Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had a marginally superior effect on pain relief when compared with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly when used as monotherapy and in those previously treated with at least two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but their pain reduction effects were similar to those of non–TNF inhibitor biologic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to compare the effect of JAK inhibitors and each class of biologic DMARDs such as TNF inhibitors, rituximab, abatacept, and interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors on pain in patients with RA in clinical practice.
• They included 8430 patients with RA who were initiated on either a JAK inhibitor (n = 1827), TNF inhibitor (n = 6422), IL-6 inhibitor (n = 887), abatacept (n = 1102), or rituximab (n = 1149) in 2017-2019.
• Differences in the change in pain, assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 mm), from baseline to 3 months were compared between the treatment arms.
• The proportion of patients who continued their initial treatment with low pain levels (VAS pain, < 20 mm) at 12 months was also evaluated.
• The comparisons of treatment responses between JAK inhibitors and biologic DMARDs were analyzed using multivariate linear regression, adjusted for patient characteristics, comorbidities, current co-medication, and previous treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pain scores improved from baseline to 3 months in all the treatment arms, with mean changes ranging from −20.1 mm (95% CI, −23.1 to −17.2) for IL-6 inhibitors to −16.6 mm (95% CI, −19.1 to −14.0) for rituximab.
• At 3 months, JAK inhibitors reduced pain scores by 4.0 mm (95% CI, 1.7-6.3) more than TNF inhibitors and by 3.9 mm (95% CI, 0.9-6.9) more than rituximab; however, the change in pain was not significantly different on comparing JAK inhibitors with abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors.
• The superior pain-reducing effects of JAK inhibitors over those of TNF inhibitors were more prominent in those who were previously treated with at least two biologic DMARDs and when the treatments were used as monotherapy.
• At 12 months, 19.5% of the patients receiving JAK inhibitors continued their treatment and achieved low pain levels, with the corresponding proportions ranging from 17% to 26% for biologic DMARDs; JAK inhibitors were more effective in reducing pain than TNF inhibitors, although the difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“JAK inhibitors yield slightly better pain outcomes than TNF inhibitors. The magnitude of these effects is unlikely to be clinically meaningful in unselected groups of patients with RA,” experts from Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Specific subgroups, such as those who have tried at least two DMARDs, may experience greater effects,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anna Eberhard, MD, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. It was published online on September 22, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a significant amount of missing data, particularly for follow-up evaluations, which may have introduced bias. The majority of patients were treated using baricitinib, potentially limiting the generalizability to other JAK inhibitors. Residual confounding could not be excluded despite adjustments for multiple relevant patient characteristics.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from The Swedish Research Council, The Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Lund University. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees, payments or honoraria, or grants or having other ties with pharmaceutical companies and other sources.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had a marginally superior effect on pain relief when compared with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly when used as monotherapy and in those previously treated with at least two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but their pain reduction effects were similar to those of non–TNF inhibitor biologic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to compare the effect of JAK inhibitors and each class of biologic DMARDs such as TNF inhibitors, rituximab, abatacept, and interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors on pain in patients with RA in clinical practice.
• They included 8430 patients with RA who were initiated on either a JAK inhibitor (n = 1827), TNF inhibitor (n = 6422), IL-6 inhibitor (n = 887), abatacept (n = 1102), or rituximab (n = 1149) in 2017-2019.
• Differences in the change in pain, assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 mm), from baseline to 3 months were compared between the treatment arms.
• The proportion of patients who continued their initial treatment with low pain levels (VAS pain, < 20 mm) at 12 months was also evaluated.
• The comparisons of treatment responses between JAK inhibitors and biologic DMARDs were analyzed using multivariate linear regression, adjusted for patient characteristics, comorbidities, current co-medication, and previous treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pain scores improved from baseline to 3 months in all the treatment arms, with mean changes ranging from −20.1 mm (95% CI, −23.1 to −17.2) for IL-6 inhibitors to −16.6 mm (95% CI, −19.1 to −14.0) for rituximab.
• At 3 months, JAK inhibitors reduced pain scores by 4.0 mm (95% CI, 1.7-6.3) more than TNF inhibitors and by 3.9 mm (95% CI, 0.9-6.9) more than rituximab; however, the change in pain was not significantly different on comparing JAK inhibitors with abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors.
• The superior pain-reducing effects of JAK inhibitors over those of TNF inhibitors were more prominent in those who were previously treated with at least two biologic DMARDs and when the treatments were used as monotherapy.
• At 12 months, 19.5% of the patients receiving JAK inhibitors continued their treatment and achieved low pain levels, with the corresponding proportions ranging from 17% to 26% for biologic DMARDs; JAK inhibitors were more effective in reducing pain than TNF inhibitors, although the difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“JAK inhibitors yield slightly better pain outcomes than TNF inhibitors. The magnitude of these effects is unlikely to be clinically meaningful in unselected groups of patients with RA,” experts from Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Specific subgroups, such as those who have tried at least two DMARDs, may experience greater effects,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anna Eberhard, MD, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. It was published online on September 22, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a significant amount of missing data, particularly for follow-up evaluations, which may have introduced bias. The majority of patients were treated using baricitinib, potentially limiting the generalizability to other JAK inhibitors. Residual confounding could not be excluded despite adjustments for multiple relevant patient characteristics.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from The Swedish Research Council, The Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Lund University. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees, payments or honoraria, or grants or having other ties with pharmaceutical companies and other sources.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had a marginally superior effect on pain relief when compared with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly when used as monotherapy and in those previously treated with at least two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but their pain reduction effects were similar to those of non–TNF inhibitor biologic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to compare the effect of JAK inhibitors and each class of biologic DMARDs such as TNF inhibitors, rituximab, abatacept, and interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors on pain in patients with RA in clinical practice.
• They included 8430 patients with RA who were initiated on either a JAK inhibitor (n = 1827), TNF inhibitor (n = 6422), IL-6 inhibitor (n = 887), abatacept (n = 1102), or rituximab (n = 1149) in 2017-2019.
• Differences in the change in pain, assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 mm), from baseline to 3 months were compared between the treatment arms.
• The proportion of patients who continued their initial treatment with low pain levels (VAS pain, < 20 mm) at 12 months was also evaluated.
• The comparisons of treatment responses between JAK inhibitors and biologic DMARDs were analyzed using multivariate linear regression, adjusted for patient characteristics, comorbidities, current co-medication, and previous treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pain scores improved from baseline to 3 months in all the treatment arms, with mean changes ranging from −20.1 mm (95% CI, −23.1 to −17.2) for IL-6 inhibitors to −16.6 mm (95% CI, −19.1 to −14.0) for rituximab.
• At 3 months, JAK inhibitors reduced pain scores by 4.0 mm (95% CI, 1.7-6.3) more than TNF inhibitors and by 3.9 mm (95% CI, 0.9-6.9) more than rituximab; however, the change in pain was not significantly different on comparing JAK inhibitors with abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors.
• The superior pain-reducing effects of JAK inhibitors over those of TNF inhibitors were more prominent in those who were previously treated with at least two biologic DMARDs and when the treatments were used as monotherapy.
• At 12 months, 19.5% of the patients receiving JAK inhibitors continued their treatment and achieved low pain levels, with the corresponding proportions ranging from 17% to 26% for biologic DMARDs; JAK inhibitors were more effective in reducing pain than TNF inhibitors, although the difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“JAK inhibitors yield slightly better pain outcomes than TNF inhibitors. The magnitude of these effects is unlikely to be clinically meaningful in unselected groups of patients with RA,” experts from Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Specific subgroups, such as those who have tried at least two DMARDs, may experience greater effects,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anna Eberhard, MD, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. It was published online on September 22, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a significant amount of missing data, particularly for follow-up evaluations, which may have introduced bias. The majority of patients were treated using baricitinib, potentially limiting the generalizability to other JAK inhibitors. Residual confounding could not be excluded despite adjustments for multiple relevant patient characteristics.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from The Swedish Research Council, The Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Lund University. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees, payments or honoraria, or grants or having other ties with pharmaceutical companies and other sources.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a partial clinical hold on the phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial of BNT316/ONC-392 (gotistobart, BioNTech and OncoC4) for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to varying results in patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.

Gotistobart is a next-generation anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody candidate in late-stage clinical development for various cancer indications. PRESERVE-003 is an open-label randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the agent vs docetaxel as monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC that progressed despite prior treatment with a programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor.

“A recent assessment of the trial data by the independent data monitoring committee identified a possible variance in population results,” according to a regulatory document from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the clinical hold. “Consequently, OncoC4 and BioNTech decided to proactively pause enrollment of new patients and informed the FDA of the possible variance for further alignment.”

Patients already enrolled in the trial will continue to receive treatment. Ongoing trials of gotistobart for other indications are not affected by the hold, according to the notice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.

Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.

Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.

If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.

Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.

Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.

Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.

It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.

Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.

Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.

Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
 

Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.

Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.

Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.

Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.

If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.

Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.

Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.

Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.

It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.

Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.

Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.

Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
 

Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.

Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.

Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.

Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.

If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.

Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.

Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.

Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.

It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.

Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.

Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.

Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
 

Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.

Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.

When prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, many physicians prefer tirzepatide over the more well-known semaglutide due to its superior efficacy in weight loss and A1c reduction. Studies indicated that tirzepatide can lead to greater weight loss than semaglutide.

Factors like insurance coverage, drug availability, and side effects also influence physicians’ choices, with some patients benefiting from the broader dosing options that tirzepatide offers.

In this Q&A, Medscape Medical News explored how physicians can make the best decisions with their patients when choosing between GLP-1 medications tirzepatide and semaglutide for the treatment for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

We spoke to physicians who specialize in medical weight loss on things to consider when choosing between these two medications, such as patient profiles, drug access and availability, and financial considerations. We also discussed the side effect profiles of the medications based on current data in the literature.
 

Medscape Medical News: How are you deciding which of the two drugs to prescribe?

Caroline Messer, MD, endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York City: To some degree, it’s based on insurance. But in general, I’m pushing most patients toward tirzepatide just because the data show that there’s more weight loss and more A1c reduction on tirzepatide. But the research shows that there are more side effects. But I think every practicing clinician who uses these medications knows that there are actually fewer side effects despite what the trial showed.

Sue Decotiis, MD, weight loss doctor, New York City: I think that many doctors that are prescribing these drugs are not really weight loss specialists. It’s just like one of many drugs that they prescribe. And semaglutide (Ozempic) is more well known. I think it’s because they don’t really know that it’s not as good as the other drugs. There are still massive shortages of these drugs. So that’s another reason why a doctor may choose one drug over another. Also, if a patient’s reliant on insurance to cover it, they may go with whatever the insurance company is willing to cover.

Kathleen Dungan, MD, professor of internal medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and College of Medicine: Some patients may have preferences with the delivery device. In the past year, in particular, availability of these drugs was limited and varied from time to time and geographically, and therefore, patients needed to substitute one drug for another in order to maintain treatment.

Maria Teresa Anton, MD, endocrinologist and educator, Pritikin Longevity Center, Miami: While I do not prescribe these medications, I do focus on integrating them into a comprehensive lifestyle program that empowers patients to make sustainable changes. By fostering an environment of education and support, we enhance their well-being and promote long-term health outcomes. In my practice, I’ve found that the most successful outcomes occur when these medications are combined with a comprehensive approach, including dietary changes, physical activity, and behavioral support.
 

Medscape Medical News: How do you make the decision of tirzepatide vs semaglutide?

Messer: There’s no guideline per se. Sometimes when I don’t want a patient to lose too much weight, I might consider Ozempic or Wegovy if you know they only have 5 lb to lose. If diabetes, then I might go for the Ozempic instead, just because the weight loss is so drastic with tirzepatide with any kind of appetite.

Decotiis: If somebody has a lot of weight to lose and they’re highly insulin resistant, as most people are when they start these drugs, I really prefer tirzepatide ... because I think patients are going to lose more weight, they’re going to lose more fat. I also see that patients have less side effects because before tirzepatide came out, I was prescribing mostly semaglutide, and there were a lot of side effects. But semaglutide is fine. I mean, it’s a good drug. Maybe it’s better for people that don’t have as much weight to lose. So I don’t have to worry about them hitting that wall after a certain period of time. But it’s a good drug. I mean, I certainly still use it.
 

Medscape Medical News: What of the data and the literature on the differences in the outcomes and the side effect profile?

Messer: In terms of outcomes, the weight loss is almost double [with tirzepatide]. It depends what trial you’re looking at, but we tend to see like about 15% of your body weight you lose with the semaglutide and 25%-30% with the tirzepatide. The big difference, I suppose…is semaglutide now has a cardiovascular indication and the tirzepatide doesn’t, but I’m very confident that tirzepatide is going to get the same indication.

Decotiis: When that first Lilly study came out in June of 2022, it really blew everybody away. I mean, some patients lost up to 25% of their weight on tirzepatide, whereas on Ozempic, it was really like 15%. Now, in my practice, I really monitor everyone with a body composition scale. I’m not just looking at somebody’s weight or body mass index, I am looking at how much body fat they have, how much muscle mass they have, how much water they have, and how much bone they have.

The golden rule here is make sure the patient loses fat, and you want to make sure they’re not losing muscle or too much water. The patient really needs to be adequately hydrated. So what I’m saying is a lot of people who have lost weight have not reached the promised land because they haven’t lost enough body fat to get them into that healthy zone. But once they reduce the body fat to a certain percentage, let’s say for a woman about 20%, or a man in the low teens, they’re less likely to regain that weight because they haven’t really lost fat. And that’s how we gain health.
 

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

When prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, many physicians prefer tirzepatide over the more well-known semaglutide due to its superior efficacy in weight loss and A1c reduction. Studies indicated that tirzepatide can lead to greater weight loss than semaglutide.

Factors like insurance coverage, drug availability, and side effects also influence physicians’ choices, with some patients benefiting from the broader dosing options that tirzepatide offers.

In this Q&A, Medscape Medical News explored how physicians can make the best decisions with their patients when choosing between GLP-1 medications tirzepatide and semaglutide for the treatment for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

We spoke to physicians who specialize in medical weight loss on things to consider when choosing between these two medications, such as patient profiles, drug access and availability, and financial considerations. We also discussed the side effect profiles of the medications based on current data in the literature.
 

Medscape Medical News: How are you deciding which of the two drugs to prescribe?

Caroline Messer, MD, endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York City: To some degree, it’s based on insurance. But in general, I’m pushing most patients toward tirzepatide just because the data show that there’s more weight loss and more A1c reduction on tirzepatide. But the research shows that there are more side effects. But I think every practicing clinician who uses these medications knows that there are actually fewer side effects despite what the trial showed.

Sue Decotiis, MD, weight loss doctor, New York City: I think that many doctors that are prescribing these drugs are not really weight loss specialists. It’s just like one of many drugs that they prescribe. And semaglutide (Ozempic) is more well known. I think it’s because they don’t really know that it’s not as good as the other drugs. There are still massive shortages of these drugs. So that’s another reason why a doctor may choose one drug over another. Also, if a patient’s reliant on insurance to cover it, they may go with whatever the insurance company is willing to cover.

Kathleen Dungan, MD, professor of internal medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and College of Medicine: Some patients may have preferences with the delivery device. In the past year, in particular, availability of these drugs was limited and varied from time to time and geographically, and therefore, patients needed to substitute one drug for another in order to maintain treatment.

Maria Teresa Anton, MD, endocrinologist and educator, Pritikin Longevity Center, Miami: While I do not prescribe these medications, I do focus on integrating them into a comprehensive lifestyle program that empowers patients to make sustainable changes. By fostering an environment of education and support, we enhance their well-being and promote long-term health outcomes. In my practice, I’ve found that the most successful outcomes occur when these medications are combined with a comprehensive approach, including dietary changes, physical activity, and behavioral support.
 

Medscape Medical News: How do you make the decision of tirzepatide vs semaglutide?

Messer: There’s no guideline per se. Sometimes when I don’t want a patient to lose too much weight, I might consider Ozempic or Wegovy if you know they only have 5 lb to lose. If diabetes, then I might go for the Ozempic instead, just because the weight loss is so drastic with tirzepatide with any kind of appetite.

Decotiis: If somebody has a lot of weight to lose and they’re highly insulin resistant, as most people are when they start these drugs, I really prefer tirzepatide ... because I think patients are going to lose more weight, they’re going to lose more fat. I also see that patients have less side effects because before tirzepatide came out, I was prescribing mostly semaglutide, and there were a lot of side effects. But semaglutide is fine. I mean, it’s a good drug. Maybe it’s better for people that don’t have as much weight to lose. So I don’t have to worry about them hitting that wall after a certain period of time. But it’s a good drug. I mean, I certainly still use it.
 

Medscape Medical News: What of the data and the literature on the differences in the outcomes and the side effect profile?

Messer: In terms of outcomes, the weight loss is almost double [with tirzepatide]. It depends what trial you’re looking at, but we tend to see like about 15% of your body weight you lose with the semaglutide and 25%-30% with the tirzepatide. The big difference, I suppose…is semaglutide now has a cardiovascular indication and the tirzepatide doesn’t, but I’m very confident that tirzepatide is going to get the same indication.

Decotiis: When that first Lilly study came out in June of 2022, it really blew everybody away. I mean, some patients lost up to 25% of their weight on tirzepatide, whereas on Ozempic, it was really like 15%. Now, in my practice, I really monitor everyone with a body composition scale. I’m not just looking at somebody’s weight or body mass index, I am looking at how much body fat they have, how much muscle mass they have, how much water they have, and how much bone they have.

The golden rule here is make sure the patient loses fat, and you want to make sure they’re not losing muscle or too much water. The patient really needs to be adequately hydrated. So what I’m saying is a lot of people who have lost weight have not reached the promised land because they haven’t lost enough body fat to get them into that healthy zone. But once they reduce the body fat to a certain percentage, let’s say for a woman about 20%, or a man in the low teens, they’re less likely to regain that weight because they haven’t really lost fat. And that’s how we gain health.
 

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

When prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications, many physicians prefer tirzepatide over the more well-known semaglutide due to its superior efficacy in weight loss and A1c reduction. Studies indicated that tirzepatide can lead to greater weight loss than semaglutide.

Factors like insurance coverage, drug availability, and side effects also influence physicians’ choices, with some patients benefiting from the broader dosing options that tirzepatide offers.

In this Q&A, Medscape Medical News explored how physicians can make the best decisions with their patients when choosing between GLP-1 medications tirzepatide and semaglutide for the treatment for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

We spoke to physicians who specialize in medical weight loss on things to consider when choosing between these two medications, such as patient profiles, drug access and availability, and financial considerations. We also discussed the side effect profiles of the medications based on current data in the literature.
 

Medscape Medical News: How are you deciding which of the two drugs to prescribe?

Caroline Messer, MD, endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York City: To some degree, it’s based on insurance. But in general, I’m pushing most patients toward tirzepatide just because the data show that there’s more weight loss and more A1c reduction on tirzepatide. But the research shows that there are more side effects. But I think every practicing clinician who uses these medications knows that there are actually fewer side effects despite what the trial showed.

Sue Decotiis, MD, weight loss doctor, New York City: I think that many doctors that are prescribing these drugs are not really weight loss specialists. It’s just like one of many drugs that they prescribe. And semaglutide (Ozempic) is more well known. I think it’s because they don’t really know that it’s not as good as the other drugs. There are still massive shortages of these drugs. So that’s another reason why a doctor may choose one drug over another. Also, if a patient’s reliant on insurance to cover it, they may go with whatever the insurance company is willing to cover.

Kathleen Dungan, MD, professor of internal medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and College of Medicine: Some patients may have preferences with the delivery device. In the past year, in particular, availability of these drugs was limited and varied from time to time and geographically, and therefore, patients needed to substitute one drug for another in order to maintain treatment.

Maria Teresa Anton, MD, endocrinologist and educator, Pritikin Longevity Center, Miami: While I do not prescribe these medications, I do focus on integrating them into a comprehensive lifestyle program that empowers patients to make sustainable changes. By fostering an environment of education and support, we enhance their well-being and promote long-term health outcomes. In my practice, I’ve found that the most successful outcomes occur when these medications are combined with a comprehensive approach, including dietary changes, physical activity, and behavioral support.
 

Medscape Medical News: How do you make the decision of tirzepatide vs semaglutide?

Messer: There’s no guideline per se. Sometimes when I don’t want a patient to lose too much weight, I might consider Ozempic or Wegovy if you know they only have 5 lb to lose. If diabetes, then I might go for the Ozempic instead, just because the weight loss is so drastic with tirzepatide with any kind of appetite.

Decotiis: If somebody has a lot of weight to lose and they’re highly insulin resistant, as most people are when they start these drugs, I really prefer tirzepatide ... because I think patients are going to lose more weight, they’re going to lose more fat. I also see that patients have less side effects because before tirzepatide came out, I was prescribing mostly semaglutide, and there were a lot of side effects. But semaglutide is fine. I mean, it’s a good drug. Maybe it’s better for people that don’t have as much weight to lose. So I don’t have to worry about them hitting that wall after a certain period of time. But it’s a good drug. I mean, I certainly still use it.
 

Medscape Medical News: What of the data and the literature on the differences in the outcomes and the side effect profile?

Messer: In terms of outcomes, the weight loss is almost double [with tirzepatide]. It depends what trial you’re looking at, but we tend to see like about 15% of your body weight you lose with the semaglutide and 25%-30% with the tirzepatide. The big difference, I suppose…is semaglutide now has a cardiovascular indication and the tirzepatide doesn’t, but I’m very confident that tirzepatide is going to get the same indication.

Decotiis: When that first Lilly study came out in June of 2022, it really blew everybody away. I mean, some patients lost up to 25% of their weight on tirzepatide, whereas on Ozempic, it was really like 15%. Now, in my practice, I really monitor everyone with a body composition scale. I’m not just looking at somebody’s weight or body mass index, I am looking at how much body fat they have, how much muscle mass they have, how much water they have, and how much bone they have.

The golden rule here is make sure the patient loses fat, and you want to make sure they’re not losing muscle or too much water. The patient really needs to be adequately hydrated. So what I’m saying is a lot of people who have lost weight have not reached the promised land because they haven’t lost enough body fat to get them into that healthy zone. But once they reduce the body fat to a certain percentage, let’s say for a woman about 20%, or a man in the low teens, they’re less likely to regain that weight because they haven’t really lost fat. And that’s how we gain health.
 

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

Sarah, a new mom who’s thrilled about her 3-month-old baby, is struggling with her sex life. Her once vibrant physical relationship with her partner has dwindled, and she’s dealing with painful intercourse and a notable drop in desire.

Pregnancy and childbirth are transformative experiences that affect every facet of a person’s life, including their sexual well-being. Despite this fact, clinicians frequently ignore sexual well-being, beyond contraception, in prenatal and postpartum care. In peripartum care, anticipatory guidance is recognized to be crucial to the well-being of new parents and their babies. Why should sexual well-being get the shaft? 
 

Why Talk About Sex?

Sex is a fundamental aspect of many people’s lives and relationships and can significantly affect overall well-being. Despite cultural narratives that often exclude the sexual function and pleasure aspect of sexual health from peripartum discussions, many new parents face sexual challenges that can worsen their physical and emotional health.

While up to 88% of new parents report problems with sexual well-being, less than 30% report receiving anticipatory guidance about sexual function changes. One study found only 15% of postpartum women reported discussing sexual concerns with their medical providers. And, when new parents receive more information about sexual health, they tend to report improved sexual well-being. Clearly, a gap needs bridging.

Sexual health doesn’t just affect individual well-being; it intertwines with relationship satisfaction. Attending to satisfaction in one’s relationship may be an important component of child health as well. 

Declines in the frequency of sexual engagement and desire are common after childbirth. Changes in arousal, orgasm, and sexual pleasure, often accompanied by pain, are also reported by many women. Some birthing parents report changes to the sensation of their genitals that are thought to be related to stretch of the pudendal nerve during parturition. Most experience resolution of these concerns within the first year after childbirth, although some women report persistent problems, including up to 33% with persistent sexual pain.

Many factors can contribute to postpartum sexual issues, including hormonal changes, body image concerns, and mental health conditions. Breastfeeding, for instance, can lead to vaginal dryness and reduced sexual arousal due to hormonal shifts. Body image issues and mood disorders like depression and anxiety can also adversely affect sexual function. Women with postpartum depression are more likely to experience sexual concerns, and the relationship between sexual difficulties and depression can be bidirectional.
 

Empowerment and Expectations

One commonly cited recommendation is to wait until 6 weeks postpartum before resuming penetrative intercourse after a normal vaginal delivery. However, this guideline lacks robust scientific backing. Many people might feel ready for sexual intercourse much sooner or, conversely, might not feel comfortable at the 6-week mark. As clinicians, we must empower our patients to trust their own bodies and make decisions based on their comfort and readiness.

The 6-week advice can sometimes unintentionally convey to women that they are not experts on their own bodies, or that any kind of sex is risky. Acknowledging the recovery timeline for every person is unique and various forms of sexual expression are safe can help foster a healthier approach to resuming sexual activities. In one study of postpartum sexual behavior, in the first 6 weeks after delivery, the most common kinds of sexual play included giving oral sex to a partner and solo sex. Between 80% and 90% have resumed vaginal-receiving sexual play (including intercourse) by 3 months. 

While recognizing that changes to sexual experience occur, we need to reinforce that gradual recovery is expected. And if women express distress about a sexual change, or if those changes persist, primary care providers should be prepared to help them with their concerns. 

Parents need to know experiencing pain is not something they should “just deal with” or ignore. Attempting to repeatedly endure sexual pain can cause new issues, such as high-tone dysfunction of the pelvic floor or an understandable decrease in willingness or receptiveness to sexual play of any kind. Encouraging open communication about these issues can help couples navigate these changes more smoothly.

Partners, especially new fathers, also experience sexual and emotional challenges. They can feel blindsided by the changes in their relationship and might struggle with feelings of jealousy or inadequacy. Understanding partners also face difficulties can help in providing a more comprehensive approach to sexual health care.
 

Starting the Conversation

So, how can we initiate these important conversations with new parents? Start by providing permission. As healthcare providers, we need to create an environment where discussing sexual health is normalized and welcomed. Simple, nonjudgmental statements can open the door to these discussions. For example, saying, “Many people notice changes in their sexual desire or pleasure after childbirth. Has anything like this happened to you or your partner?” can encourage patients to share their concerns.

Assessing the importance to patients of sexual problems can help direct the need for intervention. Follow up on these concerns and offer support, whether through counseling, pelvic floor physical therapy, or a referral to a sexual medicine specialist, a sex therapist, or other appropriate resource.

Let’s return to Sarah. In the ideal world, at 3 months postpartum she will already have had a handful of clinical conversations about her sexual well-being with her healthcare team — at prenatal visits, at well-baby visits, and at her postpartum checkups. Several of these conversations included her partner. They both understand the transition to parenthood could be rocky for their sex lives. They’ve set aside time to connect and stay physically close. She’s listened to her body and only engaged in sexual play for which she feels ready. Now, noting that some aspects of sexual play are persistently uncomfortable, she knows it’s time to follow up. Without shame or anxiety, she books an appointment with you, knowing that you understand how important this issue is for her, her partner, and her baby. 

If you’re working with new parents, remember: Open dialogue about sexual health is not just beneficial — it’s essential. Let’s bridge the gap in care by embracing these conversations and offering the support new parents truly need.
 

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sarah, a new mom who’s thrilled about her 3-month-old baby, is struggling with her sex life. Her once vibrant physical relationship with her partner has dwindled, and she’s dealing with painful intercourse and a notable drop in desire.

Pregnancy and childbirth are transformative experiences that affect every facet of a person’s life, including their sexual well-being. Despite this fact, clinicians frequently ignore sexual well-being, beyond contraception, in prenatal and postpartum care. In peripartum care, anticipatory guidance is recognized to be crucial to the well-being of new parents and their babies. Why should sexual well-being get the shaft? 
 

Why Talk About Sex?

Sex is a fundamental aspect of many people’s lives and relationships and can significantly affect overall well-being. Despite cultural narratives that often exclude the sexual function and pleasure aspect of sexual health from peripartum discussions, many new parents face sexual challenges that can worsen their physical and emotional health.

While up to 88% of new parents report problems with sexual well-being, less than 30% report receiving anticipatory guidance about sexual function changes. One study found only 15% of postpartum women reported discussing sexual concerns with their medical providers. And, when new parents receive more information about sexual health, they tend to report improved sexual well-being. Clearly, a gap needs bridging.

Sexual health doesn’t just affect individual well-being; it intertwines with relationship satisfaction. Attending to satisfaction in one’s relationship may be an important component of child health as well. 

Declines in the frequency of sexual engagement and desire are common after childbirth. Changes in arousal, orgasm, and sexual pleasure, often accompanied by pain, are also reported by many women. Some birthing parents report changes to the sensation of their genitals that are thought to be related to stretch of the pudendal nerve during parturition. Most experience resolution of these concerns within the first year after childbirth, although some women report persistent problems, including up to 33% with persistent sexual pain.

Many factors can contribute to postpartum sexual issues, including hormonal changes, body image concerns, and mental health conditions. Breastfeeding, for instance, can lead to vaginal dryness and reduced sexual arousal due to hormonal shifts. Body image issues and mood disorders like depression and anxiety can also adversely affect sexual function. Women with postpartum depression are more likely to experience sexual concerns, and the relationship between sexual difficulties and depression can be bidirectional.
 

Empowerment and Expectations

One commonly cited recommendation is to wait until 6 weeks postpartum before resuming penetrative intercourse after a normal vaginal delivery. However, this guideline lacks robust scientific backing. Many people might feel ready for sexual intercourse much sooner or, conversely, might not feel comfortable at the 6-week mark. As clinicians, we must empower our patients to trust their own bodies and make decisions based on their comfort and readiness.

The 6-week advice can sometimes unintentionally convey to women that they are not experts on their own bodies, or that any kind of sex is risky. Acknowledging the recovery timeline for every person is unique and various forms of sexual expression are safe can help foster a healthier approach to resuming sexual activities. In one study of postpartum sexual behavior, in the first 6 weeks after delivery, the most common kinds of sexual play included giving oral sex to a partner and solo sex. Between 80% and 90% have resumed vaginal-receiving sexual play (including intercourse) by 3 months. 

While recognizing that changes to sexual experience occur, we need to reinforce that gradual recovery is expected. And if women express distress about a sexual change, or if those changes persist, primary care providers should be prepared to help them with their concerns. 

Parents need to know experiencing pain is not something they should “just deal with” or ignore. Attempting to repeatedly endure sexual pain can cause new issues, such as high-tone dysfunction of the pelvic floor or an understandable decrease in willingness or receptiveness to sexual play of any kind. Encouraging open communication about these issues can help couples navigate these changes more smoothly.

Partners, especially new fathers, also experience sexual and emotional challenges. They can feel blindsided by the changes in their relationship and might struggle with feelings of jealousy or inadequacy. Understanding partners also face difficulties can help in providing a more comprehensive approach to sexual health care.
 

Starting the Conversation

So, how can we initiate these important conversations with new parents? Start by providing permission. As healthcare providers, we need to create an environment where discussing sexual health is normalized and welcomed. Simple, nonjudgmental statements can open the door to these discussions. For example, saying, “Many people notice changes in their sexual desire or pleasure after childbirth. Has anything like this happened to you or your partner?” can encourage patients to share their concerns.

Assessing the importance to patients of sexual problems can help direct the need for intervention. Follow up on these concerns and offer support, whether through counseling, pelvic floor physical therapy, or a referral to a sexual medicine specialist, a sex therapist, or other appropriate resource.

Let’s return to Sarah. In the ideal world, at 3 months postpartum she will already have had a handful of clinical conversations about her sexual well-being with her healthcare team — at prenatal visits, at well-baby visits, and at her postpartum checkups. Several of these conversations included her partner. They both understand the transition to parenthood could be rocky for their sex lives. They’ve set aside time to connect and stay physically close. She’s listened to her body and only engaged in sexual play for which she feels ready. Now, noting that some aspects of sexual play are persistently uncomfortable, she knows it’s time to follow up. Without shame or anxiety, she books an appointment with you, knowing that you understand how important this issue is for her, her partner, and her baby. 

If you’re working with new parents, remember: Open dialogue about sexual health is not just beneficial — it’s essential. Let’s bridge the gap in care by embracing these conversations and offering the support new parents truly need.
 

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sarah, a new mom who’s thrilled about her 3-month-old baby, is struggling with her sex life. Her once vibrant physical relationship with her partner has dwindled, and she’s dealing with painful intercourse and a notable drop in desire.

Pregnancy and childbirth are transformative experiences that affect every facet of a person’s life, including their sexual well-being. Despite this fact, clinicians frequently ignore sexual well-being, beyond contraception, in prenatal and postpartum care. In peripartum care, anticipatory guidance is recognized to be crucial to the well-being of new parents and their babies. Why should sexual well-being get the shaft? 
 

Why Talk About Sex?

Sex is a fundamental aspect of many people’s lives and relationships and can significantly affect overall well-being. Despite cultural narratives that often exclude the sexual function and pleasure aspect of sexual health from peripartum discussions, many new parents face sexual challenges that can worsen their physical and emotional health.

While up to 88% of new parents report problems with sexual well-being, less than 30% report receiving anticipatory guidance about sexual function changes. One study found only 15% of postpartum women reported discussing sexual concerns with their medical providers. And, when new parents receive more information about sexual health, they tend to report improved sexual well-being. Clearly, a gap needs bridging.

Sexual health doesn’t just affect individual well-being; it intertwines with relationship satisfaction. Attending to satisfaction in one’s relationship may be an important component of child health as well. 

Declines in the frequency of sexual engagement and desire are common after childbirth. Changes in arousal, orgasm, and sexual pleasure, often accompanied by pain, are also reported by many women. Some birthing parents report changes to the sensation of their genitals that are thought to be related to stretch of the pudendal nerve during parturition. Most experience resolution of these concerns within the first year after childbirth, although some women report persistent problems, including up to 33% with persistent sexual pain.

Many factors can contribute to postpartum sexual issues, including hormonal changes, body image concerns, and mental health conditions. Breastfeeding, for instance, can lead to vaginal dryness and reduced sexual arousal due to hormonal shifts. Body image issues and mood disorders like depression and anxiety can also adversely affect sexual function. Women with postpartum depression are more likely to experience sexual concerns, and the relationship between sexual difficulties and depression can be bidirectional.
 

Empowerment and Expectations

One commonly cited recommendation is to wait until 6 weeks postpartum before resuming penetrative intercourse after a normal vaginal delivery. However, this guideline lacks robust scientific backing. Many people might feel ready for sexual intercourse much sooner or, conversely, might not feel comfortable at the 6-week mark. As clinicians, we must empower our patients to trust their own bodies and make decisions based on their comfort and readiness.

The 6-week advice can sometimes unintentionally convey to women that they are not experts on their own bodies, or that any kind of sex is risky. Acknowledging the recovery timeline for every person is unique and various forms of sexual expression are safe can help foster a healthier approach to resuming sexual activities. In one study of postpartum sexual behavior, in the first 6 weeks after delivery, the most common kinds of sexual play included giving oral sex to a partner and solo sex. Between 80% and 90% have resumed vaginal-receiving sexual play (including intercourse) by 3 months. 

While recognizing that changes to sexual experience occur, we need to reinforce that gradual recovery is expected. And if women express distress about a sexual change, or if those changes persist, primary care providers should be prepared to help them with their concerns. 

Parents need to know experiencing pain is not something they should “just deal with” or ignore. Attempting to repeatedly endure sexual pain can cause new issues, such as high-tone dysfunction of the pelvic floor or an understandable decrease in willingness or receptiveness to sexual play of any kind. Encouraging open communication about these issues can help couples navigate these changes more smoothly.

Partners, especially new fathers, also experience sexual and emotional challenges. They can feel blindsided by the changes in their relationship and might struggle with feelings of jealousy or inadequacy. Understanding partners also face difficulties can help in providing a more comprehensive approach to sexual health care.
 

Starting the Conversation

So, how can we initiate these important conversations with new parents? Start by providing permission. As healthcare providers, we need to create an environment where discussing sexual health is normalized and welcomed. Simple, nonjudgmental statements can open the door to these discussions. For example, saying, “Many people notice changes in their sexual desire or pleasure after childbirth. Has anything like this happened to you or your partner?” can encourage patients to share their concerns.

Assessing the importance to patients of sexual problems can help direct the need for intervention. Follow up on these concerns and offer support, whether through counseling, pelvic floor physical therapy, or a referral to a sexual medicine specialist, a sex therapist, or other appropriate resource.

Let’s return to Sarah. In the ideal world, at 3 months postpartum she will already have had a handful of clinical conversations about her sexual well-being with her healthcare team — at prenatal visits, at well-baby visits, and at her postpartum checkups. Several of these conversations included her partner. They both understand the transition to parenthood could be rocky for their sex lives. They’ve set aside time to connect and stay physically close. She’s listened to her body and only engaged in sexual play for which she feels ready. Now, noting that some aspects of sexual play are persistently uncomfortable, she knows it’s time to follow up. Without shame or anxiety, she books an appointment with you, knowing that you understand how important this issue is for her, her partner, and her baby. 

If you’re working with new parents, remember: Open dialogue about sexual health is not just beneficial — it’s essential. Let’s bridge the gap in care by embracing these conversations and offering the support new parents truly need.
 

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

Long COVID, a major public health crisis, is also becoming a significant economic crisis. A new study in Nature reports that the global annual economic impact of long COVID has hit $1 trillion — or about 1% of the global economy.

Long COVID is estimated to affect 6%-7% of adults. Those afflicted are often unable to work for extended periods, and some simply stop working altogether.

Besides damaging individual lives, long COVID is having wide-ranging impacts on health systems and economies worldwide, as those who suffer from it have large absences from work, leading to lower productivity. Even those who return to work after weeks, months, or even up to a year out of work may come back with worse productivity and some functional impairment — as a few of the condition’s common symptoms include fatigue and brain fog.

Experts say more is needed not only in terms of scientific research into new treatments for long COVID but also from a public policy perspective.

Long COVID’s impact on the labor force is already having ripple effects throughout the economy of the United States and other countries. Earlier this year, the US Government Accountability Office stated long COVID potentially affects up to 23 million Americans, with as many as a million people out of work. The healthcare industry is particularly hard hit.

The latest survey from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated 17.3%-18.6% of adults have experienced long COVID. This isn’t the same as those who have it now, only a broad indicator of people who’ve ever experienced symptoms.

Public health experts, economists, researchers, and physicians say they are only beginning to focus on ways to reduce long COVID’s impact.

They suggest a range of potential solutions to address the public health crisis and the economic impacts — including implementing a more thorough surveillance system to track long COVID cases, building better ventilation systems in hospitals and buildings to reduce the spread of the virus, increasing vaccination efforts as new viral strains continuously emerge, and more funding for long COVID research to better quantify and qualify the disease’s impact.
 

Shaky Statistics, Inconsistent Surveillance

David Smith, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Diego, said more needs to be done to survey, quantify, and qualify the impacts of long COVID on the economy before practical solutions can be identified.

“Our surveillance system sucks,” Smith said. “I can see how many people test positive for COVID, but how many of those people have long COVID?”

Long COVID also doesn’t have a true definition or standard diagnosis, which complicates surveillance efforts. It includes a spectrum of symptoms such as shortness of breath, chronic fatigue, and brain fog that linger for 2-3 months after an acute infection. But there’s no “concrete case definition,” Smith said. “And not everybody’s long COVID is exactly the same as everybody else’s.”

As a result, epidemiologists can’t effectively characterize the disease, and health economists can’t measure its exact economic impact.

Few countries have established comprehensive surveillance systems to estimate the burden of long COVID at the population level.

The United States currently tracks new cases by measuring wastewater levels, which isn’t as comprehensive as the tracking that was done during the pandemic. But positive wastewater samples can’t tell us who is infected in an area, nor can it distinguish whether a visitor/tourist or resident is mostly contributing to the wastewater analysis — an important distinction in public health studies.

Wastewater surveillance is an excellent complement to traditional disease surveillance with advantages and disadvantages, but it shouldn’t be the sole way to measure disease.
 

What Research Best Informs the Debate?

A study by Economist Impact — a think tank that partners with corporations, foundations, NGOs, and governments to help drive policy — estimated between a 0.5% and 2.3% gross domestic product (GDP) loss across eight separate countries in 2024. The study included the United Kingdom and United States.

Meanwhile, Australian researchers recently detailed how long COVID-related reductions in labor supply affected its productivity and GDP from 2022 to 2024. The study found that long COVID could be costing the Australian economy about 0.5% of its GDP, which researchers deemed a conservative estimate.

Public health researchers in New Zealand used the estimate of GDP loss in Australia to measure their own potential losses and advocated for strengthening occupational support across all sectors to protect health.

But these studies can’t quite compare with what would have to be done for the United States economy.

“New Zealand is small ... and has an excellent public health system with good delivery of vaccines and treatments…so how do we compare that to us?” Smith said. “They do better in all of their public health metrics than we do.”
 

Measuring the Economic Impact

Gopi Shah Goda, PhD, a health economist and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, co-authored a 2023 study that found COVID-19 reduced the US labor force by about 500,000 people.

Plus, workers who missed a full week due to COVID-19 absences became 7% less likely to return to the labor force a year later compared with workers who didn’t miss work for health reasons. That amounts to 0.2% of the labor force, a significant number.

“Even a small percent of the labor force is a big number…it’s like an extra year of populating aging,” Goda said.

“Some people who get long COVID might have dropped out of the labor force anyway,” Goda added.

The study concluded that average individual earnings lost from long COVID were $9000, and the total lost labor supply amounted to $62 billion annually — about half the estimated productivity losses from cancer or diabetes.

But research into long COVID research continues to be underfunded compared with other health conditions, experts noted.

Cancer and diabetes both receive billions of research dollars annually from the National Institutes of Health. Long COVID research gets only a few million, according to Goda.
 

Informing Public Health Policy

When it comes to caring for patients with long COVID, the big issue facing every nation’s public policy leaders is how best to allocate limited health resources.

“Public health never has enough money ... Do they buy more vaccines? Do they do educational programs? Who do they target the most?” Smith said.

Though Smith thinks the best preventative measure is increased vaccination, vaccination rates remain low in the United States.

“Unfortunately, as last fall demonstrated, there’s a lot of vaccine indifference and skepticism,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

Over the past year, only 14% of eligible children and 22% of adults received the 2023-2024 COVID vaccine boosters.

Schaffner said public health experts wrestle with ways to assure the public vaccines are safe and effective.

“They’re trying to provide a level of comfort that [getting vaccinated] is the socially appropriate thing to do,” which remains a significant challenge, Schaffner said.

Some people don’t have access to vaccines and comprehensive medical services because they lack insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare. And the United States still doesn’t distribute vaccines as well as other countries, Schaffner added.

“In other countries, every doctor’s office gets vaccines for free ... here, we have a large commercial enterprise that basically runs it…there are still populations who aren’t reached,” he said.

Long COVID clinics that have opened around the country have offered help to some patients with long COVID. A year and a half ago, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, established its Long COVID Care Center. Stanford University, Stanford, California, opened its Long COVID Clinic back in 2021. Vanderbilt University now has its own, as well — the Adult Post-COVID Clinic.

But these clinics have faced declining federal resources, forcing some to close and others to face questions about whether they will be able to continue to operate without more aggressive federal direction and policy planning.

“With some central direction, we could provide better supportive care for the many patients with long COVID out there,” Schaffner said.

For countries with universal healthcare systems, services such as occupational health, extended sick leave, extended time for disability, and workers’ compensation benefits are readily available.

But in the United States, it’s often left to the physicians and their patients to figure out a plan.

“I think we could make physicians more aware of options for their patients…for example, regularly check eligibility for workers compensation,” Schaffner said.
 

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

Long COVID, a major public health crisis, is also becoming a significant economic crisis. A new study in Nature reports that the global annual economic impact of long COVID has hit $1 trillion — or about 1% of the global economy.

Long COVID is estimated to affect 6%-7% of adults. Those afflicted are often unable to work for extended periods, and some simply stop working altogether.

Besides damaging individual lives, long COVID is having wide-ranging impacts on health systems and economies worldwide, as those who suffer from it have large absences from work, leading to lower productivity. Even those who return to work after weeks, months, or even up to a year out of work may come back with worse productivity and some functional impairment — as a few of the condition’s common symptoms include fatigue and brain fog.

Experts say more is needed not only in terms of scientific research into new treatments for long COVID but also from a public policy perspective.

Long COVID’s impact on the labor force is already having ripple effects throughout the economy of the United States and other countries. Earlier this year, the US Government Accountability Office stated long COVID potentially affects up to 23 million Americans, with as many as a million people out of work. The healthcare industry is particularly hard hit.

The latest survey from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated 17.3%-18.6% of adults have experienced long COVID. This isn’t the same as those who have it now, only a broad indicator of people who’ve ever experienced symptoms.

Public health experts, economists, researchers, and physicians say they are only beginning to focus on ways to reduce long COVID’s impact.

They suggest a range of potential solutions to address the public health crisis and the economic impacts — including implementing a more thorough surveillance system to track long COVID cases, building better ventilation systems in hospitals and buildings to reduce the spread of the virus, increasing vaccination efforts as new viral strains continuously emerge, and more funding for long COVID research to better quantify and qualify the disease’s impact.
 

Shaky Statistics, Inconsistent Surveillance

David Smith, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Diego, said more needs to be done to survey, quantify, and qualify the impacts of long COVID on the economy before practical solutions can be identified.

“Our surveillance system sucks,” Smith said. “I can see how many people test positive for COVID, but how many of those people have long COVID?”

Long COVID also doesn’t have a true definition or standard diagnosis, which complicates surveillance efforts. It includes a spectrum of symptoms such as shortness of breath, chronic fatigue, and brain fog that linger for 2-3 months after an acute infection. But there’s no “concrete case definition,” Smith said. “And not everybody’s long COVID is exactly the same as everybody else’s.”

As a result, epidemiologists can’t effectively characterize the disease, and health economists can’t measure its exact economic impact.

Few countries have established comprehensive surveillance systems to estimate the burden of long COVID at the population level.

The United States currently tracks new cases by measuring wastewater levels, which isn’t as comprehensive as the tracking that was done during the pandemic. But positive wastewater samples can’t tell us who is infected in an area, nor can it distinguish whether a visitor/tourist or resident is mostly contributing to the wastewater analysis — an important distinction in public health studies.

Wastewater surveillance is an excellent complement to traditional disease surveillance with advantages and disadvantages, but it shouldn’t be the sole way to measure disease.
 

What Research Best Informs the Debate?

A study by Economist Impact — a think tank that partners with corporations, foundations, NGOs, and governments to help drive policy — estimated between a 0.5% and 2.3% gross domestic product (GDP) loss across eight separate countries in 2024. The study included the United Kingdom and United States.

Meanwhile, Australian researchers recently detailed how long COVID-related reductions in labor supply affected its productivity and GDP from 2022 to 2024. The study found that long COVID could be costing the Australian economy about 0.5% of its GDP, which researchers deemed a conservative estimate.

Public health researchers in New Zealand used the estimate of GDP loss in Australia to measure their own potential losses and advocated for strengthening occupational support across all sectors to protect health.

But these studies can’t quite compare with what would have to be done for the United States economy.

“New Zealand is small ... and has an excellent public health system with good delivery of vaccines and treatments…so how do we compare that to us?” Smith said. “They do better in all of their public health metrics than we do.”
 

Measuring the Economic Impact

Gopi Shah Goda, PhD, a health economist and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, co-authored a 2023 study that found COVID-19 reduced the US labor force by about 500,000 people.

Plus, workers who missed a full week due to COVID-19 absences became 7% less likely to return to the labor force a year later compared with workers who didn’t miss work for health reasons. That amounts to 0.2% of the labor force, a significant number.

“Even a small percent of the labor force is a big number…it’s like an extra year of populating aging,” Goda said.

“Some people who get long COVID might have dropped out of the labor force anyway,” Goda added.

The study concluded that average individual earnings lost from long COVID were $9000, and the total lost labor supply amounted to $62 billion annually — about half the estimated productivity losses from cancer or diabetes.

But research into long COVID research continues to be underfunded compared with other health conditions, experts noted.

Cancer and diabetes both receive billions of research dollars annually from the National Institutes of Health. Long COVID research gets only a few million, according to Goda.
 

Informing Public Health Policy

When it comes to caring for patients with long COVID, the big issue facing every nation’s public policy leaders is how best to allocate limited health resources.

“Public health never has enough money ... Do they buy more vaccines? Do they do educational programs? Who do they target the most?” Smith said.

Though Smith thinks the best preventative measure is increased vaccination, vaccination rates remain low in the United States.

“Unfortunately, as last fall demonstrated, there’s a lot of vaccine indifference and skepticism,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

Over the past year, only 14% of eligible children and 22% of adults received the 2023-2024 COVID vaccine boosters.

Schaffner said public health experts wrestle with ways to assure the public vaccines are safe and effective.

“They’re trying to provide a level of comfort that [getting vaccinated] is the socially appropriate thing to do,” which remains a significant challenge, Schaffner said.

Some people don’t have access to vaccines and comprehensive medical services because they lack insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare. And the United States still doesn’t distribute vaccines as well as other countries, Schaffner added.

“In other countries, every doctor’s office gets vaccines for free ... here, we have a large commercial enterprise that basically runs it…there are still populations who aren’t reached,” he said.

Long COVID clinics that have opened around the country have offered help to some patients with long COVID. A year and a half ago, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, established its Long COVID Care Center. Stanford University, Stanford, California, opened its Long COVID Clinic back in 2021. Vanderbilt University now has its own, as well — the Adult Post-COVID Clinic.

But these clinics have faced declining federal resources, forcing some to close and others to face questions about whether they will be able to continue to operate without more aggressive federal direction and policy planning.

“With some central direction, we could provide better supportive care for the many patients with long COVID out there,” Schaffner said.

For countries with universal healthcare systems, services such as occupational health, extended sick leave, extended time for disability, and workers’ compensation benefits are readily available.

But in the United States, it’s often left to the physicians and their patients to figure out a plan.

“I think we could make physicians more aware of options for their patients…for example, regularly check eligibility for workers compensation,” Schaffner said.
 

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

Long COVID, a major public health crisis, is also becoming a significant economic crisis. A new study in Nature reports that the global annual economic impact of long COVID has hit $1 trillion — or about 1% of the global economy.

Long COVID is estimated to affect 6%-7% of adults. Those afflicted are often unable to work for extended periods, and some simply stop working altogether.

Besides damaging individual lives, long COVID is having wide-ranging impacts on health systems and economies worldwide, as those who suffer from it have large absences from work, leading to lower productivity. Even those who return to work after weeks, months, or even up to a year out of work may come back with worse productivity and some functional impairment — as a few of the condition’s common symptoms include fatigue and brain fog.

Experts say more is needed not only in terms of scientific research into new treatments for long COVID but also from a public policy perspective.

Long COVID’s impact on the labor force is already having ripple effects throughout the economy of the United States and other countries. Earlier this year, the US Government Accountability Office stated long COVID potentially affects up to 23 million Americans, with as many as a million people out of work. The healthcare industry is particularly hard hit.

The latest survey from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated 17.3%-18.6% of adults have experienced long COVID. This isn’t the same as those who have it now, only a broad indicator of people who’ve ever experienced symptoms.

Public health experts, economists, researchers, and physicians say they are only beginning to focus on ways to reduce long COVID’s impact.

They suggest a range of potential solutions to address the public health crisis and the economic impacts — including implementing a more thorough surveillance system to track long COVID cases, building better ventilation systems in hospitals and buildings to reduce the spread of the virus, increasing vaccination efforts as new viral strains continuously emerge, and more funding for long COVID research to better quantify and qualify the disease’s impact.
 

Shaky Statistics, Inconsistent Surveillance

David Smith, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Diego, said more needs to be done to survey, quantify, and qualify the impacts of long COVID on the economy before practical solutions can be identified.

“Our surveillance system sucks,” Smith said. “I can see how many people test positive for COVID, but how many of those people have long COVID?”

Long COVID also doesn’t have a true definition or standard diagnosis, which complicates surveillance efforts. It includes a spectrum of symptoms such as shortness of breath, chronic fatigue, and brain fog that linger for 2-3 months after an acute infection. But there’s no “concrete case definition,” Smith said. “And not everybody’s long COVID is exactly the same as everybody else’s.”

As a result, epidemiologists can’t effectively characterize the disease, and health economists can’t measure its exact economic impact.

Few countries have established comprehensive surveillance systems to estimate the burden of long COVID at the population level.

The United States currently tracks new cases by measuring wastewater levels, which isn’t as comprehensive as the tracking that was done during the pandemic. But positive wastewater samples can’t tell us who is infected in an area, nor can it distinguish whether a visitor/tourist or resident is mostly contributing to the wastewater analysis — an important distinction in public health studies.

Wastewater surveillance is an excellent complement to traditional disease surveillance with advantages and disadvantages, but it shouldn’t be the sole way to measure disease.
 

What Research Best Informs the Debate?

A study by Economist Impact — a think tank that partners with corporations, foundations, NGOs, and governments to help drive policy — estimated between a 0.5% and 2.3% gross domestic product (GDP) loss across eight separate countries in 2024. The study included the United Kingdom and United States.

Meanwhile, Australian researchers recently detailed how long COVID-related reductions in labor supply affected its productivity and GDP from 2022 to 2024. The study found that long COVID could be costing the Australian economy about 0.5% of its GDP, which researchers deemed a conservative estimate.

Public health researchers in New Zealand used the estimate of GDP loss in Australia to measure their own potential losses and advocated for strengthening occupational support across all sectors to protect health.

But these studies can’t quite compare with what would have to be done for the United States economy.

“New Zealand is small ... and has an excellent public health system with good delivery of vaccines and treatments…so how do we compare that to us?” Smith said. “They do better in all of their public health metrics than we do.”
 

Measuring the Economic Impact

Gopi Shah Goda, PhD, a health economist and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, co-authored a 2023 study that found COVID-19 reduced the US labor force by about 500,000 people.

Plus, workers who missed a full week due to COVID-19 absences became 7% less likely to return to the labor force a year later compared with workers who didn’t miss work for health reasons. That amounts to 0.2% of the labor force, a significant number.

“Even a small percent of the labor force is a big number…it’s like an extra year of populating aging,” Goda said.

“Some people who get long COVID might have dropped out of the labor force anyway,” Goda added.

The study concluded that average individual earnings lost from long COVID were $9000, and the total lost labor supply amounted to $62 billion annually — about half the estimated productivity losses from cancer or diabetes.

But research into long COVID research continues to be underfunded compared with other health conditions, experts noted.

Cancer and diabetes both receive billions of research dollars annually from the National Institutes of Health. Long COVID research gets only a few million, according to Goda.
 

Informing Public Health Policy

When it comes to caring for patients with long COVID, the big issue facing every nation’s public policy leaders is how best to allocate limited health resources.

“Public health never has enough money ... Do they buy more vaccines? Do they do educational programs? Who do they target the most?” Smith said.

Though Smith thinks the best preventative measure is increased vaccination, vaccination rates remain low in the United States.

“Unfortunately, as last fall demonstrated, there’s a lot of vaccine indifference and skepticism,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.

Over the past year, only 14% of eligible children and 22% of adults received the 2023-2024 COVID vaccine boosters.

Schaffner said public health experts wrestle with ways to assure the public vaccines are safe and effective.

“They’re trying to provide a level of comfort that [getting vaccinated] is the socially appropriate thing to do,” which remains a significant challenge, Schaffner said.

Some people don’t have access to vaccines and comprehensive medical services because they lack insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare. And the United States still doesn’t distribute vaccines as well as other countries, Schaffner added.

“In other countries, every doctor’s office gets vaccines for free ... here, we have a large commercial enterprise that basically runs it…there are still populations who aren’t reached,” he said.

Long COVID clinics that have opened around the country have offered help to some patients with long COVID. A year and a half ago, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, established its Long COVID Care Center. Stanford University, Stanford, California, opened its Long COVID Clinic back in 2021. Vanderbilt University now has its own, as well — the Adult Post-COVID Clinic.

But these clinics have faced declining federal resources, forcing some to close and others to face questions about whether they will be able to continue to operate without more aggressive federal direction and policy planning.

“With some central direction, we could provide better supportive care for the many patients with long COVID out there,” Schaffner said.

For countries with universal healthcare systems, services such as occupational health, extended sick leave, extended time for disability, and workers’ compensation benefits are readily available.

But in the United States, it’s often left to the physicians and their patients to figure out a plan.

“I think we could make physicians more aware of options for their patients…for example, regularly check eligibility for workers compensation,” Schaffner said.
 

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

What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records¹ (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,² who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.^1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,^4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.

The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.⁷ Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.^8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.¹⁰

Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.¹¹ Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated parasympathomimetic syndrome due to suspected anticholinesteraselike compounds.^3,11,12 Ophthalmologic injuries include severe conjunctivitis—sometimes extensive enough to cause superficial punctate epithelial keratitis.⁵ Dermatologic injuries have been described, but reports on its histopathologic features are limited. We present a case of manchineel dermatitis in a patient who subsequently underwent a skin biopsy.

Case Report

A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.

Comment

Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.^6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.^9,14

Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.¹² Pitts et al⁵ pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.

All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.³ Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.^4,5

Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.⁴ Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.

Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).

Conclusion

This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.

What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records¹ (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,² who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.^1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,^4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.

The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.⁷ Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.^8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.¹⁰

Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.¹¹ Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated parasympathomimetic syndrome due to suspected anticholinesteraselike compounds.^3,11,12 Ophthalmologic injuries include severe conjunctivitis—sometimes extensive enough to cause superficial punctate epithelial keratitis.⁵ Dermatologic injuries have been described, but reports on its histopathologic features are limited. We present a case of manchineel dermatitis in a patient who subsequently underwent a skin biopsy.

Case Report

A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.

Comment

Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.^6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.^9,14

Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.¹² Pitts et al⁵ pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.

All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.³ Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.^4,5

Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.⁴ Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.

Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).

Conclusion

This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.

What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records¹ (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,² who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.^1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,^4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.

The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.⁷ Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.^8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.¹⁰

Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.¹¹ Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated parasympathomimetic syndrome due to suspected anticholinesteraselike compounds.^3,11,12 Ophthalmologic injuries include severe conjunctivitis—sometimes extensive enough to cause superficial punctate epithelial keratitis.⁵ Dermatologic injuries have been described, but reports on its histopathologic features are limited. We present a case of manchineel dermatitis in a patient who subsequently underwent a skin biopsy.

Case Report

A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.

Comment

Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.^6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.^9,14

Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.¹² Pitts et al⁵ pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.

All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.³ Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.^4,5

Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.⁴ Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.

Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).

Conclusion

This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.