportunities related to medical education. Most of the gastroenterology and hepatology societies have one or more committees focused on medical training. The AGA Academy of Educators is a fantastic community of education-focused individuals within our specialty that provides opportunities for networking, funding, and career development. Furthermore, other general societies (for example, the Association of American Medical Colleges, American College of Physicians) may be interested in including subspecialty members in their educational committees and activities.

Dr. Mikolajczyk is an assistant professor of medicine and an associate program director for the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the University of Illinois Chicago. He is the lead faculty adviser for the Liver Fellow Network. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

How did you realize medical education was the pathway for you?

Near the end of medical school, I recall my friends and I casting predictions about what each person would be doing in twenty years. The projections offered up about my ultimate landing place were unanimous: a clinical researcher leading a gastroenterology division. I was excited when they said this to me. It made sense, as I had already done over 3 years of clinical research on inflammatory bowel disease at the time. But as I began leading various clinical research projects during my internal medicine residency, I realized that they were not generating a strong sense of fulfillment or passion for me. I greatly enjoyed the process of research and writing, but there still was something missing; I could no longer see the role of a funded clinical researcher sustaining me for the length of my medical and academic career.

Thus, at the end of my 2nd year of residency, I began to self-reflect more on the various aspects of my medical journey to elucidate my path forward. This process was jump-started by a humbling recognition from that year’s graduating class of medical students for my contributions to their education over the past 3 years. I had served as a teaching assistant for their pathophysiology course and then subsequently worked alongside many of them on their medicine rotations. I realized that helping foster their growth as physicians in a longitudinal way was unquestionably the most rewarding experience that I had had to date. With further reflection, I recognized that, amid the chaos of a busy call day, I most looked forward to the moments when I could teach the interns and students about the nuances of the patients being admitted. It never felt like an obligation but rather always left me feeling revitalized. So, by the beginning of my 3rd year of residency, I knew that I wanted to pursue a career within medical education.
 

Once you decided to become a medical educator, what were your next steps?

As I began to vocalize this change in career trajectory, I did not always encounter enthusiastic support. Because the medical educator pathway is more typical amongst the general medicine community, some faculty members advised me to avoid solely focusing on medical education as a specialist because academic success would be difficult to attain. But I had just recognized this could be my vocation within medicine, so I could not turn back now. Thus, I began to seek the mentorship of educators at my institution, and many of them wisely advised me to consider pursuing additional training in medical education to accrue the skill sets needed to lay the groundwork for a lifelong career. So, I participated in a 1-year medical education fellowship in conjunction with my chief residency year. This training was profoundly formative; I learned about the various theories on adult learning, as well as how to create curricula, how to teach effectively in a clinical environment, and how to deliver meaningful feedback to learners. But perhaps most importantly, I learned how to generate tangible evidence of productivity within medical education to allow for advancement in academia. This included rigorously studying the impact of educational interventions. It became clear to me by the end of this year that the pathways of medical education and researcher were not incongruent but could actually be quite complementary. In light of this, I designed and implemented a mandatory inpatient hepatology curriculum for internal medicine residents, for which I studied its immediate and long-term effects throughout my gastroenterology and hepatology fellowships as well as during my time as an attending. Currently, I am also investigating medical students’ exposure to liver disease through a multicenter assessment. Projects such as these would not have been feasible without dedicated mentorship, but as alluded to above, in contrast to the traditional clinical research paradigm, my mentors have often been from outside the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology.

What advice would you offer a junior faculty member interested in a career in medical education within gastroenterology and hepatology?

1. Just before I completed fellowship, I asked Holly Humphrey, MD, the former dean of the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago, this same question. Her answer was simple and is worth sharing: “In the beginning, just focus on becoming the best clinician possible. The rest will fall into place with time.” So, I did exactly this. I continually tried to push the limits of my knowledge, always questioning standard clinical practices to understand the evidence behind (or not behind) them. This knowledge then naturally became the content of my teaching for trainees in the clinical environment so that eventually patient care and teaching were seamlessly integrated into the same day-to-day workflow. The more I taught trainees, the more my commitment to education was recognized by my institution.

2. Meet with leadership of your medical school, internal medicine residency program, and gastroenterology and hepatology fellowships early in the course of your career to assert your desire to contribute to their respective educational missions.

3. Create a teaching philosophy that clearly communicates “your fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning, why you hold those values and beliefs, and how you translate these claims into practice.”¹ This document will act as a guiding force in your career by highlighting the themes and principles that you have already incorporated and will continue to incorporate into your teaching practices and educational activities. For example, it can provide clarity when you are in doubt of how to address a difficult learning environment or whether to accept a certain position.

4. Because of No. 1 and No. 2, you will start to be offered opportunities to formally become involved in curricula within undergraduate (UME) and graduate medical education (GME). It will likely begin with requests to lecture or precept small group sessions. Use these smaller opportunities not only to refine your teaching skills but to explore whether your career aspirations better align with UME or GME. With hard work and perseverance, the opportunities can progress to invitations to become a course director, join a curriculum committee, or become an associate program director for a residency or fellowship program (which at this point is why you want to know if you prefer working in UME, GME, or both).

5. Seek feedback often from your learners. It is the only way you will continue to improve your teaching skills and the learning environment you create. Furthermore, formal evaluations can be used in the promotion process.

6. Collaborate with and seek mentorship from fellow medical educators both at your own institution and at others. As previously mentioned, these relationships do not need to be (and are often not) with other gastroenterologists or hepatologists.

7. Seek out national opportunities related to medical education. Most of the gastroenterology and hepatology societies have one or more committees focused on medical training. The AGA Academy of Educators is a fantastic community of education-focused individuals within our specialty that provides opportunities for networking, funding, and career development. Furthermore, other general societies (for example, the Association of American Medical Colleges, American College of Physicians) may be interested in including subspecialty members in their educational committees and activities.

Dr. Mikolajczyk is an assistant professor of medicine and an associate program director for the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the University of Illinois Chicago. He is the lead faculty adviser for the Liver Fellow Network. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

How did you realize medical education was the pathway for you?

Near the end of medical school, I recall my friends and I casting predictions about what each person would be doing in twenty years. The projections offered up about my ultimate landing place were unanimous: a clinical researcher leading a gastroenterology division. I was excited when they said this to me. It made sense, as I had already done over 3 years of clinical research on inflammatory bowel disease at the time. But as I began leading various clinical research projects during my internal medicine residency, I realized that they were not generating a strong sense of fulfillment or passion for me. I greatly enjoyed the process of research and writing, but there still was something missing; I could no longer see the role of a funded clinical researcher sustaining me for the length of my medical and academic career.

Thus, at the end of my 2nd year of residency, I began to self-reflect more on the various aspects of my medical journey to elucidate my path forward. This process was jump-started by a humbling recognition from that year’s graduating class of medical students for my contributions to their education over the past 3 years. I had served as a teaching assistant for their pathophysiology course and then subsequently worked alongside many of them on their medicine rotations. I realized that helping foster their growth as physicians in a longitudinal way was unquestionably the most rewarding experience that I had had to date. With further reflection, I recognized that, amid the chaos of a busy call day, I most looked forward to the moments when I could teach the interns and students about the nuances of the patients being admitted. It never felt like an obligation but rather always left me feeling revitalized. So, by the beginning of my 3rd year of residency, I knew that I wanted to pursue a career within medical education.
 

Once you decided to become a medical educator, what were your next steps?

As I began to vocalize this change in career trajectory, I did not always encounter enthusiastic support. Because the medical educator pathway is more typical amongst the general medicine community, some faculty members advised me to avoid solely focusing on medical education as a specialist because academic success would be difficult to attain. But I had just recognized this could be my vocation within medicine, so I could not turn back now. Thus, I began to seek the mentorship of educators at my institution, and many of them wisely advised me to consider pursuing additional training in medical education to accrue the skill sets needed to lay the groundwork for a lifelong career. So, I participated in a 1-year medical education fellowship in conjunction with my chief residency year. This training was profoundly formative; I learned about the various theories on adult learning, as well as how to create curricula, how to teach effectively in a clinical environment, and how to deliver meaningful feedback to learners. But perhaps most importantly, I learned how to generate tangible evidence of productivity within medical education to allow for advancement in academia. This included rigorously studying the impact of educational interventions. It became clear to me by the end of this year that the pathways of medical education and researcher were not incongruent but could actually be quite complementary. In light of this, I designed and implemented a mandatory inpatient hepatology curriculum for internal medicine residents, for which I studied its immediate and long-term effects throughout my gastroenterology and hepatology fellowships as well as during my time as an attending. Currently, I am also investigating medical students’ exposure to liver disease through a multicenter assessment. Projects such as these would not have been feasible without dedicated mentorship, but as alluded to above, in contrast to the traditional clinical research paradigm, my mentors have often been from outside the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology.

What advice would you offer a junior faculty member interested in a career in medical education within gastroenterology and hepatology?

1. Just before I completed fellowship, I asked Holly Humphrey, MD, the former dean of the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago, this same question. Her answer was simple and is worth sharing: “In the beginning, just focus on becoming the best clinician possible. The rest will fall into place with time.” So, I did exactly this. I continually tried to push the limits of my knowledge, always questioning standard clinical practices to understand the evidence behind (or not behind) them. This knowledge then naturally became the content of my teaching for trainees in the clinical environment so that eventually patient care and teaching were seamlessly integrated into the same day-to-day workflow. The more I taught trainees, the more my commitment to education was recognized by my institution.

2. Meet with leadership of your medical school, internal medicine residency program, and gastroenterology and hepatology fellowships early in the course of your career to assert your desire to contribute to their respective educational missions.

3. Create a teaching philosophy that clearly communicates “your fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning, why you hold those values and beliefs, and how you translate these claims into practice.”¹ This document will act as a guiding force in your career by highlighting the themes and principles that you have already incorporated and will continue to incorporate into your teaching practices and educational activities. For example, it can provide clarity when you are in doubt of how to address a difficult learning environment or whether to accept a certain position.

4. Because of No. 1 and No. 2, you will start to be offered opportunities to formally become involved in curricula within undergraduate (UME) and graduate medical education (GME). It will likely begin with requests to lecture or precept small group sessions. Use these smaller opportunities not only to refine your teaching skills but to explore whether your career aspirations better align with UME or GME. With hard work and perseverance, the opportunities can progress to invitations to become a course director, join a curriculum committee, or become an associate program director for a residency or fellowship program (which at this point is why you want to know if you prefer working in UME, GME, or both).

5. Seek feedback often from your learners. It is the only way you will continue to improve your teaching skills and the learning environment you create. Furthermore, formal evaluations can be used in the promotion process.

6. Collaborate with and seek mentorship from fellow medical educators both at your own institution and at others. As previously mentioned, these relationships do not need to be (and are often not) with other gastroenterologists or hepatologists.

7. Seek out national opportunities related to medical education. Most of the gastroenterology and hepatology societies have one or more committees focused on medical training. The AGA Academy of Educators is a fantastic community of education-focused individuals within our specialty that provides opportunities for networking, funding, and career development. Furthermore, other general societies (for example, the Association of American Medical Colleges, American College of Physicians) may be interested in including subspecialty members in their educational committees and activities.

Dr. Mikolajczyk is an assistant professor of medicine and an associate program director for the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the University of Illinois Chicago. He is the lead faculty adviser for the Liver Fellow Network. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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