The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

Pharma rep admits to health care fraud, money laundering, and more

Paul Camarda, a pharmaceutical sales representative, admitted to conspiring to defraud New Jersey County health benefits programs and conspiring to engage in money laundering and obstruct justice. Mr. Camarda pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and engage in money laundering.

Mr. Camarda, 39, of Holmdel, N. J., created a side business called Dynasty Capital LLC to independently market medical products and services for other companies, including compounded prescription medications for specialty pharmacies, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Mr. Camarda learned that certain local government employees had insurance coverage for these compounded medications and discovered that certain compounded medications were reimbursed up to thousands of dollars for a 1-month supply. Mr. Camarda recruited individuals with insurance coverage to fraudulently obtain medically unnecessary compounded medications.

He marketed compounded medications for several pharmacies. As part of his arrangements with the compounding pharmacies and his conspirators, Mr. Camarda was paid a percentage of the insurance payments received for prescriptions arranged by him and those working for him.

Mr. Camarda received more than $2.2 million in payments for the prescriptions he and those working with him arranged. Mr. Camarda and his recruits caused more than $3.4 million in fraudulent claims to be submitted to the pharmacy benefits administrator for compounded medications.

He is due to be sentenced in November and faces up to 15 years in prison plus $500,000 in fines.
 

Home health care and hospice agency owner defrauds Medicare for $31 million

Akop Atoyan, 48, of Glendale, Calif., pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of conspiracy to pay and receive healthcare kickbacks.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Atoyan and his wife, Liana Karapetyan, owned and controlled home healthcare and hospice agencies in the greater Sacramento area: ANG Health Care Inc, Excel Home Healthcare Inc, and Excel Hospice Inc. Mr. Atoyan and Ms. Karapetyan certified to Medicare that their agencies would not pay kickbacks in exchange for Medicare beneficiary referrals.

Officials claim Mr. Atoyan and Ms. Karapetyan paid and directed others to pay kickbacks to multiple individuals for beneficiary referrals, including employees of healthcare facilities, as well as employees’ spouses. In total, Mr. Atoyan, Ms. Karapetyan, and others caused the agencies to submit over 8,000 claims to Medicare for the cost of home healthcare and hospice services. Medicare was billed about $31 million.

As part of his guilty plea, Mr. Atoyan agreed to pay about $2.5 million in restitution to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He also agreed to forfeit that amount to the United States.
 

Medical clinic owner sentenced to jail for Medicaid fraud

Larry Lance Crawford, 49, of Las Vegas, was sentenced in a Medicaid fraud case involving the failure to maintain adequate records to substantiate claims submitted to Nevada Medicaid.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Office announced that Mr. Crawford was given 364 days in jail and was ordered to pay $50,000.00 in restitution.

The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit received information that Mr. Crawford, the owner of Dynamic Future, was using his business to submit false claims for services that were never provided to Medicaid recipients. The investigation revealed that Mr. Crawford failed to maintain records to support the services that were allegedly provided.

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

Pharma rep admits to health care fraud, money laundering, and more

Paul Camarda, a pharmaceutical sales representative, admitted to conspiring to defraud New Jersey County health benefits programs and conspiring to engage in money laundering and obstruct justice. Mr. Camarda pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and engage in money laundering.

Mr. Camarda, 39, of Holmdel, N. J., created a side business called Dynasty Capital LLC to independently market medical products and services for other companies, including compounded prescription medications for specialty pharmacies, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Mr. Camarda learned that certain local government employees had insurance coverage for these compounded medications and discovered that certain compounded medications were reimbursed up to thousands of dollars for a 1-month supply. Mr. Camarda recruited individuals with insurance coverage to fraudulently obtain medically unnecessary compounded medications.

He marketed compounded medications for several pharmacies. As part of his arrangements with the compounding pharmacies and his conspirators, Mr. Camarda was paid a percentage of the insurance payments received for prescriptions arranged by him and those working for him.

Mr. Camarda received more than $2.2 million in payments for the prescriptions he and those working with him arranged. Mr. Camarda and his recruits caused more than $3.4 million in fraudulent claims to be submitted to the pharmacy benefits administrator for compounded medications.

He is due to be sentenced in November and faces up to 15 years in prison plus $500,000 in fines.
 

Home health care and hospice agency owner defrauds Medicare for $31 million

Akop Atoyan, 48, of Glendale, Calif., pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of conspiracy to pay and receive healthcare kickbacks.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Atoyan and his wife, Liana Karapetyan, owned and controlled home healthcare and hospice agencies in the greater Sacramento area: ANG Health Care Inc, Excel Home Healthcare Inc, and Excel Hospice Inc. Mr. Atoyan and Ms. Karapetyan certified to Medicare that their agencies would not pay kickbacks in exchange for Medicare beneficiary referrals.

Officials claim Mr. Atoyan and Ms. Karapetyan paid and directed others to pay kickbacks to multiple individuals for beneficiary referrals, including employees of healthcare facilities, as well as employees’ spouses. In total, Mr. Atoyan, Ms. Karapetyan, and others caused the agencies to submit over 8,000 claims to Medicare for the cost of home healthcare and hospice services. Medicare was billed about $31 million.

As part of his guilty plea, Mr. Atoyan agreed to pay about $2.5 million in restitution to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He also agreed to forfeit that amount to the United States.
 

Medical clinic owner sentenced to jail for Medicaid fraud

Larry Lance Crawford, 49, of Las Vegas, was sentenced in a Medicaid fraud case involving the failure to maintain adequate records to substantiate claims submitted to Nevada Medicaid.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Office announced that Mr. Crawford was given 364 days in jail and was ordered to pay $50,000.00 in restitution.

The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit received information that Mr. Crawford, the owner of Dynamic Future, was using his business to submit false claims for services that were never provided to Medicaid recipients. The investigation revealed that Mr. Crawford failed to maintain records to support the services that were allegedly provided.

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

Pharma rep admits to health care fraud, money laundering, and more

Paul Camarda, a pharmaceutical sales representative, admitted to conspiring to defraud New Jersey County health benefits programs and conspiring to engage in money laundering and obstruct justice. Mr. Camarda pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and engage in money laundering.

Mr. Camarda, 39, of Holmdel, N. J., created a side business called Dynasty Capital LLC to independently market medical products and services for other companies, including compounded prescription medications for specialty pharmacies, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Mr. Camarda learned that certain local government employees had insurance coverage for these compounded medications and discovered that certain compounded medications were reimbursed up to thousands of dollars for a 1-month supply. Mr. Camarda recruited individuals with insurance coverage to fraudulently obtain medically unnecessary compounded medications.

He marketed compounded medications for several pharmacies. As part of his arrangements with the compounding pharmacies and his conspirators, Mr. Camarda was paid a percentage of the insurance payments received for prescriptions arranged by him and those working for him.

Mr. Camarda received more than $2.2 million in payments for the prescriptions he and those working with him arranged. Mr. Camarda and his recruits caused more than $3.4 million in fraudulent claims to be submitted to the pharmacy benefits administrator for compounded medications.

He is due to be sentenced in November and faces up to 15 years in prison plus $500,000 in fines.
 

Home health care and hospice agency owner defrauds Medicare for $31 million

Akop Atoyan, 48, of Glendale, Calif., pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of conspiracy to pay and receive healthcare kickbacks.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Atoyan and his wife, Liana Karapetyan, owned and controlled home healthcare and hospice agencies in the greater Sacramento area: ANG Health Care Inc, Excel Home Healthcare Inc, and Excel Hospice Inc. Mr. Atoyan and Ms. Karapetyan certified to Medicare that their agencies would not pay kickbacks in exchange for Medicare beneficiary referrals.

Officials claim Mr. Atoyan and Ms. Karapetyan paid and directed others to pay kickbacks to multiple individuals for beneficiary referrals, including employees of healthcare facilities, as well as employees’ spouses. In total, Mr. Atoyan, Ms. Karapetyan, and others caused the agencies to submit over 8,000 claims to Medicare for the cost of home healthcare and hospice services. Medicare was billed about $31 million.

As part of his guilty plea, Mr. Atoyan agreed to pay about $2.5 million in restitution to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He also agreed to forfeit that amount to the United States.
 

Medical clinic owner sentenced to jail for Medicaid fraud

Larry Lance Crawford, 49, of Las Vegas, was sentenced in a Medicaid fraud case involving the failure to maintain adequate records to substantiate claims submitted to Nevada Medicaid.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Office announced that Mr. Crawford was given 364 days in jail and was ordered to pay $50,000.00 in restitution.

The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit received information that Mr. Crawford, the owner of Dynamic Future, was using his business to submit false claims for services that were never provided to Medicaid recipients. The investigation revealed that Mr. Crawford failed to maintain records to support the services that were allegedly provided.

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

Dr Joseph Berger of the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia discusses abstracts from ECTRIMS 2021 focusing on the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Dr Berger discusses ULTIMATE I and ULTIMATE II results, in which ublituximab — a novel monoclonal antibody — improved annualized relapse rates, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite scores, and percentages of patients with no evidence of disease activity compared to teriflunomide.

Dr Berger also highlights a study that examined the association between serum neurofilament light (NfL) levels and disease progression in patients on natalizumab. Although NfL levels were significantly reduced after initiation of therapy, no differences were evident between progressors and nonprogressors.

Next, he examines 3-year data from the CASTING study, which assessed ocrelizumab in patients who had a suboptimal response to one or two previous DMTs. Follow-up analysis showed that patients who received ocrelizumab had consistently low disease activity throughout the study period; mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, annualized relapse rates, and no evidence of disease activity were also stable.

Dr Berger concludes with a comparative analysis of patients who started on or switched to dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide. Dimethyl fumarate showed more favorable outcomes in time to relapse, time to EDSS worsening, and sensitivity analysis.

--

Joseph R. Berger, MD, Professor; Associate Chief, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis Division, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Received research grant from: Biogen; Roche/Genentech

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Amgen; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Genzyme; Excision Bio; Dr. Reddy; Serono; Morphic; Novartis; Inhibikase; Morphic; Encycle; Merck; Mapi

Dr Joseph Berger of the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia discusses abstracts from ECTRIMS 2021 focusing on the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Dr Berger discusses ULTIMATE I and ULTIMATE II results, in which ublituximab — a novel monoclonal antibody — improved annualized relapse rates, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite scores, and percentages of patients with no evidence of disease activity compared to teriflunomide.

Dr Berger also highlights a study that examined the association between serum neurofilament light (NfL) levels and disease progression in patients on natalizumab. Although NfL levels were significantly reduced after initiation of therapy, no differences were evident between progressors and nonprogressors.

Next, he examines 3-year data from the CASTING study, which assessed ocrelizumab in patients who had a suboptimal response to one or two previous DMTs. Follow-up analysis showed that patients who received ocrelizumab had consistently low disease activity throughout the study period; mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, annualized relapse rates, and no evidence of disease activity were also stable.

Dr Berger concludes with a comparative analysis of patients who started on or switched to dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide. Dimethyl fumarate showed more favorable outcomes in time to relapse, time to EDSS worsening, and sensitivity analysis.

--

Joseph R. Berger, MD, Professor; Associate Chief, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis Division, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Received research grant from: Biogen; Roche/Genentech

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Amgen; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Genzyme; Excision Bio; Dr. Reddy; Serono; Morphic; Novartis; Inhibikase; Morphic; Encycle; Merck; Mapi

Dr Joseph Berger of the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia discusses abstracts from ECTRIMS 2021 focusing on the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Dr Berger discusses ULTIMATE I and ULTIMATE II results, in which ublituximab — a novel monoclonal antibody — improved annualized relapse rates, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite scores, and percentages of patients with no evidence of disease activity compared to teriflunomide.

Dr Berger also highlights a study that examined the association between serum neurofilament light (NfL) levels and disease progression in patients on natalizumab. Although NfL levels were significantly reduced after initiation of therapy, no differences were evident between progressors and nonprogressors.

Next, he examines 3-year data from the CASTING study, which assessed ocrelizumab in patients who had a suboptimal response to one or two previous DMTs. Follow-up analysis showed that patients who received ocrelizumab had consistently low disease activity throughout the study period; mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, annualized relapse rates, and no evidence of disease activity were also stable.

Dr Berger concludes with a comparative analysis of patients who started on or switched to dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide. Dimethyl fumarate showed more favorable outcomes in time to relapse, time to EDSS worsening, and sensitivity analysis.

--

Joseph R. Berger, MD, Professor; Associate Chief, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis Division, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Received research grant from: Biogen; Roche/Genentech

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Amgen; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Genzyme; Excision Bio; Dr. Reddy; Serono; Morphic; Novartis; Inhibikase; Morphic; Encycle; Merck; Mapi

In May 15, 1976, Family Practice News published its first “Residents’ Viewpoint,” a monthly column the publication established “in an effort to keep established practitioners as well as residents up to date.”

We are currently republishing an installment of this column as part of our continuing celebration of Family Practice News’s 50th anniversary.

MDedge News

Bruce A. Bagley, MD, wrote the first batch of these columns, when he was chief resident in family medicine at St. Joseph’s Hospital, Syracuse, N.Y. Joseph E. Scherger, MD, was the second writer for Family Practice News’s monthly “Residents’ Viewpoint.” At the time Dr. Scher­ger became a columnist, he was a 26-year-old, 2nd-year family practice resident at the Family Medical Center, University Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Scherger’s first column was published on Feb. 5, 1977. We are republishing his “Residents’ Viewpoint” from June 15, 1977 (see below) and a new column by Victoria Persampiere, DO, who is currently a 2nd-year resident in the family medicine program at Abington Jefferson Health. (See “My experience as a family medicine resident in 2021” after Dr. Scherger’s column.).

We hope you will enjoy comparing and contrasting the experiences of a resident practicing family medicine today to those of a resident practicing family medicine nearly 4½ decades ago.To learn about Dr. Scherger’s current practice and long career, you can read his profile on the cover of the September 2021 issue of Family Practice News or on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine in our “Family Practice News 50th Anniversary” section.
 

Art of medicine or deception?

Originally published in Family Practice News on June 15, 1977.

The practice of medicine can be divided into the scientific aspects of diagnosis and treatment and the nonscientific aspects of meeting patients’ needs, the art of medicine.

In medical school I learned the science of medicine. There I diligently studied the basic sciences and gained a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology of disease. In the clinical years I learned to apply this knowledge to a wide variety of interesting patients who came to the academic center.

Yet, when I started my family practice residency, I lacked the ability to care for patients. Though I could take a thorough history, perform a complete physical examination, and diagnose and treat specific illnesses, I had little idea how to satisfy patients by meeting their needs.

The art of medicine is the nonscientific part of a successful doctor-patient interaction. For a doctor-patient interaction to be successful, not only must the illness be appropriately addressed, but both patient and physician must be satisfied.

In the university environment, the art of medicine often gets inadequate attention. Indeed, most academic physicians think that only scientific medicine exists and that patients should be satisfied with a sophisticated approach to their problems. Some patients are satisfied, but many are disgruntled. It is not unusual for a patient, after a $1,000 work-up, to go to a family physician or chiropractor for satisfaction.

I was eager to discover the art of medicine at its finest during my rotation away from the university in a rural community. During these 2 months I looked for the pearls of wisdom that allowed community physicians to be so successful. I found that a very explicit technique was used by some physicians to achieve not only satisfaction but adoration from their patients. Unfortunately, this technique is dishonest.

Early in my community experience I was impressed by how often patients told me a doctor had saved them. I heard such statements as “Dr. X saved my leg,” or “Dr. X saved my life.” I know that it does occur, but not as often as I was hearing it.

Investigating these statements I found such stories as, “One day l twisted my ankle very badly, and it became quite swollen. My doctor told me 1 could lose my leg from this but that he would take x-rays, put my leg in an Ace bandage, and give me crutches. In 3 days I was well. I am so thankful he saved my leg.”

And, “One day I had a temperature of 104. All of my muscles ached, my head hurt, and I had a terrible sore throat and cough. My doctor told me l could die from this, but he gave me a medicine and made me stay home. I was sick for about 2 weeks, but I got better. He saved my life.”

Is the art of medicine the art of deception? This horrifying thought actually came to me after hearing several such stories, but I learned that most of the physicians involved in such stories were not well respected by their colleagues.

I learned many honest techniques for successfully caring for patients. The several family physicians with whom I worked, all clinical instructors associated with my residency, were impeccably honest and taught me to combine compassion and efficiency.

Despite learning many positive techniques and having good role models, I left the community experience somewhat saddened by the lack of integrity that can exist in the profession. I was naive in believing that all the nonscientific aspects of medi­cine that made patients happy must be good.

By experiencing deception, I learned why quackery continues to flourish despite the widespread availability of honest medical care. Most significantly, I learned the importance of a sometimes frustrating humility; my patients with sprained ankles and influenza will not believe I saved their lives.

My experience as a family medicine resident in 2021

I graduated medical school in May 2020, right as COVID was taking over the country, and the specter of the virus has hung over every aspect of my residency education thus far.

I did not get a medical school graduation; I was one of the many thousands of newly graduated students who simply left their 4th-year rotation sites one chilly day in March 2020 and just never went back. My medical school education didn’t end with me walking triumphantly across the stage – a first-generation college student finally achieving the greatest dream in her life. Instead, it ended with a Zoom “graduation” and a cross-country move from Georgia to Pennsylvania amidst the greatest pandemic in recent memory. To say my impostor syndrome was bad would be an understatement.
 

Residency in the COVID-19 era

The joy and the draw to family medicine for me has always been the broad scope of conditions that we see and treat. From day 1, however, much of my residency has been devoted to one very small subset of patients – those with COVID-19. At one point, our hospital was so strained that our family medicine program had to run a second inpatient service alongside our usual five-resident service team just to provide care to everybody. Patients were in the hallways. The ER was packed to the gills. We were sleepless, terrified, unvaccinated, and desperate to help our patients survive a disease that was incompletely understood, with very few tools in our toolbox to combat it.

I distinctly remember sitting in the workroom with a coresident of mine, our faces seemingly permanently lined from wearing N95s all shift, and saying to him, “I worry I will be a bad family medicine physician. I worry I haven’t seen enough, other than COVID.” It was midway through my intern year; the days were short, so I was driving to and from the hospital in chilly darkness. My patients, like many around the country, were doing poorly. Vaccines seemed like a promise too good to be true. Worst of all: Those of us who were interns, who had no triumphant podium moment to end our medical school education, were suffering with an intense sense of impostor syndrome, which was strengthened by every “there is nothing else we can offer your loved one at this time” conversation we had. My apprehension about not having seen a wider breadth of medicine during my training is a sentiment still widely shared by COVID-era residents.

Luckily, my coresident was supportive.

“We’re going to be great family medicine physicians,” he said. “We’re learning the hard stuff – the bread and butter of FM – up-front. You’ll see.”

In some ways, I think he was right. Clinical skills, empathy, humility, and forging strong relationships are at the center of every family medicine physician’s heart; my generation has had to learn these skills early and under pressure. Sometimes, there are no answers. Sometimes, the best thing a family doctor can do for a patient is to hear them, understand them, and hold their hand.
 

‘We watched Cinderella together’

Shortly after that conversation with my coresident, I had a particular case which moved me. This gentleman with intellectual disability and COVID had been declining steadily since his admission to the hospital. He was isolated from everybody he knew and loved, but it did not dampen his spirits. He was cheerful to every person who entered his room, clad in their shrouds of PPE, which more often than not felt more like mourning garb than protective wear. I remember very little about this patient’s clinical picture – the COVID, the superimposed pneumonia, the repeated intubations. What I do remember is he loved the Disney classic Cinderella. I knew this because I developed a very close relationship with his family during the course of his hospitalization. Amidst the torrential onslaught of patients, I made sure to call families every day – not because I wanted to, but because my mentors and attendings and coresidents had all drilled into me from day 1 that we are family medicine, and a large part of our role is to advocate for our patients, and to communicate with their loved ones. So I called. I learned a lot about him; his likes, his dislikes, his close bond with his siblings, and of course his lifelong love for Cinderella. On the last week of my ICU rotation, my patient passed peacefully. His nurse and I were bedside. We held his hand. We told him his family loved him. We watched Cinderella together on an iPad encased in protective plastic.

My next rotation was an outpatient one and it looked more like the “bread and butter” of family medicine. But as I whisked in and out of patient rooms, attending to patients with diabetes, with depression, with pain, I could not stop thinking about my hospitalized patients who my coresidents had assumed care of. Each exam room I entered, I rather morbidly thought “this patient could be next on our hospital service.” Without realizing it, I made more of an effort to get to know each patient holistically. I learned who they were as people. I found myself writing small, medically low-yield details in the chart: “Margaret loves to sing in her church choir;” “Katherine is a self-published author.”

I learned from my attendings. As I sat at the precepting table with them, observing their conversations about patients, their collective decades of experience were apparent.

“I’ve been seeing this patient every few weeks since I was a resident,” said one of my attendings.

“I don’t even see my parents that often,” I thought.

The depth of her relationship with, understanding of, and compassion for this patient struck me deeply. This was why I went into family medicine. My attending knew her patients; they were not faceless unknowns in a hospital gown to her. She would have known to play Cinderella for them in the end.

This is a unique time for trainees. We have been challenged, terrified, overwhelmed, and heartbroken. But at no point have we been isolated. We’ve had the generations of doctors before us to lead the way, to teach us the “hard stuff.” We’ve had senior residents to lean on, who have taken us aside and told us, “I can do the goals-of-care talk today; you need a break.” While the plague seems to have passed over our hospital for now, it has left behind a class of family medicine residents who are proud to carry on our specialty’s long tradition of compassionate, empathetic, lifelong care. “We care for all life stages, from cradle to grave,” says every family medicine physician.

My class, for better or for worse, has cared more often for patients in the twilight of their lives, and while it has been hard, I believe it has made us all better doctors. Now, when I hold a newborn in my arms for a well-child check, I am exceptionally grateful – for the opportunities I have been given, for new beginnings amidst so much sadness, and for the great privilege of being a family medicine physician. ■

Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

klennon@mdedge.com

In May 15, 1976, Family Practice News published its first “Residents’ Viewpoint,” a monthly column the publication established “in an effort to keep established practitioners as well as residents up to date.”

We are currently republishing an installment of this column as part of our continuing celebration of Family Practice News’s 50th anniversary.

MDedge News

Bruce A. Bagley, MD, wrote the first batch of these columns, when he was chief resident in family medicine at St. Joseph’s Hospital, Syracuse, N.Y. Joseph E. Scherger, MD, was the second writer for Family Practice News’s monthly “Residents’ Viewpoint.” At the time Dr. Scher­ger became a columnist, he was a 26-year-old, 2nd-year family practice resident at the Family Medical Center, University Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Scherger’s first column was published on Feb. 5, 1977. We are republishing his “Residents’ Viewpoint” from June 15, 1977 (see below) and a new column by Victoria Persampiere, DO, who is currently a 2nd-year resident in the family medicine program at Abington Jefferson Health. (See “My experience as a family medicine resident in 2021” after Dr. Scherger’s column.).

We hope you will enjoy comparing and contrasting the experiences of a resident practicing family medicine today to those of a resident practicing family medicine nearly 4½ decades ago.To learn about Dr. Scherger’s current practice and long career, you can read his profile on the cover of the September 2021 issue of Family Practice News or on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine in our “Family Practice News 50th Anniversary” section.
 

Art of medicine or deception?

Originally published in Family Practice News on June 15, 1977.

The practice of medicine can be divided into the scientific aspects of diagnosis and treatment and the nonscientific aspects of meeting patients’ needs, the art of medicine.

In medical school I learned the science of medicine. There I diligently studied the basic sciences and gained a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology of disease. In the clinical years I learned to apply this knowledge to a wide variety of interesting patients who came to the academic center.

Yet, when I started my family practice residency, I lacked the ability to care for patients. Though I could take a thorough history, perform a complete physical examination, and diagnose and treat specific illnesses, I had little idea how to satisfy patients by meeting their needs.

The art of medicine is the nonscientific part of a successful doctor-patient interaction. For a doctor-patient interaction to be successful, not only must the illness be appropriately addressed, but both patient and physician must be satisfied.

In the university environment, the art of medicine often gets inadequate attention. Indeed, most academic physicians think that only scientific medicine exists and that patients should be satisfied with a sophisticated approach to their problems. Some patients are satisfied, but many are disgruntled. It is not unusual for a patient, after a $1,000 work-up, to go to a family physician or chiropractor for satisfaction.

I was eager to discover the art of medicine at its finest during my rotation away from the university in a rural community. During these 2 months I looked for the pearls of wisdom that allowed community physicians to be so successful. I found that a very explicit technique was used by some physicians to achieve not only satisfaction but adoration from their patients. Unfortunately, this technique is dishonest.

Early in my community experience I was impressed by how often patients told me a doctor had saved them. I heard such statements as “Dr. X saved my leg,” or “Dr. X saved my life.” I know that it does occur, but not as often as I was hearing it.

Investigating these statements I found such stories as, “One day l twisted my ankle very badly, and it became quite swollen. My doctor told me 1 could lose my leg from this but that he would take x-rays, put my leg in an Ace bandage, and give me crutches. In 3 days I was well. I am so thankful he saved my leg.”

And, “One day I had a temperature of 104. All of my muscles ached, my head hurt, and I had a terrible sore throat and cough. My doctor told me l could die from this, but he gave me a medicine and made me stay home. I was sick for about 2 weeks, but I got better. He saved my life.”

Is the art of medicine the art of deception? This horrifying thought actually came to me after hearing several such stories, but I learned that most of the physicians involved in such stories were not well respected by their colleagues.

I learned many honest techniques for successfully caring for patients. The several family physicians with whom I worked, all clinical instructors associated with my residency, were impeccably honest and taught me to combine compassion and efficiency.

Despite learning many positive techniques and having good role models, I left the community experience somewhat saddened by the lack of integrity that can exist in the profession. I was naive in believing that all the nonscientific aspects of medi­cine that made patients happy must be good.

By experiencing deception, I learned why quackery continues to flourish despite the widespread availability of honest medical care. Most significantly, I learned the importance of a sometimes frustrating humility; my patients with sprained ankles and influenza will not believe I saved their lives.

My experience as a family medicine resident in 2021

I graduated medical school in May 2020, right as COVID was taking over the country, and the specter of the virus has hung over every aspect of my residency education thus far.

I did not get a medical school graduation; I was one of the many thousands of newly graduated students who simply left their 4th-year rotation sites one chilly day in March 2020 and just never went back. My medical school education didn’t end with me walking triumphantly across the stage – a first-generation college student finally achieving the greatest dream in her life. Instead, it ended with a Zoom “graduation” and a cross-country move from Georgia to Pennsylvania amidst the greatest pandemic in recent memory. To say my impostor syndrome was bad would be an understatement.
 

Residency in the COVID-19 era

The joy and the draw to family medicine for me has always been the broad scope of conditions that we see and treat. From day 1, however, much of my residency has been devoted to one very small subset of patients – those with COVID-19. At one point, our hospital was so strained that our family medicine program had to run a second inpatient service alongside our usual five-resident service team just to provide care to everybody. Patients were in the hallways. The ER was packed to the gills. We were sleepless, terrified, unvaccinated, and desperate to help our patients survive a disease that was incompletely understood, with very few tools in our toolbox to combat it.

I distinctly remember sitting in the workroom with a coresident of mine, our faces seemingly permanently lined from wearing N95s all shift, and saying to him, “I worry I will be a bad family medicine physician. I worry I haven’t seen enough, other than COVID.” It was midway through my intern year; the days were short, so I was driving to and from the hospital in chilly darkness. My patients, like many around the country, were doing poorly. Vaccines seemed like a promise too good to be true. Worst of all: Those of us who were interns, who had no triumphant podium moment to end our medical school education, were suffering with an intense sense of impostor syndrome, which was strengthened by every “there is nothing else we can offer your loved one at this time” conversation we had. My apprehension about not having seen a wider breadth of medicine during my training is a sentiment still widely shared by COVID-era residents.

Luckily, my coresident was supportive.

“We’re going to be great family medicine physicians,” he said. “We’re learning the hard stuff – the bread and butter of FM – up-front. You’ll see.”

In some ways, I think he was right. Clinical skills, empathy, humility, and forging strong relationships are at the center of every family medicine physician’s heart; my generation has had to learn these skills early and under pressure. Sometimes, there are no answers. Sometimes, the best thing a family doctor can do for a patient is to hear them, understand them, and hold their hand.
 

‘We watched Cinderella together’

Shortly after that conversation with my coresident, I had a particular case which moved me. This gentleman with intellectual disability and COVID had been declining steadily since his admission to the hospital. He was isolated from everybody he knew and loved, but it did not dampen his spirits. He was cheerful to every person who entered his room, clad in their shrouds of PPE, which more often than not felt more like mourning garb than protective wear. I remember very little about this patient’s clinical picture – the COVID, the superimposed pneumonia, the repeated intubations. What I do remember is he loved the Disney classic Cinderella. I knew this because I developed a very close relationship with his family during the course of his hospitalization. Amidst the torrential onslaught of patients, I made sure to call families every day – not because I wanted to, but because my mentors and attendings and coresidents had all drilled into me from day 1 that we are family medicine, and a large part of our role is to advocate for our patients, and to communicate with their loved ones. So I called. I learned a lot about him; his likes, his dislikes, his close bond with his siblings, and of course his lifelong love for Cinderella. On the last week of my ICU rotation, my patient passed peacefully. His nurse and I were bedside. We held his hand. We told him his family loved him. We watched Cinderella together on an iPad encased in protective plastic.

My next rotation was an outpatient one and it looked more like the “bread and butter” of family medicine. But as I whisked in and out of patient rooms, attending to patients with diabetes, with depression, with pain, I could not stop thinking about my hospitalized patients who my coresidents had assumed care of. Each exam room I entered, I rather morbidly thought “this patient could be next on our hospital service.” Without realizing it, I made more of an effort to get to know each patient holistically. I learned who they were as people. I found myself writing small, medically low-yield details in the chart: “Margaret loves to sing in her church choir;” “Katherine is a self-published author.”

I learned from my attendings. As I sat at the precepting table with them, observing their conversations about patients, their collective decades of experience were apparent.

“I’ve been seeing this patient every few weeks since I was a resident,” said one of my attendings.

“I don’t even see my parents that often,” I thought.

The depth of her relationship with, understanding of, and compassion for this patient struck me deeply. This was why I went into family medicine. My attending knew her patients; they were not faceless unknowns in a hospital gown to her. She would have known to play Cinderella for them in the end.

This is a unique time for trainees. We have been challenged, terrified, overwhelmed, and heartbroken. But at no point have we been isolated. We’ve had the generations of doctors before us to lead the way, to teach us the “hard stuff.” We’ve had senior residents to lean on, who have taken us aside and told us, “I can do the goals-of-care talk today; you need a break.” While the plague seems to have passed over our hospital for now, it has left behind a class of family medicine residents who are proud to carry on our specialty’s long tradition of compassionate, empathetic, lifelong care. “We care for all life stages, from cradle to grave,” says every family medicine physician.

My class, for better or for worse, has cared more often for patients in the twilight of their lives, and while it has been hard, I believe it has made us all better doctors. Now, when I hold a newborn in my arms for a well-child check, I am exceptionally grateful – for the opportunities I have been given, for new beginnings amidst so much sadness, and for the great privilege of being a family medicine physician. ■

Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

klennon@mdedge.com

In May 15, 1976, Family Practice News published its first “Residents’ Viewpoint,” a monthly column the publication established “in an effort to keep established practitioners as well as residents up to date.”

We are currently republishing an installment of this column as part of our continuing celebration of Family Practice News’s 50th anniversary.

MDedge News

Bruce A. Bagley, MD, wrote the first batch of these columns, when he was chief resident in family medicine at St. Joseph’s Hospital, Syracuse, N.Y. Joseph E. Scherger, MD, was the second writer for Family Practice News’s monthly “Residents’ Viewpoint.” At the time Dr. Scher­ger became a columnist, he was a 26-year-old, 2nd-year family practice resident at the Family Medical Center, University Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Scherger’s first column was published on Feb. 5, 1977. We are republishing his “Residents’ Viewpoint” from June 15, 1977 (see below) and a new column by Victoria Persampiere, DO, who is currently a 2nd-year resident in the family medicine program at Abington Jefferson Health. (See “My experience as a family medicine resident in 2021” after Dr. Scherger’s column.).

We hope you will enjoy comparing and contrasting the experiences of a resident practicing family medicine today to those of a resident practicing family medicine nearly 4½ decades ago.To learn about Dr. Scherger’s current practice and long career, you can read his profile on the cover of the September 2021 issue of Family Practice News or on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine in our “Family Practice News 50th Anniversary” section.
 

Art of medicine or deception?

Originally published in Family Practice News on June 15, 1977.

The practice of medicine can be divided into the scientific aspects of diagnosis and treatment and the nonscientific aspects of meeting patients’ needs, the art of medicine.

In medical school I learned the science of medicine. There I diligently studied the basic sciences and gained a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology of disease. In the clinical years I learned to apply this knowledge to a wide variety of interesting patients who came to the academic center.

Yet, when I started my family practice residency, I lacked the ability to care for patients. Though I could take a thorough history, perform a complete physical examination, and diagnose and treat specific illnesses, I had little idea how to satisfy patients by meeting their needs.

The art of medicine is the nonscientific part of a successful doctor-patient interaction. For a doctor-patient interaction to be successful, not only must the illness be appropriately addressed, but both patient and physician must be satisfied.

In the university environment, the art of medicine often gets inadequate attention. Indeed, most academic physicians think that only scientific medicine exists and that patients should be satisfied with a sophisticated approach to their problems. Some patients are satisfied, but many are disgruntled. It is not unusual for a patient, after a $1,000 work-up, to go to a family physician or chiropractor for satisfaction.

I was eager to discover the art of medicine at its finest during my rotation away from the university in a rural community. During these 2 months I looked for the pearls of wisdom that allowed community physicians to be so successful. I found that a very explicit technique was used by some physicians to achieve not only satisfaction but adoration from their patients. Unfortunately, this technique is dishonest.

Early in my community experience I was impressed by how often patients told me a doctor had saved them. I heard such statements as “Dr. X saved my leg,” or “Dr. X saved my life.” I know that it does occur, but not as often as I was hearing it.

Investigating these statements I found such stories as, “One day l twisted my ankle very badly, and it became quite swollen. My doctor told me 1 could lose my leg from this but that he would take x-rays, put my leg in an Ace bandage, and give me crutches. In 3 days I was well. I am so thankful he saved my leg.”

And, “One day I had a temperature of 104. All of my muscles ached, my head hurt, and I had a terrible sore throat and cough. My doctor told me l could die from this, but he gave me a medicine and made me stay home. I was sick for about 2 weeks, but I got better. He saved my life.”

Is the art of medicine the art of deception? This horrifying thought actually came to me after hearing several such stories, but I learned that most of the physicians involved in such stories were not well respected by their colleagues.

I learned many honest techniques for successfully caring for patients. The several family physicians with whom I worked, all clinical instructors associated with my residency, were impeccably honest and taught me to combine compassion and efficiency.

Despite learning many positive techniques and having good role models, I left the community experience somewhat saddened by the lack of integrity that can exist in the profession. I was naive in believing that all the nonscientific aspects of medi­cine that made patients happy must be good.

By experiencing deception, I learned why quackery continues to flourish despite the widespread availability of honest medical care. Most significantly, I learned the importance of a sometimes frustrating humility; my patients with sprained ankles and influenza will not believe I saved their lives.

My experience as a family medicine resident in 2021

I graduated medical school in May 2020, right as COVID was taking over the country, and the specter of the virus has hung over every aspect of my residency education thus far.

I did not get a medical school graduation; I was one of the many thousands of newly graduated students who simply left their 4th-year rotation sites one chilly day in March 2020 and just never went back. My medical school education didn’t end with me walking triumphantly across the stage – a first-generation college student finally achieving the greatest dream in her life. Instead, it ended with a Zoom “graduation” and a cross-country move from Georgia to Pennsylvania amidst the greatest pandemic in recent memory. To say my impostor syndrome was bad would be an understatement.
 

Residency in the COVID-19 era

The joy and the draw to family medicine for me has always been the broad scope of conditions that we see and treat. From day 1, however, much of my residency has been devoted to one very small subset of patients – those with COVID-19. At one point, our hospital was so strained that our family medicine program had to run a second inpatient service alongside our usual five-resident service team just to provide care to everybody. Patients were in the hallways. The ER was packed to the gills. We were sleepless, terrified, unvaccinated, and desperate to help our patients survive a disease that was incompletely understood, with very few tools in our toolbox to combat it.

I distinctly remember sitting in the workroom with a coresident of mine, our faces seemingly permanently lined from wearing N95s all shift, and saying to him, “I worry I will be a bad family medicine physician. I worry I haven’t seen enough, other than COVID.” It was midway through my intern year; the days were short, so I was driving to and from the hospital in chilly darkness. My patients, like many around the country, were doing poorly. Vaccines seemed like a promise too good to be true. Worst of all: Those of us who were interns, who had no triumphant podium moment to end our medical school education, were suffering with an intense sense of impostor syndrome, which was strengthened by every “there is nothing else we can offer your loved one at this time” conversation we had. My apprehension about not having seen a wider breadth of medicine during my training is a sentiment still widely shared by COVID-era residents.

Luckily, my coresident was supportive.

“We’re going to be great family medicine physicians,” he said. “We’re learning the hard stuff – the bread and butter of FM – up-front. You’ll see.”

In some ways, I think he was right. Clinical skills, empathy, humility, and forging strong relationships are at the center of every family medicine physician’s heart; my generation has had to learn these skills early and under pressure. Sometimes, there are no answers. Sometimes, the best thing a family doctor can do for a patient is to hear them, understand them, and hold their hand.
 

‘We watched Cinderella together’

Shortly after that conversation with my coresident, I had a particular case which moved me. This gentleman with intellectual disability and COVID had been declining steadily since his admission to the hospital. He was isolated from everybody he knew and loved, but it did not dampen his spirits. He was cheerful to every person who entered his room, clad in their shrouds of PPE, which more often than not felt more like mourning garb than protective wear. I remember very little about this patient’s clinical picture – the COVID, the superimposed pneumonia, the repeated intubations. What I do remember is he loved the Disney classic Cinderella. I knew this because I developed a very close relationship with his family during the course of his hospitalization. Amidst the torrential onslaught of patients, I made sure to call families every day – not because I wanted to, but because my mentors and attendings and coresidents had all drilled into me from day 1 that we are family medicine, and a large part of our role is to advocate for our patients, and to communicate with their loved ones. So I called. I learned a lot about him; his likes, his dislikes, his close bond with his siblings, and of course his lifelong love for Cinderella. On the last week of my ICU rotation, my patient passed peacefully. His nurse and I were bedside. We held his hand. We told him his family loved him. We watched Cinderella together on an iPad encased in protective plastic.

My next rotation was an outpatient one and it looked more like the “bread and butter” of family medicine. But as I whisked in and out of patient rooms, attending to patients with diabetes, with depression, with pain, I could not stop thinking about my hospitalized patients who my coresidents had assumed care of. Each exam room I entered, I rather morbidly thought “this patient could be next on our hospital service.” Without realizing it, I made more of an effort to get to know each patient holistically. I learned who they were as people. I found myself writing small, medically low-yield details in the chart: “Margaret loves to sing in her church choir;” “Katherine is a self-published author.”

I learned from my attendings. As I sat at the precepting table with them, observing their conversations about patients, their collective decades of experience were apparent.

“I’ve been seeing this patient every few weeks since I was a resident,” said one of my attendings.

“I don’t even see my parents that often,” I thought.

The depth of her relationship with, understanding of, and compassion for this patient struck me deeply. This was why I went into family medicine. My attending knew her patients; they were not faceless unknowns in a hospital gown to her. She would have known to play Cinderella for them in the end.

This is a unique time for trainees. We have been challenged, terrified, overwhelmed, and heartbroken. But at no point have we been isolated. We’ve had the generations of doctors before us to lead the way, to teach us the “hard stuff.” We’ve had senior residents to lean on, who have taken us aside and told us, “I can do the goals-of-care talk today; you need a break.” While the plague seems to have passed over our hospital for now, it has left behind a class of family medicine residents who are proud to carry on our specialty’s long tradition of compassionate, empathetic, lifelong care. “We care for all life stages, from cradle to grave,” says every family medicine physician.

My class, for better or for worse, has cared more often for patients in the twilight of their lives, and while it has been hard, I believe it has made us all better doctors. Now, when I hold a newborn in my arms for a well-child check, I am exceptionally grateful – for the opportunities I have been given, for new beginnings amidst so much sadness, and for the great privilege of being a family medicine physician. ■

Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

klennon@mdedge.com

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of adults in the United States with small fiber neuropathy (SFN), but in many cases, no cause can be determined. The exact reason for the increase in isolated SFN “remains unclear,” said Christopher J. Klein, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, “we noted during the study period the population has had increased BMI, which appears to be a risk factor for this disorder, with many (50%) developing either glucose impairment or frank diabetes during the study period even if not present at first small fiber neuropathy presentation, also with associated higher triglyceride levels,” he explained.

The study was published online October 27 in Neurology.
 

Significant upward trend

Investigators reviewed the records of all 94 adults diagnosed with pure SFN (no large fiber involvement) between 1998 and 2017 in Olmsted and adjacent counties in Minnesota – and compared them with 282 adults of similar age and gender who did not have neuropathy.

The incidence of SFN over the entire study period was 1.3 per 100,000 per year and the prevalence was 13.3 per 100,000.

There was a “significant upward trend” in SFN incidence over the study period that could not be attributed to the availability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density testing, the authors reported.

The median age of onset of SFN was 54 years and two-thirds were women (67%).

Diabetes, obesity, and hypertriglyceridemia were significantly more common in patients with SFN compared with matched controls. These metabolic risk factors are also associated with peripheral neuropathy regardless of fiber type.

Autonomic symptoms were common and generally mild, affecting 85% of patients with SFN, and included male erectile dysfunction, constipation, light-headedness and palpitations, urinary symptoms, diarrhea, dry eyes and mouth, sweat abnormalities, and gastroparesis.

Insomnia and use of opioid pain medication were more common in those with SFN than matched controls.

More than one-third (36%) of patients with SFN developed large fiber neuropathy an average of 5.3 years after developing SFN.

During an average follow-up of 6.1 years, adults with SFN were significantly more likely to suffer myocardial infarction (46% vs. 27%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-4.9), congestive heart failure (27% vs. 12%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), peripheral vascular disease (22% vs. 6%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.9-8.1), stroke (24% vs. 10%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3), diabetes (51% vs. 22%; OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.8-7.6) and rheumatologic disease (30% vs. 7%; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.8-10.4).

For 70% of patients, no cause for SFN could be determined. Diabetes (15%) was the most common cause identified. Other less common causes included Sjögren syndrome, lupus, amyloidosis, and Fabry disease.

“It is important to quantitatively diagnose patients with SFN as many non-neurological musculoskeletal causes can mimic the disorder,” said Dr. Klein.

“If rates of progression are rapid, sinister causes such as out-of-control diabetes, hereditary [transthyretin] TTR amyloidosis, and Fabry disease can be responsible. For other patients, rates of progression are slow and generally do not lead to significant neurologic impairments,” he added.

“However,” he said, “internal medicine follow-up is important for all as this disorder associates with development with higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including commonly heart attacks.”

Of note, although mean age at death was not significantly different in patients with SFN than controls (70 vs. 73 years), there was a significantly higher number of deaths in patients with SFN (n = 18; 19%) than in matched controls (n = 35; 12%) from the time of symptom onset, the researchers reported.
 

Important research

This “important” study sheds light on the comorbidities and longitudinal consequences of SFN, wrote Brian Callaghan, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and J. Robinson Singleton, MD, with the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an accompanying editorial in Neurology.

The study demonstrates clearly that SFN has “metabolic risk factors similar to those seen for sensory predominant peripheral neuropathies affecting a broader range of fiber types. As a result, therapies that address metabolic risk factors are likely to help prevent or treat both conditions,” they wrote.

Dr. Callaghan and Dr. Singleton added that a key strength of the study is the detailed follow-up that examines SFN progression over time. “The authors found that patients with SFN do not report high disability and that progression tends to be slow. Therefore, patients with SFN can be counseled that progression and disability are likely to be modest in most cases. However, when patients do progress quickly, uncommon etiologies should be sought,” the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Foundation, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology. Dr. Klein has received teaching honorarium from Ackea pharmaceuticals for lectures on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and Fabry disease, consulted for Pfizer regarding tafamidis (all compensation for consulting activities is paid directly to Mayo Clinic), and participated in the clinical trials for inotersen and patisiran but received no personal compensation for his participation. Dr. Callaghan consults for DynaMed, performs medical legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Singleton has consulted for Regenacy.

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

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of adults in the United States with small fiber neuropathy (SFN), but in many cases, no cause can be determined. The exact reason for the increase in isolated SFN “remains unclear,” said Christopher J. Klein, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, “we noted during the study period the population has had increased BMI, which appears to be a risk factor for this disorder, with many (50%) developing either glucose impairment or frank diabetes during the study period even if not present at first small fiber neuropathy presentation, also with associated higher triglyceride levels,” he explained.

The study was published online October 27 in Neurology.
 

Significant upward trend

Investigators reviewed the records of all 94 adults diagnosed with pure SFN (no large fiber involvement) between 1998 and 2017 in Olmsted and adjacent counties in Minnesota – and compared them with 282 adults of similar age and gender who did not have neuropathy.

The incidence of SFN over the entire study period was 1.3 per 100,000 per year and the prevalence was 13.3 per 100,000.

There was a “significant upward trend” in SFN incidence over the study period that could not be attributed to the availability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density testing, the authors reported.

The median age of onset of SFN was 54 years and two-thirds were women (67%).

Diabetes, obesity, and hypertriglyceridemia were significantly more common in patients with SFN compared with matched controls. These metabolic risk factors are also associated with peripheral neuropathy regardless of fiber type.

Autonomic symptoms were common and generally mild, affecting 85% of patients with SFN, and included male erectile dysfunction, constipation, light-headedness and palpitations, urinary symptoms, diarrhea, dry eyes and mouth, sweat abnormalities, and gastroparesis.

Insomnia and use of opioid pain medication were more common in those with SFN than matched controls.

More than one-third (36%) of patients with SFN developed large fiber neuropathy an average of 5.3 years after developing SFN.

During an average follow-up of 6.1 years, adults with SFN were significantly more likely to suffer myocardial infarction (46% vs. 27%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-4.9), congestive heart failure (27% vs. 12%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), peripheral vascular disease (22% vs. 6%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.9-8.1), stroke (24% vs. 10%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3), diabetes (51% vs. 22%; OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.8-7.6) and rheumatologic disease (30% vs. 7%; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.8-10.4).

For 70% of patients, no cause for SFN could be determined. Diabetes (15%) was the most common cause identified. Other less common causes included Sjögren syndrome, lupus, amyloidosis, and Fabry disease.

“It is important to quantitatively diagnose patients with SFN as many non-neurological musculoskeletal causes can mimic the disorder,” said Dr. Klein.

“If rates of progression are rapid, sinister causes such as out-of-control diabetes, hereditary [transthyretin] TTR amyloidosis, and Fabry disease can be responsible. For other patients, rates of progression are slow and generally do not lead to significant neurologic impairments,” he added.

“However,” he said, “internal medicine follow-up is important for all as this disorder associates with development with higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including commonly heart attacks.”

Of note, although mean age at death was not significantly different in patients with SFN than controls (70 vs. 73 years), there was a significantly higher number of deaths in patients with SFN (n = 18; 19%) than in matched controls (n = 35; 12%) from the time of symptom onset, the researchers reported.
 

Important research

This “important” study sheds light on the comorbidities and longitudinal consequences of SFN, wrote Brian Callaghan, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and J. Robinson Singleton, MD, with the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an accompanying editorial in Neurology.

The study demonstrates clearly that SFN has “metabolic risk factors similar to those seen for sensory predominant peripheral neuropathies affecting a broader range of fiber types. As a result, therapies that address metabolic risk factors are likely to help prevent or treat both conditions,” they wrote.

Dr. Callaghan and Dr. Singleton added that a key strength of the study is the detailed follow-up that examines SFN progression over time. “The authors found that patients with SFN do not report high disability and that progression tends to be slow. Therefore, patients with SFN can be counseled that progression and disability are likely to be modest in most cases. However, when patients do progress quickly, uncommon etiologies should be sought,” the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Foundation, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology. Dr. Klein has received teaching honorarium from Ackea pharmaceuticals for lectures on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and Fabry disease, consulted for Pfizer regarding tafamidis (all compensation for consulting activities is paid directly to Mayo Clinic), and participated in the clinical trials for inotersen and patisiran but received no personal compensation for his participation. Dr. Callaghan consults for DynaMed, performs medical legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Singleton has consulted for Regenacy.

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

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of adults in the United States with small fiber neuropathy (SFN), but in many cases, no cause can be determined. The exact reason for the increase in isolated SFN “remains unclear,” said Christopher J. Klein, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, “we noted during the study period the population has had increased BMI, which appears to be a risk factor for this disorder, with many (50%) developing either glucose impairment or frank diabetes during the study period even if not present at first small fiber neuropathy presentation, also with associated higher triglyceride levels,” he explained.

The study was published online October 27 in Neurology.
 

Significant upward trend

Investigators reviewed the records of all 94 adults diagnosed with pure SFN (no large fiber involvement) between 1998 and 2017 in Olmsted and adjacent counties in Minnesota – and compared them with 282 adults of similar age and gender who did not have neuropathy.

The incidence of SFN over the entire study period was 1.3 per 100,000 per year and the prevalence was 13.3 per 100,000.

There was a “significant upward trend” in SFN incidence over the study period that could not be attributed to the availability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density testing, the authors reported.

The median age of onset of SFN was 54 years and two-thirds were women (67%).

Diabetes, obesity, and hypertriglyceridemia were significantly more common in patients with SFN compared with matched controls. These metabolic risk factors are also associated with peripheral neuropathy regardless of fiber type.

Autonomic symptoms were common and generally mild, affecting 85% of patients with SFN, and included male erectile dysfunction, constipation, light-headedness and palpitations, urinary symptoms, diarrhea, dry eyes and mouth, sweat abnormalities, and gastroparesis.

Insomnia and use of opioid pain medication were more common in those with SFN than matched controls.

More than one-third (36%) of patients with SFN developed large fiber neuropathy an average of 5.3 years after developing SFN.

During an average follow-up of 6.1 years, adults with SFN were significantly more likely to suffer myocardial infarction (46% vs. 27%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-4.9), congestive heart failure (27% vs. 12%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), peripheral vascular disease (22% vs. 6%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.9-8.1), stroke (24% vs. 10%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3), diabetes (51% vs. 22%; OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.8-7.6) and rheumatologic disease (30% vs. 7%; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.8-10.4).

For 70% of patients, no cause for SFN could be determined. Diabetes (15%) was the most common cause identified. Other less common causes included Sjögren syndrome, lupus, amyloidosis, and Fabry disease.

“It is important to quantitatively diagnose patients with SFN as many non-neurological musculoskeletal causes can mimic the disorder,” said Dr. Klein.

“If rates of progression are rapid, sinister causes such as out-of-control diabetes, hereditary [transthyretin] TTR amyloidosis, and Fabry disease can be responsible. For other patients, rates of progression are slow and generally do not lead to significant neurologic impairments,” he added.

“However,” he said, “internal medicine follow-up is important for all as this disorder associates with development with higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including commonly heart attacks.”

Of note, although mean age at death was not significantly different in patients with SFN than controls (70 vs. 73 years), there was a significantly higher number of deaths in patients with SFN (n = 18; 19%) than in matched controls (n = 35; 12%) from the time of symptom onset, the researchers reported.
 

Important research

This “important” study sheds light on the comorbidities and longitudinal consequences of SFN, wrote Brian Callaghan, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and J. Robinson Singleton, MD, with the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an accompanying editorial in Neurology.

The study demonstrates clearly that SFN has “metabolic risk factors similar to those seen for sensory predominant peripheral neuropathies affecting a broader range of fiber types. As a result, therapies that address metabolic risk factors are likely to help prevent or treat both conditions,” they wrote.

Dr. Callaghan and Dr. Singleton added that a key strength of the study is the detailed follow-up that examines SFN progression over time. “The authors found that patients with SFN do not report high disability and that progression tends to be slow. Therefore, patients with SFN can be counseled that progression and disability are likely to be modest in most cases. However, when patients do progress quickly, uncommon etiologies should be sought,” the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Foundation, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology. Dr. Klein has received teaching honorarium from Ackea pharmaceuticals for lectures on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and Fabry disease, consulted for Pfizer regarding tafamidis (all compensation for consulting activities is paid directly to Mayo Clinic), and participated in the clinical trials for inotersen and patisiran but received no personal compensation for his participation. Dr. Callaghan consults for DynaMed, performs medical legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Singleton has consulted for Regenacy.

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

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

New data from England show the success of the national program for vaccinating girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.

Among young women who received the HPV vaccine when they were 12-13 years old (before their sexual debut), cervical cancer rates are 87% lower than among previous nonvaccinated generations.

“It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding.”

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, U.K. Health Security Agency, London, commented in a statement.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the U.K. Health Security Agency, agreed, saying that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she added.

The study was published online Nov. 3, 2021, in The Lancet.

Approached for comment on the new study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, noted that the results of the English study are very similar to those of a Swedish study of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. He said that, as an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years, particularly patients with advanced cervical cancer, “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful.

“I can only emphasize the critical importance of all parents to see that their children who are eligible for the vaccine receive it. This is a cancer prevention strategy that is unbelievably, remarkably effective and safe,” Dr. Markman added.
 

National vaccination program

The national HPV vaccination program in England began in 2008. Initially, the bivalent Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 was used. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% to 80% of all cervical cancers in England, the researchers note in their article.

In 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), which is effective against two additional HPV types, HPV 6 and 11. Those strains cause genital warts.

The prevention program originally recommended a three-dose regimen in which both HPV vaccines were used. Currently, two doses are given to girls younger than 15 years. In addition, a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection. The efficacy rate of a single dose is similar to that of three doses, the authors comment.
 

Population-based registry

The new data come from a population-based cancer registry that shows the incidence of cervical cancer and noninvasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in England between January 2006 and June 2019.

The study included seven cohorts of women who were aged 20-64 years at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts composed the vaccinated population.

The team reports that overall, from January 2006 to June 2019, there were 27,946 cases of cervical cancer and 318,058 cases of CIN3.

In the three vaccinated cohorts, there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would be expected in a nonvaccinated population.

The three vaccinated cohorts had been eligible to receive Cervarix when they were aged 12-13 years. A catch-up scheme aimed at 14- to 16-year-olds and 16- to 18-year-olds. Most of these persons were vaccinated through a school vaccination program.

The team analyzed the data for each of these cohorts.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12-13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine; 85% received three shots and were fully vaccinated. Among these persons, the rate of cervical cancer was 87% lower than expected in a nonvaccinated population, and the rate of CIN3 was 97% lower than expected.

For the cohort that was eligible to be vaccinated between the ages of 14 and 16 years, the corresponding reductions were 62% for cervical cancer and 75% for CIN3.

For the cohort eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16 and 18 years (of whom 60% had received at least one dose and 45% were fully vaccinated), the corresponding reduction were 34% for cervical cancer and 39% for CIN3.

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer is rare in young women, and these vaccinated populations are still young. The youngest would have been vaccinated at age 12 in 2008 and so would be only 23 years old in 2019, when the follow-up in this current study ended. The authors emphasize that because the vaccinated populations are still young, it is too early to assess the full impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.
 

Editorial commentary

“The relative reductions in cervical cancer, expected as a result of the HPV vaccination program, support the anticipated vaccine effectiveness,” commented two authors of an accompanying editorial, Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.

“The scale of the HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low-income and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than in those with well established systems of vaccination and screening,” they comment.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept the vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country, such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by WHO [World Health Organization].”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Markman is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income of $250 or more from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

A new type of blood glucose monitoring system now available in the United States allows users to test with a single button-push instead of finger-sticking or inserting test strips into a meter.

The POGO Automatic Blood Glucose Monitoring System (Intuity Medical) has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for people with diabetes aged 13 years and older.

It contains a 10-test cartridge, and once loaded and the monitor is turned on, the user only has to press their finger on a button to activate POGO Automatic, which then does all the work of lancing and blood collection, followed by a 4-second countdown and a result. Users only need to carry the monitor and not separate lancets or strips.

An app called Patterns is available for iOS and Android that allows the results from the device to automatically sync via Bluetooth. It visually presents glucose trends and enables data sharing with health care providers.  

“We know that people with diabetes are more effective at managing their diabetes when they regularly check their blood glucose and use the information to take action,” said Daniel Einhorn, MD, medical director of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, president of Diabetes and Endocrine Associates, and chairperson of the Intuity Medical Scientific Advisory Board, in a company statement.

“My patients and millions of others with diabetes have struggled for decades with the burden of checking their glucose because it’s complicated, there’s a lot to carry around, and it’s intrusive,” he added. “What they’ve needed is a simple, quick, and truly discreet way to check their blood glucose, so they’ll actually do it.”
 

How does POGO compare with CGM?

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), such as the Abbott FreeStyle Libre, Dexcom G6, and Eversense implant, are increasingly employed by people with type 1 diabetes, and some with type 2 diabetes, to keep a close eye on their blood glucose levels.

Asked how the POGO device compares with CGM systems, Intuity Chief Commercial Officer Dean Zikria said: “While [CGM] is certainly an important option for a subset of people with diabetes, CGM is a very different technology, requiring a user to wear a sensor and transmitter on their body.”

“Patients also need to obtain a prescription in order to use CGM.”

“Conversely, POGO Automatic is available with or without a prescription. POGO Automatic also gives people who do not want to wear a device on their body a new choice other than traditional blood glucose monitoring,” Mr. Zikria added.

The POGO system is available at U.S. pharmacies, including CVS and Walgreens, and can also be purchased online.

The device costs $68 from the company website and a pack of 5 cartridges (each containing 10 tests, with an aim of people performing 1-2 tests per day) costs a further $32 as a one-off, or $32 per month as a subscription.  

The product is also eligible for purchase using Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Savings Accounts.

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

A new type of blood glucose monitoring system now available in the United States allows users to test with a single button-push instead of finger-sticking or inserting test strips into a meter.

The POGO Automatic Blood Glucose Monitoring System (Intuity Medical) has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for people with diabetes aged 13 years and older.

It contains a 10-test cartridge, and once loaded and the monitor is turned on, the user only has to press their finger on a button to activate POGO Automatic, which then does all the work of lancing and blood collection, followed by a 4-second countdown and a result. Users only need to carry the monitor and not separate lancets or strips.

An app called Patterns is available for iOS and Android that allows the results from the device to automatically sync via Bluetooth. It visually presents glucose trends and enables data sharing with health care providers.  

“We know that people with diabetes are more effective at managing their diabetes when they regularly check their blood glucose and use the information to take action,” said Daniel Einhorn, MD, medical director of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, president of Diabetes and Endocrine Associates, and chairperson of the Intuity Medical Scientific Advisory Board, in a company statement.

“My patients and millions of others with diabetes have struggled for decades with the burden of checking their glucose because it’s complicated, there’s a lot to carry around, and it’s intrusive,” he added. “What they’ve needed is a simple, quick, and truly discreet way to check their blood glucose, so they’ll actually do it.”
 

How does POGO compare with CGM?

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), such as the Abbott FreeStyle Libre, Dexcom G6, and Eversense implant, are increasingly employed by people with type 1 diabetes, and some with type 2 diabetes, to keep a close eye on their blood glucose levels.

Asked how the POGO device compares with CGM systems, Intuity Chief Commercial Officer Dean Zikria said: “While [CGM] is certainly an important option for a subset of people with diabetes, CGM is a very different technology, requiring a user to wear a sensor and transmitter on their body.”

“Patients also need to obtain a prescription in order to use CGM.”

“Conversely, POGO Automatic is available with or without a prescription. POGO Automatic also gives people who do not want to wear a device on their body a new choice other than traditional blood glucose monitoring,” Mr. Zikria added.

The POGO system is available at U.S. pharmacies, including CVS and Walgreens, and can also be purchased online.

The device costs $68 from the company website and a pack of 5 cartridges (each containing 10 tests, with an aim of people performing 1-2 tests per day) costs a further $32 as a one-off, or $32 per month as a subscription.  

The product is also eligible for purchase using Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Savings Accounts.

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

A new type of blood glucose monitoring system now available in the United States allows users to test with a single button-push instead of finger-sticking or inserting test strips into a meter.

The POGO Automatic Blood Glucose Monitoring System (Intuity Medical) has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for people with diabetes aged 13 years and older.

It contains a 10-test cartridge, and once loaded and the monitor is turned on, the user only has to press their finger on a button to activate POGO Automatic, which then does all the work of lancing and blood collection, followed by a 4-second countdown and a result. Users only need to carry the monitor and not separate lancets or strips.

An app called Patterns is available for iOS and Android that allows the results from the device to automatically sync via Bluetooth. It visually presents glucose trends and enables data sharing with health care providers.  

“We know that people with diabetes are more effective at managing their diabetes when they regularly check their blood glucose and use the information to take action,” said Daniel Einhorn, MD, medical director of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, president of Diabetes and Endocrine Associates, and chairperson of the Intuity Medical Scientific Advisory Board, in a company statement.

“My patients and millions of others with diabetes have struggled for decades with the burden of checking their glucose because it’s complicated, there’s a lot to carry around, and it’s intrusive,” he added. “What they’ve needed is a simple, quick, and truly discreet way to check their blood glucose, so they’ll actually do it.”
 

How does POGO compare with CGM?

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), such as the Abbott FreeStyle Libre, Dexcom G6, and Eversense implant, are increasingly employed by people with type 1 diabetes, and some with type 2 diabetes, to keep a close eye on their blood glucose levels.

Asked how the POGO device compares with CGM systems, Intuity Chief Commercial Officer Dean Zikria said: “While [CGM] is certainly an important option for a subset of people with diabetes, CGM is a very different technology, requiring a user to wear a sensor and transmitter on their body.”

“Patients also need to obtain a prescription in order to use CGM.”

“Conversely, POGO Automatic is available with or without a prescription. POGO Automatic also gives people who do not want to wear a device on their body a new choice other than traditional blood glucose monitoring,” Mr. Zikria added.

The POGO system is available at U.S. pharmacies, including CVS and Walgreens, and can also be purchased online.

The device costs $68 from the company website and a pack of 5 cartridges (each containing 10 tests, with an aim of people performing 1-2 tests per day) costs a further $32 as a one-off, or $32 per month as a subscription.  

The product is also eligible for purchase using Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Savings Accounts.

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

Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.

After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.

“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.

“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.

The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
 

Significant psychological impact

Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.

However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.

Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).

Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.

The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.

The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
 

Dual intervention

After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.

When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.

The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.

Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.

“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.

“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.

“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
 

No cause and effect

Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”

“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.

She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.

At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.

After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.

“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.

“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.

The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
 

Significant psychological impact

Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.

However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.

Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).

Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.

The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.

The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
 

Dual intervention

After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.

When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.

The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.

Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.

“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.

“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.

“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
 

No cause and effect

Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”

“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.

She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.

At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alopecia areata (AA) has been linked to a significantly increased risk for dementia, new research shows.

After controlling for an array of potential confounders, investigators found a threefold higher risk of developing any form of dementia and a fourfold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in those with AA versus the controls.

“AA shares a similar inflammatory signature with dementia and has great psychological impacts that lead to poor social engagement,” lead author Cheng-Yuan Li, MD, MSc, of the department of dermatology, Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital.

“Poor social engagement and shared inflammatory cytokines might both be important links between AA and dementia,” said Dr. Li, who is also affiliated with the School of Medicine and the Institute of Brain Science at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei.

The study was published online Oct. 26, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m13931).
 

Significant psychological impact

Patients with AA often experience anxiety and depression, possibly caused by the negative emotional and psychological impact of the hair loss and partial or even complete baldness associated with the disease, the authors noted.

However, AA is also associated with an array of other atopic and autoimmune diseases, including psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Epidemiologic research has suggested a link between dementia and autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis and SLE, with some evidence suggesting that autoimmune and inflammatory mechanisms may “play a role” in the development of AD.

Dementia in general and AD in particular, “have been shown to include an inflammatory component” that may share some of the same mediators seen in AA (eg, IL-1 beta, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha).

Moreover, “the great negative psychosocial impact of AA might result in poor social engagement, a typical risk factor for dementia,” said Dr. Li. The investigators sought to investigate whether patients with AA actually do have a higher dementia risk than individuals without AA.

The researchers used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, comparing 2,534 patients with AA against 25,340 controls matched for age, sex, residence, income, dementia-related comorbidities, systemic steroid use, and annual outpatient visits. Participants were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 and followed to the end of 2013.

The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 years, and a little over half (57.6%) were female. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (32.3%), followed by dyslipidemia (27%) and diabetes (15.4%).
 

Dual intervention

After adjusting for potential confounders, those with AA were more likely to develop dementia, AD, and unspecified dementia, compared with controls. They also had a numerically higher risk for vascular dementia, compared with controls, but it was not statistically significant.

When participants were stratified by age, investigators found a significant association between AA and higher risk for any dementia as well as unspecified dementia in individuals of all ages and an increased risk for AD in patients with dementia age at onset of 65 years and older.

The mean age of dementia diagnosis was considerably younger in patients with AA versus controls (73.4 vs. 78.9 years, P = .002). The risk for any dementia and unspecified dementia was higher in patients of both sexes, but the risk for AD was higher only in male patients.

Sensitivity analyses that excluded the first year or first 3 years of observation yielded similar and consistent findings.

“Intervention targeting poor social engagement and inflammatory cytokines may be beneficial to AA-associated dementia,” said Dr. Li.

“Physicians should be more aware of this possible association, help reduce disease discrimination among the public, and encourage more social engagement for AA patients,” he said.

“Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology between AA and dementia risk,” he added.
 

No cause and effect

Commenting on the study, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific affairs, Alzheimer’s Association, said, “We continue to learn about and better understand factors that may increase or decrease a person’s risk of dementia.”

“While we know the immune system plays a role in Alzheimer’s and other dementia, we are still investigating links between, and impact of, autoimmune diseases – like alopecia areata, rheumatoid arthritis, and others – on our overall health and our brains, [which] may eventually give us important information on risk reduction strategies as well,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the research.

She cautioned that although the study did show a correlation between AA and dementia risk, this does not equate to a demonstration of cause and effect.

At present, “the message for clinicians is that when a patient comes to your office with complaints about their memory, they should, No. 1, be taken seriously; and, No. 2, receive a thorough evaluation that takes into account the many factors that may lead to cognitive decline,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Dr. Li, coauthors, and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

Pediatric dermatology is a relatively young subspecialty. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) was established in 1975, followed by the creation of the journal Pediatric Dermatology in 1982 and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Dermatology in 1986.¹ In 2000, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) officially recognized pediatric dermatology as a unique subspecialty of the American Board of Dermatology (ABD). During that time, informal fellowship experiences emerged, and formal 1-year training programs approved by the ABD evolved by 2006. A subspecialty certification examination was created and has been administered every other year since 2004.¹ Data provided by the SPD indicate that approximately 431 US dermatologists have passed the ABD’s pediatric dermatology board certification examination thus far (unpublished data, September 2021).

In 1986, the first systematic evaluation of the US pediatric dermatology workforce revealed a total of 57 practicing pediatric dermatologists and concluded that job opportunities appeared to be limited at that time.² Since then, the demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to grow steadily, and the number of board-certified pediatric dermatologists practicing in the United States has increased to at least 317 per data from a 2020 survey.³ However, given that there are more than 11,000 board-certified dermatologists in the United States, there continues to be a severe shortage of pediatric dermatologists.¹

Increased Demand for Pediatric Dermatologists

Approximately 10% to 30% of almost 200 million annual outpatient pediatric primary care visits involve a skin concern. Although many of these problems can be handled by primary care physicians, more than 80% of pediatricians report having difficulty accessing dermatology services for their patients.⁴ In surveys of pediatricians, pediatric dermatology has the third highest referral rate but has consistently ranked third among the specialties deemed most difficult to access.^5-7 In addition, it is not uncommon for the wait time to see a pediatric dermatologist to be 6 weeks or longer.^5,8

Recent population data estimate that there are 73 million children living in the United States.⁹ If there are roughly 317 practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists, that translates into approximately 4.3 pediatric dermatologists per million children. This number is far smaller than the 4 general dermatologists per 100,000 individuals recommended by Glazer et al¹⁰ in 2017. To meet this suggested ratio goal, the workforce of pediatric dermatologists would have to increase to 2920. In addition to this severe workforce shortage, there is an additional problem with geographic maldistribution of pediatric dermatologists. More than 98% of pediatric dermatologists practice in metropolitan areas. At least 8 states and 95% of counties have no pediatric dermatologist, and there are no pediatric dermatologists practicing in rural counties.⁹ This disparity has considerable implications for barriers to care and lack of access for children living in underserved areas. Suggestions for attracting pediatric dermatologists to practice in these areas have included loan forgiveness programs as well as remote mentorship programs to provide professional support.^8,9

Training in Pediatrics

There currently are 38 ABD-approved pediatric dermatology fellowship training programs in the United States. Beginning in 2009, pediatric dermatology fellowship programs have participated in the SF Match program. Data provided by the SPD show that, since 2012, up to 27 programs have participated in the annual Match, offering a total number of positions ranging from 27 to 38; however, only 11 to 21 positions have been filled each year, leaving a large number of post-Match vacancies (unpublished data, September 2021).

Surveys have explored the reasons behind this lack of interest in pediatric dermatology training among dermatology residents. Factors that have been mentioned include lack of exposure and mentorship in medical school and residency, the financial hardship of an additional year of fellowship training, and historically lower salaries for pediatric dermatologists compared to general dermatologists.^3,6

A 2004 survey revealed that more than 75% of dermatology department chairs believed it was important to have a pediatric dermatologist on the faculty; however, at that time only 48% of dermatology programs reported having at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatology faculty member.¹¹ By 2008, a follow-up survey showed an increase to 70% of dermatology training programs reporting at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatologist; however, 43% of departments still had at least 1 open position, and 76% of those programs shared that they had been searching for more than 1 year.² Currently, the Accreditation Data System of the ACGME shows a total of 144 accredited US dermatology training programs. Of those, 117 programs have 1 or more board-certified pediatric dermatology faculty member, and 27 programs still have none (unpublished data, September 2021).

A shortage of pediatric dermatologists in training programs contributes to the lack of exposure and mentorship for medical students and residents during a critical time in professional development. Studies show that up to 91% of pediatric dermatologists decided to pursue training in pediatric dermatology during medical school, pediatrics residency, or dermatology residency. In one survey, 84% of respondents (N=109) cited early mentorship as the most important factor in their decision to pursue pediatric dermatology.⁶

A lack of pediatric dermatologists also results in suboptimal dermatology training for residents who care for children in primary care specialties, including pediatrics, combined internal medicine and pediatrics, and family practice. Multiple surveys have shown that many pediatricians feel they received inadequate training in dermatology during residency. Up to 38% have cited a need for more pediatric dermatology education (N=755).^5,6 In addition, studies show a wide disparity in diagnostic accuracy between dermatologists and pediatricians, with one concluding that more than one-third of referrals to pediatric dermatologists were initially misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly treated.^5,7

Recruitment Efforts for Pediatric Dermatologists

There are multiple strategies for recruiting trainees into the pediatric dermatology workforce. First, given the importance of early exposure to the field and role models/mentors, pediatric dermatologists must take advantage of every opportunity to interact with medical students and residents. They can share their genuine enthusiasm and love for the specialty while encouraging and supporting those who show interest. They also should seek opportunities for teaching, lecturing, and advising at every level of training. In addition, they can enhance visibility of the specialty by participating in career forums and/or assuming leadership roles within their departments or institutions.¹² Another suggestion is for dermatology training programs to consider giving priority to qualified applicants who express sincere interest in pursuing pediatric dermatology training (including those who have already completed pediatrics residency). Although a 2008 survey revealed that 39% of dermatology residency programs (N=80) favored giving priority to applicants demonstrating interest in pediatric dermatology, others were against it, citing issues such as lack of funding for additional residency training, lack of pediatric dermatology mentors within the program, and an overall mistrust of applicants’ sincerity.²

Final Thoughts

The subspecialty of pediatric dermatology has experienced remarkable growth over the last 40 years; however, demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to outpace supply, resulting in a persistent and notable workforce shortage. Overall, the current supply of pediatric dermatologists can neither meet the clinical demands of the pediatric population nor fulfill academic needs of existing training programs. We must continue to develop novel strategies for increasing the pool of students and residents who are interested in pursuing careers in pediatric dermatology. Ultimately, we also must create incentives and develop tactics to address the geographic maldistribution that exists within the specialty.

Pediatric dermatology is a relatively young subspecialty. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) was established in 1975, followed by the creation of the journal Pediatric Dermatology in 1982 and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Dermatology in 1986.¹ In 2000, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) officially recognized pediatric dermatology as a unique subspecialty of the American Board of Dermatology (ABD). During that time, informal fellowship experiences emerged, and formal 1-year training programs approved by the ABD evolved by 2006. A subspecialty certification examination was created and has been administered every other year since 2004.¹ Data provided by the SPD indicate that approximately 431 US dermatologists have passed the ABD’s pediatric dermatology board certification examination thus far (unpublished data, September 2021).

In 1986, the first systematic evaluation of the US pediatric dermatology workforce revealed a total of 57 practicing pediatric dermatologists and concluded that job opportunities appeared to be limited at that time.² Since then, the demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to grow steadily, and the number of board-certified pediatric dermatologists practicing in the United States has increased to at least 317 per data from a 2020 survey.³ However, given that there are more than 11,000 board-certified dermatologists in the United States, there continues to be a severe shortage of pediatric dermatologists.¹

Increased Demand for Pediatric Dermatologists

Approximately 10% to 30% of almost 200 million annual outpatient pediatric primary care visits involve a skin concern. Although many of these problems can be handled by primary care physicians, more than 80% of pediatricians report having difficulty accessing dermatology services for their patients.⁴ In surveys of pediatricians, pediatric dermatology has the third highest referral rate but has consistently ranked third among the specialties deemed most difficult to access.^5-7 In addition, it is not uncommon for the wait time to see a pediatric dermatologist to be 6 weeks or longer.^5,8

Recent population data estimate that there are 73 million children living in the United States.⁹ If there are roughly 317 practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists, that translates into approximately 4.3 pediatric dermatologists per million children. This number is far smaller than the 4 general dermatologists per 100,000 individuals recommended by Glazer et al¹⁰ in 2017. To meet this suggested ratio goal, the workforce of pediatric dermatologists would have to increase to 2920. In addition to this severe workforce shortage, there is an additional problem with geographic maldistribution of pediatric dermatologists. More than 98% of pediatric dermatologists practice in metropolitan areas. At least 8 states and 95% of counties have no pediatric dermatologist, and there are no pediatric dermatologists practicing in rural counties.⁹ This disparity has considerable implications for barriers to care and lack of access for children living in underserved areas. Suggestions for attracting pediatric dermatologists to practice in these areas have included loan forgiveness programs as well as remote mentorship programs to provide professional support.^8,9

Training in Pediatrics

There currently are 38 ABD-approved pediatric dermatology fellowship training programs in the United States. Beginning in 2009, pediatric dermatology fellowship programs have participated in the SF Match program. Data provided by the SPD show that, since 2012, up to 27 programs have participated in the annual Match, offering a total number of positions ranging from 27 to 38; however, only 11 to 21 positions have been filled each year, leaving a large number of post-Match vacancies (unpublished data, September 2021).

Surveys have explored the reasons behind this lack of interest in pediatric dermatology training among dermatology residents. Factors that have been mentioned include lack of exposure and mentorship in medical school and residency, the financial hardship of an additional year of fellowship training, and historically lower salaries for pediatric dermatologists compared to general dermatologists.^3,6

A 2004 survey revealed that more than 75% of dermatology department chairs believed it was important to have a pediatric dermatologist on the faculty; however, at that time only 48% of dermatology programs reported having at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatology faculty member.¹¹ By 2008, a follow-up survey showed an increase to 70% of dermatology training programs reporting at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatologist; however, 43% of departments still had at least 1 open position, and 76% of those programs shared that they had been searching for more than 1 year.² Currently, the Accreditation Data System of the ACGME shows a total of 144 accredited US dermatology training programs. Of those, 117 programs have 1 or more board-certified pediatric dermatology faculty member, and 27 programs still have none (unpublished data, September 2021).

A shortage of pediatric dermatologists in training programs contributes to the lack of exposure and mentorship for medical students and residents during a critical time in professional development. Studies show that up to 91% of pediatric dermatologists decided to pursue training in pediatric dermatology during medical school, pediatrics residency, or dermatology residency. In one survey, 84% of respondents (N=109) cited early mentorship as the most important factor in their decision to pursue pediatric dermatology.⁶

A lack of pediatric dermatologists also results in suboptimal dermatology training for residents who care for children in primary care specialties, including pediatrics, combined internal medicine and pediatrics, and family practice. Multiple surveys have shown that many pediatricians feel they received inadequate training in dermatology during residency. Up to 38% have cited a need for more pediatric dermatology education (N=755).^5,6 In addition, studies show a wide disparity in diagnostic accuracy between dermatologists and pediatricians, with one concluding that more than one-third of referrals to pediatric dermatologists were initially misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly treated.^5,7

Recruitment Efforts for Pediatric Dermatologists

There are multiple strategies for recruiting trainees into the pediatric dermatology workforce. First, given the importance of early exposure to the field and role models/mentors, pediatric dermatologists must take advantage of every opportunity to interact with medical students and residents. They can share their genuine enthusiasm and love for the specialty while encouraging and supporting those who show interest. They also should seek opportunities for teaching, lecturing, and advising at every level of training. In addition, they can enhance visibility of the specialty by participating in career forums and/or assuming leadership roles within their departments or institutions.¹² Another suggestion is for dermatology training programs to consider giving priority to qualified applicants who express sincere interest in pursuing pediatric dermatology training (including those who have already completed pediatrics residency). Although a 2008 survey revealed that 39% of dermatology residency programs (N=80) favored giving priority to applicants demonstrating interest in pediatric dermatology, others were against it, citing issues such as lack of funding for additional residency training, lack of pediatric dermatology mentors within the program, and an overall mistrust of applicants’ sincerity.²

Final Thoughts

The subspecialty of pediatric dermatology has experienced remarkable growth over the last 40 years; however, demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to outpace supply, resulting in a persistent and notable workforce shortage. Overall, the current supply of pediatric dermatologists can neither meet the clinical demands of the pediatric population nor fulfill academic needs of existing training programs. We must continue to develop novel strategies for increasing the pool of students and residents who are interested in pursuing careers in pediatric dermatology. Ultimately, we also must create incentives and develop tactics to address the geographic maldistribution that exists within the specialty.

Pediatric dermatology is a relatively young subspecialty. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) was established in 1975, followed by the creation of the journal Pediatric Dermatology in 1982 and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Dermatology in 1986.¹ In 2000, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) officially recognized pediatric dermatology as a unique subspecialty of the American Board of Dermatology (ABD). During that time, informal fellowship experiences emerged, and formal 1-year training programs approved by the ABD evolved by 2006. A subspecialty certification examination was created and has been administered every other year since 2004.¹ Data provided by the SPD indicate that approximately 431 US dermatologists have passed the ABD’s pediatric dermatology board certification examination thus far (unpublished data, September 2021).

In 1986, the first systematic evaluation of the US pediatric dermatology workforce revealed a total of 57 practicing pediatric dermatologists and concluded that job opportunities appeared to be limited at that time.² Since then, the demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to grow steadily, and the number of board-certified pediatric dermatologists practicing in the United States has increased to at least 317 per data from a 2020 survey.³ However, given that there are more than 11,000 board-certified dermatologists in the United States, there continues to be a severe shortage of pediatric dermatologists.¹

Increased Demand for Pediatric Dermatologists

Approximately 10% to 30% of almost 200 million annual outpatient pediatric primary care visits involve a skin concern. Although many of these problems can be handled by primary care physicians, more than 80% of pediatricians report having difficulty accessing dermatology services for their patients.⁴ In surveys of pediatricians, pediatric dermatology has the third highest referral rate but has consistently ranked third among the specialties deemed most difficult to access.^5-7 In addition, it is not uncommon for the wait time to see a pediatric dermatologist to be 6 weeks or longer.^5,8

Recent population data estimate that there are 73 million children living in the United States.⁹ If there are roughly 317 practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists, that translates into approximately 4.3 pediatric dermatologists per million children. This number is far smaller than the 4 general dermatologists per 100,000 individuals recommended by Glazer et al¹⁰ in 2017. To meet this suggested ratio goal, the workforce of pediatric dermatologists would have to increase to 2920. In addition to this severe workforce shortage, there is an additional problem with geographic maldistribution of pediatric dermatologists. More than 98% of pediatric dermatologists practice in metropolitan areas. At least 8 states and 95% of counties have no pediatric dermatologist, and there are no pediatric dermatologists practicing in rural counties.⁹ This disparity has considerable implications for barriers to care and lack of access for children living in underserved areas. Suggestions for attracting pediatric dermatologists to practice in these areas have included loan forgiveness programs as well as remote mentorship programs to provide professional support.^8,9

Training in Pediatrics

There currently are 38 ABD-approved pediatric dermatology fellowship training programs in the United States. Beginning in 2009, pediatric dermatology fellowship programs have participated in the SF Match program. Data provided by the SPD show that, since 2012, up to 27 programs have participated in the annual Match, offering a total number of positions ranging from 27 to 38; however, only 11 to 21 positions have been filled each year, leaving a large number of post-Match vacancies (unpublished data, September 2021).

Surveys have explored the reasons behind this lack of interest in pediatric dermatology training among dermatology residents. Factors that have been mentioned include lack of exposure and mentorship in medical school and residency, the financial hardship of an additional year of fellowship training, and historically lower salaries for pediatric dermatologists compared to general dermatologists.^3,6

A 2004 survey revealed that more than 75% of dermatology department chairs believed it was important to have a pediatric dermatologist on the faculty; however, at that time only 48% of dermatology programs reported having at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatology faculty member.¹¹ By 2008, a follow-up survey showed an increase to 70% of dermatology training programs reporting at least 1 full-time pediatric dermatologist; however, 43% of departments still had at least 1 open position, and 76% of those programs shared that they had been searching for more than 1 year.² Currently, the Accreditation Data System of the ACGME shows a total of 144 accredited US dermatology training programs. Of those, 117 programs have 1 or more board-certified pediatric dermatology faculty member, and 27 programs still have none (unpublished data, September 2021).

A shortage of pediatric dermatologists in training programs contributes to the lack of exposure and mentorship for medical students and residents during a critical time in professional development. Studies show that up to 91% of pediatric dermatologists decided to pursue training in pediatric dermatology during medical school, pediatrics residency, or dermatology residency. In one survey, 84% of respondents (N=109) cited early mentorship as the most important factor in their decision to pursue pediatric dermatology.⁶

A lack of pediatric dermatologists also results in suboptimal dermatology training for residents who care for children in primary care specialties, including pediatrics, combined internal medicine and pediatrics, and family practice. Multiple surveys have shown that many pediatricians feel they received inadequate training in dermatology during residency. Up to 38% have cited a need for more pediatric dermatology education (N=755).^5,6 In addition, studies show a wide disparity in diagnostic accuracy between dermatologists and pediatricians, with one concluding that more than one-third of referrals to pediatric dermatologists were initially misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly treated.^5,7

Recruitment Efforts for Pediatric Dermatologists

There are multiple strategies for recruiting trainees into the pediatric dermatology workforce. First, given the importance of early exposure to the field and role models/mentors, pediatric dermatologists must take advantage of every opportunity to interact with medical students and residents. They can share their genuine enthusiasm and love for the specialty while encouraging and supporting those who show interest. They also should seek opportunities for teaching, lecturing, and advising at every level of training. In addition, they can enhance visibility of the specialty by participating in career forums and/or assuming leadership roles within their departments or institutions.¹² Another suggestion is for dermatology training programs to consider giving priority to qualified applicants who express sincere interest in pursuing pediatric dermatology training (including those who have already completed pediatrics residency). Although a 2008 survey revealed that 39% of dermatology residency programs (N=80) favored giving priority to applicants demonstrating interest in pediatric dermatology, others were against it, citing issues such as lack of funding for additional residency training, lack of pediatric dermatology mentors within the program, and an overall mistrust of applicants’ sincerity.²

Final Thoughts

The subspecialty of pediatric dermatology has experienced remarkable growth over the last 40 years; however, demand for pediatric dermatology services has continued to outpace supply, resulting in a persistent and notable workforce shortage. Overall, the current supply of pediatric dermatologists can neither meet the clinical demands of the pediatric population nor fulfill academic needs of existing training programs. We must continue to develop novel strategies for increasing the pool of students and residents who are interested in pursuing careers in pediatric dermatology. Ultimately, we also must create incentives and develop tactics to address the geographic maldistribution that exists within the specialty.