Commentary

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the case report from Abdelkader et al¹ (Cutis. 2024;113:E22-E24) of a 32-year-old man who received the Sinopharm BBIBP COVID-19 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) and experienced acute-onset erythroderma and severe itching. The patient did not disclose any recent medication intake and had no noteworthy medical history. Physical examination revealed palmoplantar keratoderma, keratotic follicular papules on the legs and feet, and typical orange-red erythroderma. The laboratory workup was normal, including a negative test result for HIV infection.

The absence of details regarding the patient’s history of allergic reactions or sensitivities is one possible shortcoming in this case report and may have given important information about the possible reason for the erythroderma that occurred following vaccination. Furthermore, more research into the precise Sinopharm BBIBP vaccine ingredients that may have caused the skin reaction would have been helpful in deciphering the underlying mechanisms.

Larger-scale studies examining the frequency of cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination with various vaccine formulations may be the focus of future research efforts and could assist in determining the risk factors for experiencing such reactions, which would enable health care providers to offer advice on vaccination alternatives or preventative measures for those who are more vulnerable. Furthermore, collaboration among dermatologists and allergists could improve patient outcomes and improve management.

By highlighting an uncommon but noteworthy dermatologic manifestation following COVID-19 immunization, this case report emphasizes how crucial it is to keep an eye out for and report any possible side effects linked to vaccinations to protect patient safety. Subsequent investigations should concentrate on enhancing comprehension of the pathophysiology of cutaneous reactions following immunization and devising tactics to alleviate these hazards. Working together, researchers and health care professionals can effectively tackle the issues raised by these newly discovered vaccine-related skin responses.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the case report from Abdelkader et al¹ (Cutis. 2024;113:E22-E24) of a 32-year-old man who received the Sinopharm BBIBP COVID-19 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) and experienced acute-onset erythroderma and severe itching. The patient did not disclose any recent medication intake and had no noteworthy medical history. Physical examination revealed palmoplantar keratoderma, keratotic follicular papules on the legs and feet, and typical orange-red erythroderma. The laboratory workup was normal, including a negative test result for HIV infection.

The absence of details regarding the patient’s history of allergic reactions or sensitivities is one possible shortcoming in this case report and may have given important information about the possible reason for the erythroderma that occurred following vaccination. Furthermore, more research into the precise Sinopharm BBIBP vaccine ingredients that may have caused the skin reaction would have been helpful in deciphering the underlying mechanisms.

Larger-scale studies examining the frequency of cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination with various vaccine formulations may be the focus of future research efforts and could assist in determining the risk factors for experiencing such reactions, which would enable health care providers to offer advice on vaccination alternatives or preventative measures for those who are more vulnerable. Furthermore, collaboration among dermatologists and allergists could improve patient outcomes and improve management.

By highlighting an uncommon but noteworthy dermatologic manifestation following COVID-19 immunization, this case report emphasizes how crucial it is to keep an eye out for and report any possible side effects linked to vaccinations to protect patient safety. Subsequent investigations should concentrate on enhancing comprehension of the pathophysiology of cutaneous reactions following immunization and devising tactics to alleviate these hazards. Working together, researchers and health care professionals can effectively tackle the issues raised by these newly discovered vaccine-related skin responses.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the case report from Abdelkader et al¹ (Cutis. 2024;113:E22-E24) of a 32-year-old man who received the Sinopharm BBIBP COVID-19 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) and experienced acute-onset erythroderma and severe itching. The patient did not disclose any recent medication intake and had no noteworthy medical history. Physical examination revealed palmoplantar keratoderma, keratotic follicular papules on the legs and feet, and typical orange-red erythroderma. The laboratory workup was normal, including a negative test result for HIV infection.

The absence of details regarding the patient’s history of allergic reactions or sensitivities is one possible shortcoming in this case report and may have given important information about the possible reason for the erythroderma that occurred following vaccination. Furthermore, more research into the precise Sinopharm BBIBP vaccine ingredients that may have caused the skin reaction would have been helpful in deciphering the underlying mechanisms.

Larger-scale studies examining the frequency of cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination with various vaccine formulations may be the focus of future research efforts and could assist in determining the risk factors for experiencing such reactions, which would enable health care providers to offer advice on vaccination alternatives or preventative measures for those who are more vulnerable. Furthermore, collaboration among dermatologists and allergists could improve patient outcomes and improve management.

By highlighting an uncommon but noteworthy dermatologic manifestation following COVID-19 immunization, this case report emphasizes how crucial it is to keep an eye out for and report any possible side effects linked to vaccinations to protect patient safety. Subsequent investigations should concentrate on enhancing comprehension of the pathophysiology of cutaneous reactions following immunization and devising tactics to alleviate these hazards. Working together, researchers and health care professionals can effectively tackle the issues raised by these newly discovered vaccine-related skin responses.

Vulvar dermatoses continue to be an overlooked aspect of medical care, highlighting the necessity for enhanced diagnosis and management of these conditions. Here, we address recent advancements in understanding vulvar inflammatory dermatoses other than lichen sclerosus (LS), which was discussed in a prior Guest Editorial¹—specifically vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP), plasma cell vulvitis (PCV), and vulvar lichen simplex chronicus (LSC).

Vulvar Inflammatory Skin Disease and Quality of Life

There is an increased awareness of the impact vulvar skin disease has on quality of life and its association with anxiety and depression.^2-5 Evaluating the burden of vulvar dermatoses remains an active area of research due to its significance in monitoring disease progression and assessing therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the existence of various dermatology quality-of-life assessment tools, many fail to adequately capture the unique impacts of vulvovaginal diseases, such as sexual or urinary dysfunction. The vulvar quality of life index, which was developed and validated by Saunderson et al⁶ in 2020, consists of a 15-item questionnaire spanning 4 domains: symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. This tool has been utilized to gauge treatment response in vulvar conditions and to compare disease burden of various vulvar dermatoses.^7,8 Moving forward, integrating this tool into clinical studies on vulvar skin disease holds promise for enhancing our understanding and management of these conditions.

Vulvovaginal Lichen Planus

Vulvovaginal lichen planus is unique among several prevalent vulvar inflammatory skin disorders encountered by dermatologists—primarily due to its erosive form, which can extend to the vagina, resulting in noninfectious vaginitis and potential vaginal stenosis.^9,10 Managing VLP poses a notable challenge, even when it is confined to the vulva, as it often proves resistant to topical therapies.¹¹

Evaluation for Vaginal Mucosal Disease—In contrast to LS, which typically spares the vaginal mucosa, VLP can involve mucosal sites.^9,12,13 Therefore, it is imperative that all patients with a diagnosis of vulvar VLP undergo evaluation for potential vaginal involvement through speculum examination, wet mount, or vaginal biopsy. Strategies to manage vaginal involvement include use of dilators and pelvic floor physical therapy, lysis of adhesions (if present), topical estrogen, and intravaginal corticosteroids—all tailored to the severity of the disease.^9,11,14

Management of VLP—Approximately 20% to 40% of patients with VLP may require systemic therapy for disease management, including those who are younger, those of non-White ethnicity, and those presenting with vulvar pruritus.¹¹ Various systemic immunosuppressants have been used for VLP, with a recent retrospective study revealing similar response rates for both methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of VLP.¹⁵ Another retrospective study found hydroxychloroquine to be safe and effective for VLP but noted a slow onset of action, with approximately 70% responding at 9 months following initiation of therapy.¹⁶

Recent attention has shifted to use of targeted therapies for VLP. For instance, apremilast has shown efficacy in a single-center, nonrandomized, open-label pilot study.¹⁷ Tildrakizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in a case series involving 24 patients with VLP.¹⁸ Moreover, recent case reports and series have highlighted the potential of oral Janus kinase (JAK) ­inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, in VLP treatment.¹⁹ Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib and deucravacitinib (a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor) in VLP.^20-22 Systemic therapies for VLP currently are used off label, emphasizing the need for future randomized controlled trials to ascertain the optimal therapies for patients affected by erosive and nonerosive forms of this disease.

Plasma Cell Vulvitis

Plasma cell vulvitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder with an unknown etiology that some consider to be a variant of VLP.²³ Others have observed an overlap with desquamative inflammatory vaginitis, categorizing PCV as a hemorrhagic vestibulovaginitis.²⁴ Although its classification as a distinct entity remains under scrutiny, studies indicate a predilection for the nonkeratinized or partially keratinized vulva. A systematic review outlining common clinical findings reported that the most common anatomic sites included the vulvar vestibule, periurethral area, and labia minora.²³ Additionally, reports have emphasized the association between PCV and other inflammatory vulvar skin conditions, including LS.²⁵

Clinical Variants of PCV—A retrospective review proposed 2 clinical phenotypes for PCV: (1) primary non–lichen-associated PCV and (2) secondary lichen-associated PCV, which is linked to LS.²⁶ The primary form is reported to be restricted to the vestibule, and the authors considered this a vulvar counterpart of atrophic vaginitis due to estrogen deficiency (now known as postmenopausal genitourinary syndrome). The secondary phenotype more commonly involved the vestibular and extravestibular epithelium.²⁶

Management of PCV—Recognizing PCV in the context of LS may be important for identifying comorbid conditions and guiding treatment. However, evidence-based guidelines for PCV treatment are lacking. Commonly reported treatment modalities include clobetasol ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.²³ Successful treatment with hydrocortisone suppositories alternating with estradiol vaginal cream was reported in a recent case series.²⁷ Crisaborole also has been reported as a treatment in 1 case of PCV.²⁸ A recent case report found abrocitinib to be effective for the treatment of plasma cell balanitis in the setting of male genital LS,²⁹ but there are limited data on the use of JAK inhibitors for PCV. Further research is necessary to ascertain the incidence, prevalence, clinical subtypes, and optimal management strategies for PCV to effectively treat patients with this condition.

Vulvar LSC

Similar to extragenital LSC, the evaluation of vulvar LSC should prioritize identification of underlying ­etiologies that contribute to the itch-scratch cycle, which may include psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, neurologic conditions, and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.^30,31 Although treatment strategies may vary based on underlying ­conditions, we will concentrate on updates in managing vulvar LSC and pruritus associated with an atopic ­diathesis or resulting from chronic contact dermatitis, which is prevalent in vulvar skin areas. Finally, we highlight some emerging vulvar allergens for consideration in clinical practice.

Management of Vulvar LSC—The advent of targeted therapies, including biologics and small-molecule inhibitors, for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis in recent years presents potential options for treatment of individuals with vulvar LSC. However, studies on the use of these therapies specifically for vulvar LSC are limited, necessitating thorough discussions with patients. Given the debilitating nature of vulvar pruritus that may be seen in vulvar LSC and the potential inadequacy of topical steroids as monotherapy, systemic therapies may serve as alternative options for patients with refractory disease.³⁰

Dupilumab, a dual inhibitor of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, has shown rapid and sustained disease improvement in patients with atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis, and pruritus.^32,33 Although data on its role in managing vulvar LSC are scarce, a recent case series reported improvement of vulvar pruritus with dupilumab.³⁴ Similarly, tralokinumab, an IL-13 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis, has shown efficacy in prurigo nodularis³⁵ and may benefit patients with vulvar LSC, though studies on cutaneous outcomes in those with genital involvement specifically are lacking. Oral JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib—both FDA approved for atopic dermatitis—have demonstrated efficacy in treating LSC and itch, potentially serving as management options for vulvar LSC in cases resistant to topical steroids or in which steroid atrophy or other steroid adverse effects may preclude continued use of such agents.^36,37 Finally, IL-31 inhibitors such as nemolizumab, which reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis in a recent phase 3 clinical trial, may hold utility in addressing vulvar LSC and associated pruritus.³⁸

The topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, which is FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo, holds promise for managing LSC on vulvar skin while mitigating the risk for steroid-induced atrophy.³⁹ Additionally, nonsteroidal topicals including roflumilast cream 0.3% and tapinarof cream 1%, both FDA approved for psoriasis, are being evaluated in studies for their safety and efficacy in atopic dermatitis.^40,41 These agents may have the potential to improve signs and symptoms of vulvar LSC, but further studies are necessary.

Vulvar Allergens and LSC—When assessing patients with vulvar LSC, it is crucial to recognize that allergic contact dermatitis is a common primary vulvar dermatosis but can coexist with other vulvar dermatoses such as LS.^13,30 The vulvar skin’s susceptibly to allergic contact dermatitis is attributed to factors such as a higher ratio of antigen-presenting cells in the vulvar skin, the nonkeratinized nature of certain sites, and frequent contact with potential allergens.^42,43 Therefore, incorporating patch testing into the diagnostic process should be considered when evaluating patients with vulvar skin conditions.⁴³

A systemic review identified multiple vulvar allergens, including metals, topical medicaments, fragrances, preservatives, cosmetic constituents, and rubber components that led to contact dermatitis.⁴⁴ Moreover, a recent analysis of topical preparations recommended by women with LS on social media found a high prevalence of known vulvar allergens in these agents, including botanical extracts/spices.⁴⁵ Personal-care wipes marketed for vulvar care and hygiene are known to contain a variety of allergens, with a recent study finding numerous allergens in commercially available wipes including fragrances, scented botanicals in the form of essences, oils, fruit juices, and vitamin E.⁴⁶ These findings underscore the importance of considering potential allergens when caring for patients with vulvar LSC and counseling patients about the potential allergens in many commercially available products that may be recommended on social media sites or by other sources.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar inflammatory dermatoses are becoming increasingly recognized, and there is a need to develop more effective diagnostic and treatment approaches. Recent literature has shed light on some of the challenges in the management of VLP, particularly its resistance to topical therapies and the importance of assessing and managing both cutaneous and vaginal involvement. Efforts have been made to refine the classification of PCV, with studies suggesting a variant that coexists with LS. Although evidence for vulvar-specific treatment of LSC is limited, the emergence of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors that are FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis offer promise for certain cases of vulvar LSC and vulvar pruritus. Moreover, recent developments in steroid-sparing topical agents warrant further investigation for their potential efficacy in treating vulvar LSC and possibly other vulvar inflammatory conditions in the future.

Vulvar dermatoses continue to be an overlooked aspect of medical care, highlighting the necessity for enhanced diagnosis and management of these conditions. Here, we address recent advancements in understanding vulvar inflammatory dermatoses other than lichen sclerosus (LS), which was discussed in a prior Guest Editorial¹—specifically vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP), plasma cell vulvitis (PCV), and vulvar lichen simplex chronicus (LSC).

Vulvar Inflammatory Skin Disease and Quality of Life

There is an increased awareness of the impact vulvar skin disease has on quality of life and its association with anxiety and depression.^2-5 Evaluating the burden of vulvar dermatoses remains an active area of research due to its significance in monitoring disease progression and assessing therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the existence of various dermatology quality-of-life assessment tools, many fail to adequately capture the unique impacts of vulvovaginal diseases, such as sexual or urinary dysfunction. The vulvar quality of life index, which was developed and validated by Saunderson et al⁶ in 2020, consists of a 15-item questionnaire spanning 4 domains: symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. This tool has been utilized to gauge treatment response in vulvar conditions and to compare disease burden of various vulvar dermatoses.^7,8 Moving forward, integrating this tool into clinical studies on vulvar skin disease holds promise for enhancing our understanding and management of these conditions.

Vulvovaginal Lichen Planus

Vulvovaginal lichen planus is unique among several prevalent vulvar inflammatory skin disorders encountered by dermatologists—primarily due to its erosive form, which can extend to the vagina, resulting in noninfectious vaginitis and potential vaginal stenosis.^9,10 Managing VLP poses a notable challenge, even when it is confined to the vulva, as it often proves resistant to topical therapies.¹¹

Evaluation for Vaginal Mucosal Disease—In contrast to LS, which typically spares the vaginal mucosa, VLP can involve mucosal sites.^9,12,13 Therefore, it is imperative that all patients with a diagnosis of vulvar VLP undergo evaluation for potential vaginal involvement through speculum examination, wet mount, or vaginal biopsy. Strategies to manage vaginal involvement include use of dilators and pelvic floor physical therapy, lysis of adhesions (if present), topical estrogen, and intravaginal corticosteroids—all tailored to the severity of the disease.^9,11,14

Management of VLP—Approximately 20% to 40% of patients with VLP may require systemic therapy for disease management, including those who are younger, those of non-White ethnicity, and those presenting with vulvar pruritus.¹¹ Various systemic immunosuppressants have been used for VLP, with a recent retrospective study revealing similar response rates for both methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of VLP.¹⁵ Another retrospective study found hydroxychloroquine to be safe and effective for VLP but noted a slow onset of action, with approximately 70% responding at 9 months following initiation of therapy.¹⁶

Recent attention has shifted to use of targeted therapies for VLP. For instance, apremilast has shown efficacy in a single-center, nonrandomized, open-label pilot study.¹⁷ Tildrakizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in a case series involving 24 patients with VLP.¹⁸ Moreover, recent case reports and series have highlighted the potential of oral Janus kinase (JAK) ­inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, in VLP treatment.¹⁹ Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib and deucravacitinib (a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor) in VLP.^20-22 Systemic therapies for VLP currently are used off label, emphasizing the need for future randomized controlled trials to ascertain the optimal therapies for patients affected by erosive and nonerosive forms of this disease.

Plasma Cell Vulvitis

Plasma cell vulvitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder with an unknown etiology that some consider to be a variant of VLP.²³ Others have observed an overlap with desquamative inflammatory vaginitis, categorizing PCV as a hemorrhagic vestibulovaginitis.²⁴ Although its classification as a distinct entity remains under scrutiny, studies indicate a predilection for the nonkeratinized or partially keratinized vulva. A systematic review outlining common clinical findings reported that the most common anatomic sites included the vulvar vestibule, periurethral area, and labia minora.²³ Additionally, reports have emphasized the association between PCV and other inflammatory vulvar skin conditions, including LS.²⁵

Clinical Variants of PCV—A retrospective review proposed 2 clinical phenotypes for PCV: (1) primary non–lichen-associated PCV and (2) secondary lichen-associated PCV, which is linked to LS.²⁶ The primary form is reported to be restricted to the vestibule, and the authors considered this a vulvar counterpart of atrophic vaginitis due to estrogen deficiency (now known as postmenopausal genitourinary syndrome). The secondary phenotype more commonly involved the vestibular and extravestibular epithelium.²⁶

Management of PCV—Recognizing PCV in the context of LS may be important for identifying comorbid conditions and guiding treatment. However, evidence-based guidelines for PCV treatment are lacking. Commonly reported treatment modalities include clobetasol ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.²³ Successful treatment with hydrocortisone suppositories alternating with estradiol vaginal cream was reported in a recent case series.²⁷ Crisaborole also has been reported as a treatment in 1 case of PCV.²⁸ A recent case report found abrocitinib to be effective for the treatment of plasma cell balanitis in the setting of male genital LS,²⁹ but there are limited data on the use of JAK inhibitors for PCV. Further research is necessary to ascertain the incidence, prevalence, clinical subtypes, and optimal management strategies for PCV to effectively treat patients with this condition.

Vulvar LSC

Similar to extragenital LSC, the evaluation of vulvar LSC should prioritize identification of underlying ­etiologies that contribute to the itch-scratch cycle, which may include psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, neurologic conditions, and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.^30,31 Although treatment strategies may vary based on underlying ­conditions, we will concentrate on updates in managing vulvar LSC and pruritus associated with an atopic ­diathesis or resulting from chronic contact dermatitis, which is prevalent in vulvar skin areas. Finally, we highlight some emerging vulvar allergens for consideration in clinical practice.

Management of Vulvar LSC—The advent of targeted therapies, including biologics and small-molecule inhibitors, for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis in recent years presents potential options for treatment of individuals with vulvar LSC. However, studies on the use of these therapies specifically for vulvar LSC are limited, necessitating thorough discussions with patients. Given the debilitating nature of vulvar pruritus that may be seen in vulvar LSC and the potential inadequacy of topical steroids as monotherapy, systemic therapies may serve as alternative options for patients with refractory disease.³⁰

Dupilumab, a dual inhibitor of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, has shown rapid and sustained disease improvement in patients with atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis, and pruritus.^32,33 Although data on its role in managing vulvar LSC are scarce, a recent case series reported improvement of vulvar pruritus with dupilumab.³⁴ Similarly, tralokinumab, an IL-13 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis, has shown efficacy in prurigo nodularis³⁵ and may benefit patients with vulvar LSC, though studies on cutaneous outcomes in those with genital involvement specifically are lacking. Oral JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib—both FDA approved for atopic dermatitis—have demonstrated efficacy in treating LSC and itch, potentially serving as management options for vulvar LSC in cases resistant to topical steroids or in which steroid atrophy or other steroid adverse effects may preclude continued use of such agents.^36,37 Finally, IL-31 inhibitors such as nemolizumab, which reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis in a recent phase 3 clinical trial, may hold utility in addressing vulvar LSC and associated pruritus.³⁸

The topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, which is FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo, holds promise for managing LSC on vulvar skin while mitigating the risk for steroid-induced atrophy.³⁹ Additionally, nonsteroidal topicals including roflumilast cream 0.3% and tapinarof cream 1%, both FDA approved for psoriasis, are being evaluated in studies for their safety and efficacy in atopic dermatitis.^40,41 These agents may have the potential to improve signs and symptoms of vulvar LSC, but further studies are necessary.

Vulvar Allergens and LSC—When assessing patients with vulvar LSC, it is crucial to recognize that allergic contact dermatitis is a common primary vulvar dermatosis but can coexist with other vulvar dermatoses such as LS.^13,30 The vulvar skin’s susceptibly to allergic contact dermatitis is attributed to factors such as a higher ratio of antigen-presenting cells in the vulvar skin, the nonkeratinized nature of certain sites, and frequent contact with potential allergens.^42,43 Therefore, incorporating patch testing into the diagnostic process should be considered when evaluating patients with vulvar skin conditions.⁴³

A systemic review identified multiple vulvar allergens, including metals, topical medicaments, fragrances, preservatives, cosmetic constituents, and rubber components that led to contact dermatitis.⁴⁴ Moreover, a recent analysis of topical preparations recommended by women with LS on social media found a high prevalence of known vulvar allergens in these agents, including botanical extracts/spices.⁴⁵ Personal-care wipes marketed for vulvar care and hygiene are known to contain a variety of allergens, with a recent study finding numerous allergens in commercially available wipes including fragrances, scented botanicals in the form of essences, oils, fruit juices, and vitamin E.⁴⁶ These findings underscore the importance of considering potential allergens when caring for patients with vulvar LSC and counseling patients about the potential allergens in many commercially available products that may be recommended on social media sites or by other sources.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar inflammatory dermatoses are becoming increasingly recognized, and there is a need to develop more effective diagnostic and treatment approaches. Recent literature has shed light on some of the challenges in the management of VLP, particularly its resistance to topical therapies and the importance of assessing and managing both cutaneous and vaginal involvement. Efforts have been made to refine the classification of PCV, with studies suggesting a variant that coexists with LS. Although evidence for vulvar-specific treatment of LSC is limited, the emergence of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors that are FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis offer promise for certain cases of vulvar LSC and vulvar pruritus. Moreover, recent developments in steroid-sparing topical agents warrant further investigation for their potential efficacy in treating vulvar LSC and possibly other vulvar inflammatory conditions in the future.

Vulvar dermatoses continue to be an overlooked aspect of medical care, highlighting the necessity for enhanced diagnosis and management of these conditions. Here, we address recent advancements in understanding vulvar inflammatory dermatoses other than lichen sclerosus (LS), which was discussed in a prior Guest Editorial¹—specifically vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP), plasma cell vulvitis (PCV), and vulvar lichen simplex chronicus (LSC).

Vulvar Inflammatory Skin Disease and Quality of Life

There is an increased awareness of the impact vulvar skin disease has on quality of life and its association with anxiety and depression.^2-5 Evaluating the burden of vulvar dermatoses remains an active area of research due to its significance in monitoring disease progression and assessing therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the existence of various dermatology quality-of-life assessment tools, many fail to adequately capture the unique impacts of vulvovaginal diseases, such as sexual or urinary dysfunction. The vulvar quality of life index, which was developed and validated by Saunderson et al⁶ in 2020, consists of a 15-item questionnaire spanning 4 domains: symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. This tool has been utilized to gauge treatment response in vulvar conditions and to compare disease burden of various vulvar dermatoses.^7,8 Moving forward, integrating this tool into clinical studies on vulvar skin disease holds promise for enhancing our understanding and management of these conditions.

Vulvovaginal Lichen Planus

Vulvovaginal lichen planus is unique among several prevalent vulvar inflammatory skin disorders encountered by dermatologists—primarily due to its erosive form, which can extend to the vagina, resulting in noninfectious vaginitis and potential vaginal stenosis.^9,10 Managing VLP poses a notable challenge, even when it is confined to the vulva, as it often proves resistant to topical therapies.¹¹

Evaluation for Vaginal Mucosal Disease—In contrast to LS, which typically spares the vaginal mucosa, VLP can involve mucosal sites.^9,12,13 Therefore, it is imperative that all patients with a diagnosis of vulvar VLP undergo evaluation for potential vaginal involvement through speculum examination, wet mount, or vaginal biopsy. Strategies to manage vaginal involvement include use of dilators and pelvic floor physical therapy, lysis of adhesions (if present), topical estrogen, and intravaginal corticosteroids—all tailored to the severity of the disease.^9,11,14

Management of VLP—Approximately 20% to 40% of patients with VLP may require systemic therapy for disease management, including those who are younger, those of non-White ethnicity, and those presenting with vulvar pruritus.¹¹ Various systemic immunosuppressants have been used for VLP, with a recent retrospective study revealing similar response rates for both methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of VLP.¹⁵ Another retrospective study found hydroxychloroquine to be safe and effective for VLP but noted a slow onset of action, with approximately 70% responding at 9 months following initiation of therapy.¹⁶

Recent attention has shifted to use of targeted therapies for VLP. For instance, apremilast has shown efficacy in a single-center, nonrandomized, open-label pilot study.¹⁷ Tildrakizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in a case series involving 24 patients with VLP.¹⁸ Moreover, recent case reports and series have highlighted the potential of oral Janus kinase (JAK) ­inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, in VLP treatment.¹⁹ Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib and deucravacitinib (a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor) in VLP.^20-22 Systemic therapies for VLP currently are used off label, emphasizing the need for future randomized controlled trials to ascertain the optimal therapies for patients affected by erosive and nonerosive forms of this disease.

Plasma Cell Vulvitis

Plasma cell vulvitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder with an unknown etiology that some consider to be a variant of VLP.²³ Others have observed an overlap with desquamative inflammatory vaginitis, categorizing PCV as a hemorrhagic vestibulovaginitis.²⁴ Although its classification as a distinct entity remains under scrutiny, studies indicate a predilection for the nonkeratinized or partially keratinized vulva. A systematic review outlining common clinical findings reported that the most common anatomic sites included the vulvar vestibule, periurethral area, and labia minora.²³ Additionally, reports have emphasized the association between PCV and other inflammatory vulvar skin conditions, including LS.²⁵

Clinical Variants of PCV—A retrospective review proposed 2 clinical phenotypes for PCV: (1) primary non–lichen-associated PCV and (2) secondary lichen-associated PCV, which is linked to LS.²⁶ The primary form is reported to be restricted to the vestibule, and the authors considered this a vulvar counterpart of atrophic vaginitis due to estrogen deficiency (now known as postmenopausal genitourinary syndrome). The secondary phenotype more commonly involved the vestibular and extravestibular epithelium.²⁶

Management of PCV—Recognizing PCV in the context of LS may be important for identifying comorbid conditions and guiding treatment. However, evidence-based guidelines for PCV treatment are lacking. Commonly reported treatment modalities include clobetasol ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.²³ Successful treatment with hydrocortisone suppositories alternating with estradiol vaginal cream was reported in a recent case series.²⁷ Crisaborole also has been reported as a treatment in 1 case of PCV.²⁸ A recent case report found abrocitinib to be effective for the treatment of plasma cell balanitis in the setting of male genital LS,²⁹ but there are limited data on the use of JAK inhibitors for PCV. Further research is necessary to ascertain the incidence, prevalence, clinical subtypes, and optimal management strategies for PCV to effectively treat patients with this condition.

Vulvar LSC

Similar to extragenital LSC, the evaluation of vulvar LSC should prioritize identification of underlying ­etiologies that contribute to the itch-scratch cycle, which may include psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, neurologic conditions, and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.^30,31 Although treatment strategies may vary based on underlying ­conditions, we will concentrate on updates in managing vulvar LSC and pruritus associated with an atopic ­diathesis or resulting from chronic contact dermatitis, which is prevalent in vulvar skin areas. Finally, we highlight some emerging vulvar allergens for consideration in clinical practice.

Management of Vulvar LSC—The advent of targeted therapies, including biologics and small-molecule inhibitors, for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis in recent years presents potential options for treatment of individuals with vulvar LSC. However, studies on the use of these therapies specifically for vulvar LSC are limited, necessitating thorough discussions with patients. Given the debilitating nature of vulvar pruritus that may be seen in vulvar LSC and the potential inadequacy of topical steroids as monotherapy, systemic therapies may serve as alternative options for patients with refractory disease.³⁰

Dupilumab, a dual inhibitor of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, has shown rapid and sustained disease improvement in patients with atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis, and pruritus.^32,33 Although data on its role in managing vulvar LSC are scarce, a recent case series reported improvement of vulvar pruritus with dupilumab.³⁴ Similarly, tralokinumab, an IL-13 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis, has shown efficacy in prurigo nodularis³⁵ and may benefit patients with vulvar LSC, though studies on cutaneous outcomes in those with genital involvement specifically are lacking. Oral JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib—both FDA approved for atopic dermatitis—have demonstrated efficacy in treating LSC and itch, potentially serving as management options for vulvar LSC in cases resistant to topical steroids or in which steroid atrophy or other steroid adverse effects may preclude continued use of such agents.^36,37 Finally, IL-31 inhibitors such as nemolizumab, which reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis in a recent phase 3 clinical trial, may hold utility in addressing vulvar LSC and associated pruritus.³⁸

The topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, which is FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo, holds promise for managing LSC on vulvar skin while mitigating the risk for steroid-induced atrophy.³⁹ Additionally, nonsteroidal topicals including roflumilast cream 0.3% and tapinarof cream 1%, both FDA approved for psoriasis, are being evaluated in studies for their safety and efficacy in atopic dermatitis.^40,41 These agents may have the potential to improve signs and symptoms of vulvar LSC, but further studies are necessary.

Vulvar Allergens and LSC—When assessing patients with vulvar LSC, it is crucial to recognize that allergic contact dermatitis is a common primary vulvar dermatosis but can coexist with other vulvar dermatoses such as LS.^13,30 The vulvar skin’s susceptibly to allergic contact dermatitis is attributed to factors such as a higher ratio of antigen-presenting cells in the vulvar skin, the nonkeratinized nature of certain sites, and frequent contact with potential allergens.^42,43 Therefore, incorporating patch testing into the diagnostic process should be considered when evaluating patients with vulvar skin conditions.⁴³

A systemic review identified multiple vulvar allergens, including metals, topical medicaments, fragrances, preservatives, cosmetic constituents, and rubber components that led to contact dermatitis.⁴⁴ Moreover, a recent analysis of topical preparations recommended by women with LS on social media found a high prevalence of known vulvar allergens in these agents, including botanical extracts/spices.⁴⁵ Personal-care wipes marketed for vulvar care and hygiene are known to contain a variety of allergens, with a recent study finding numerous allergens in commercially available wipes including fragrances, scented botanicals in the form of essences, oils, fruit juices, and vitamin E.⁴⁶ These findings underscore the importance of considering potential allergens when caring for patients with vulvar LSC and counseling patients about the potential allergens in many commercially available products that may be recommended on social media sites or by other sources.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar inflammatory dermatoses are becoming increasingly recognized, and there is a need to develop more effective diagnostic and treatment approaches. Recent literature has shed light on some of the challenges in the management of VLP, particularly its resistance to topical therapies and the importance of assessing and managing both cutaneous and vaginal involvement. Efforts have been made to refine the classification of PCV, with studies suggesting a variant that coexists with LS. Although evidence for vulvar-specific treatment of LSC is limited, the emergence of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors that are FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis offer promise for certain cases of vulvar LSC and vulvar pruritus. Moreover, recent developments in steroid-sparing topical agents warrant further investigation for their potential efficacy in treating vulvar LSC and possibly other vulvar inflammatory conditions in the future.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Telemedicine interest, which was relatively quiescent prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has surged in popularity in the past few years.¹ It can now be utilized seamlessly in dermatology practices to deliver exceptional patient care while reducing costs and travel time and offering dermatologists flexibility and improved work-life balance. Teledermatology applications include synchronous, asynchronous, and hybrid platforms.² For synchronous teledermatology, patient visits are carried out in real time with audio and video technology.³ For asynchronous teledermatology—also known as the store-and-forward model—the dermatologist receives the patient’s history and photographs and then renders an assessment and treatment plan.² Hybrid teledermatology uses real-time audio and video conferencing for history taking, assessment and treatment plan, and patient education, with photographs sent asynchronously.³ Telemedicine may not be initially intuitive or easy to integrate into clinical practice, but with time and effort, it will complement your dermatology practice, making it run more efficiently.

Patient Satisfaction With Teledermatology

Studies generally have shown very high patient satisfaction rates and shorter wait times with teledermatology vs in-person visits; for example, in a systematic review of 15 teledermatology studies including 7781 patients, more than 80% of participants reported high satisfaction with their telemedicine visit, with up to 92% reporting that they would choose to do a televisit again.⁴ In a retrospective analysis of 615 Zocdoc physicians, 65% of whom were dermatologists, mean wait times were 2.4 days for virtual appointments compared with 11.7 days for in-person appointments.⁵ Similarly, in a retrospective single-institution study, mean wait times for televisits were 14.3 days compared with 34.7 days for in-person referrals.⁶

Follow-Up Visits for Nail Disorders Via Teledermatology

Teledermatology may be particularly well suited for treating patients with nail disorders. In a prospective observational study, Onyeka et al⁷ accessed 813 images from 63 dermatology patients via teledermatology over a 6-month period to assess distance, focus, brightness, background, and image quality; of them, 83% were rated as high quality. Notably, images of nail disorders, skin growths, or pigmentation disorders were rated as having better image quality than images of inflammatory skin conditions (odds ratio [OR], 4.2-12.9 [P<.005]).⁷ In a retrospective study of 107 telemedicine visits for nail disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with longitudinal melanonychia were recommended for in-person visits for physical examination and dermoscopy, as were patients with suspected onychomycosis, who required nail plate sampling for diagnostic confirmation; however, approximately half of visits did not require in-person follow-up, including those patients with confirmed onychomycosis.⁸ Onychomycosis patients could be examined for clinical improvement and counseled on medication compliance via telemedicine. Other patients who did not require in-person follow-ups were those with traumatic nail disorders such as subungual hematoma and retronychia as well as those with body‐focused repetitive behaviors, including habit-tic nail deformity, onychophagia, and onychotillomania.⁸

Patients undergoing nail biopsies to rule out malignancies or to diagnose inflammatory nail disorders also may be managed via telemedicine. Patients for whom nail biopsies are recommended often are anxious about the procedure, which may be due to portrayal of nail trauma in the media⁹ or lack of accurate information on nail biopsies online.¹⁰ Therefore, counseling via telemedicine about the details of the procedure in a patient-friendly way (eg, showing an animated video and narrating it¹¹) can allay anxiety without the inconvenience, cost, and time missed from work associated with traveling to an in-person visit. In addition, postoperative counseling ideally is performed via telemedicine because complications following nail procedures are uncommon. In a retrospective study of 502 patients who underwent a nail biopsy at a single academic center, only 14 developed surgical site infections within 8 days on average (range, 5–13 days), with a higher infection risk in patients with type 2 ­diabetes mellitus (P<.0003).¹²

Advantages and Limitations

There are many benefits to incorporating telemedicine into dermatology practices, including reduced overhead costs, convenience and time saved for patients, and flexibility and improved work-life balance for dermatologists. In addition, because the number of in-person visits seen generally is fixed due to space constraints and work-hour restrictions, delegating follow-up visits to telemedicine can free up in-person slots for new patients and those needing procedures. However, there also are some inherent limitations to telemedicine: technology access, vision or hearing difficulties or low digital health literacy, or language barriers. In the prospective observational study by Onyeka et al⁷ analyzing 813 teledermatology images, patients aged 65 to 74 years sent in more clinically useful images (OR, 7.9) and images that were more often in focus (OR, 2.6) compared with patients older than 85 years.

Final Thoughts

Incorporation of telemedicine into dermatologic practice is a valuable tool for triaging patients with acute issues, improving patient care and health care access, making practices more efficient, and improving dermatologist flexibility and work-life balance. Further development of teledermatology to provide access to underserved populations prioritizing dermatologist reimbursement and progress on technologic innovations will make teledermatology even more useful in the coming years.

Telemedicine interest, which was relatively quiescent prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has surged in popularity in the past few years.¹ It can now be utilized seamlessly in dermatology practices to deliver exceptional patient care while reducing costs and travel time and offering dermatologists flexibility and improved work-life balance. Teledermatology applications include synchronous, asynchronous, and hybrid platforms.² For synchronous teledermatology, patient visits are carried out in real time with audio and video technology.³ For asynchronous teledermatology—also known as the store-and-forward model—the dermatologist receives the patient’s history and photographs and then renders an assessment and treatment plan.² Hybrid teledermatology uses real-time audio and video conferencing for history taking, assessment and treatment plan, and patient education, with photographs sent asynchronously.³ Telemedicine may not be initially intuitive or easy to integrate into clinical practice, but with time and effort, it will complement your dermatology practice, making it run more efficiently.

Patient Satisfaction With Teledermatology

Studies generally have shown very high patient satisfaction rates and shorter wait times with teledermatology vs in-person visits; for example, in a systematic review of 15 teledermatology studies including 7781 patients, more than 80% of participants reported high satisfaction with their telemedicine visit, with up to 92% reporting that they would choose to do a televisit again.⁴ In a retrospective analysis of 615 Zocdoc physicians, 65% of whom were dermatologists, mean wait times were 2.4 days for virtual appointments compared with 11.7 days for in-person appointments.⁵ Similarly, in a retrospective single-institution study, mean wait times for televisits were 14.3 days compared with 34.7 days for in-person referrals.⁶

Follow-Up Visits for Nail Disorders Via Teledermatology

Teledermatology may be particularly well suited for treating patients with nail disorders. In a prospective observational study, Onyeka et al⁷ accessed 813 images from 63 dermatology patients via teledermatology over a 6-month period to assess distance, focus, brightness, background, and image quality; of them, 83% were rated as high quality. Notably, images of nail disorders, skin growths, or pigmentation disorders were rated as having better image quality than images of inflammatory skin conditions (odds ratio [OR], 4.2-12.9 [P<.005]).⁷ In a retrospective study of 107 telemedicine visits for nail disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with longitudinal melanonychia were recommended for in-person visits for physical examination and dermoscopy, as were patients with suspected onychomycosis, who required nail plate sampling for diagnostic confirmation; however, approximately half of visits did not require in-person follow-up, including those patients with confirmed onychomycosis.⁸ Onychomycosis patients could be examined for clinical improvement and counseled on medication compliance via telemedicine. Other patients who did not require in-person follow-ups were those with traumatic nail disorders such as subungual hematoma and retronychia as well as those with body‐focused repetitive behaviors, including habit-tic nail deformity, onychophagia, and onychotillomania.⁸

Patients undergoing nail biopsies to rule out malignancies or to diagnose inflammatory nail disorders also may be managed via telemedicine. Patients for whom nail biopsies are recommended often are anxious about the procedure, which may be due to portrayal of nail trauma in the media⁹ or lack of accurate information on nail biopsies online.¹⁰ Therefore, counseling via telemedicine about the details of the procedure in a patient-friendly way (eg, showing an animated video and narrating it¹¹) can allay anxiety without the inconvenience, cost, and time missed from work associated with traveling to an in-person visit. In addition, postoperative counseling ideally is performed via telemedicine because complications following nail procedures are uncommon. In a retrospective study of 502 patients who underwent a nail biopsy at a single academic center, only 14 developed surgical site infections within 8 days on average (range, 5–13 days), with a higher infection risk in patients with type 2 ­diabetes mellitus (P<.0003).¹²

Advantages and Limitations

There are many benefits to incorporating telemedicine into dermatology practices, including reduced overhead costs, convenience and time saved for patients, and flexibility and improved work-life balance for dermatologists. In addition, because the number of in-person visits seen generally is fixed due to space constraints and work-hour restrictions, delegating follow-up visits to telemedicine can free up in-person slots for new patients and those needing procedures. However, there also are some inherent limitations to telemedicine: technology access, vision or hearing difficulties or low digital health literacy, or language barriers. In the prospective observational study by Onyeka et al⁷ analyzing 813 teledermatology images, patients aged 65 to 74 years sent in more clinically useful images (OR, 7.9) and images that were more often in focus (OR, 2.6) compared with patients older than 85 years.

Final Thoughts

Incorporation of telemedicine into dermatologic practice is a valuable tool for triaging patients with acute issues, improving patient care and health care access, making practices more efficient, and improving dermatologist flexibility and work-life balance. Further development of teledermatology to provide access to underserved populations prioritizing dermatologist reimbursement and progress on technologic innovations will make teledermatology even more useful in the coming years.

Telemedicine interest, which was relatively quiescent prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has surged in popularity in the past few years.¹ It can now be utilized seamlessly in dermatology practices to deliver exceptional patient care while reducing costs and travel time and offering dermatologists flexibility and improved work-life balance. Teledermatology applications include synchronous, asynchronous, and hybrid platforms.² For synchronous teledermatology, patient visits are carried out in real time with audio and video technology.³ For asynchronous teledermatology—also known as the store-and-forward model—the dermatologist receives the patient’s history and photographs and then renders an assessment and treatment plan.² Hybrid teledermatology uses real-time audio and video conferencing for history taking, assessment and treatment plan, and patient education, with photographs sent asynchronously.³ Telemedicine may not be initially intuitive or easy to integrate into clinical practice, but with time and effort, it will complement your dermatology practice, making it run more efficiently.

Patient Satisfaction With Teledermatology

Studies generally have shown very high patient satisfaction rates and shorter wait times with teledermatology vs in-person visits; for example, in a systematic review of 15 teledermatology studies including 7781 patients, more than 80% of participants reported high satisfaction with their telemedicine visit, with up to 92% reporting that they would choose to do a televisit again.⁴ In a retrospective analysis of 615 Zocdoc physicians, 65% of whom were dermatologists, mean wait times were 2.4 days for virtual appointments compared with 11.7 days for in-person appointments.⁵ Similarly, in a retrospective single-institution study, mean wait times for televisits were 14.3 days compared with 34.7 days for in-person referrals.⁶

Follow-Up Visits for Nail Disorders Via Teledermatology

Teledermatology may be particularly well suited for treating patients with nail disorders. In a prospective observational study, Onyeka et al⁷ accessed 813 images from 63 dermatology patients via teledermatology over a 6-month period to assess distance, focus, brightness, background, and image quality; of them, 83% were rated as high quality. Notably, images of nail disorders, skin growths, or pigmentation disorders were rated as having better image quality than images of inflammatory skin conditions (odds ratio [OR], 4.2-12.9 [P<.005]).⁷ In a retrospective study of 107 telemedicine visits for nail disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with longitudinal melanonychia were recommended for in-person visits for physical examination and dermoscopy, as were patients with suspected onychomycosis, who required nail plate sampling for diagnostic confirmation; however, approximately half of visits did not require in-person follow-up, including those patients with confirmed onychomycosis.⁸ Onychomycosis patients could be examined for clinical improvement and counseled on medication compliance via telemedicine. Other patients who did not require in-person follow-ups were those with traumatic nail disorders such as subungual hematoma and retronychia as well as those with body‐focused repetitive behaviors, including habit-tic nail deformity, onychophagia, and onychotillomania.⁸

Patients undergoing nail biopsies to rule out malignancies or to diagnose inflammatory nail disorders also may be managed via telemedicine. Patients for whom nail biopsies are recommended often are anxious about the procedure, which may be due to portrayal of nail trauma in the media⁹ or lack of accurate information on nail biopsies online.¹⁰ Therefore, counseling via telemedicine about the details of the procedure in a patient-friendly way (eg, showing an animated video and narrating it¹¹) can allay anxiety without the inconvenience, cost, and time missed from work associated with traveling to an in-person visit. In addition, postoperative counseling ideally is performed via telemedicine because complications following nail procedures are uncommon. In a retrospective study of 502 patients who underwent a nail biopsy at a single academic center, only 14 developed surgical site infections within 8 days on average (range, 5–13 days), with a higher infection risk in patients with type 2 ­diabetes mellitus (P<.0003).¹²

Advantages and Limitations

There are many benefits to incorporating telemedicine into dermatology practices, including reduced overhead costs, convenience and time saved for patients, and flexibility and improved work-life balance for dermatologists. In addition, because the number of in-person visits seen generally is fixed due to space constraints and work-hour restrictions, delegating follow-up visits to telemedicine can free up in-person slots for new patients and those needing procedures. However, there also are some inherent limitations to telemedicine: technology access, vision or hearing difficulties or low digital health literacy, or language barriers. In the prospective observational study by Onyeka et al⁷ analyzing 813 teledermatology images, patients aged 65 to 74 years sent in more clinically useful images (OR, 7.9) and images that were more often in focus (OR, 2.6) compared with patients older than 85 years.

Final Thoughts

Incorporation of telemedicine into dermatologic practice is a valuable tool for triaging patients with acute issues, improving patient care and health care access, making practices more efficient, and improving dermatologist flexibility and work-life balance. Further development of teledermatology to provide access to underserved populations prioritizing dermatologist reimbursement and progress on technologic innovations will make teledermatology even more useful in the coming years.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need more diverse students — more students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds in medical school. That is not a controversial take. That’s not even a new thought.

What is a hot take, however, is that free medical school alone is not going to accomplish this goal. In fact, based on data and what people think and are saying, that’s just reality.

I recently chatted about whether or not free medical school would motivate more students to pursue primary care. That was New York University’s (NYU’s) goal. If you haven’t seen that video, check it out. Now I want to explore whether free medical school would actually create a more diverse medical student body.

This topic is especially important now because, in 2023, the Supreme Court ended affirmative action for college admissions, and this naturally has a downstream effect when it comes to getting into medical school. Right now, about 6% of US physicians are Black or Hispanic/Latina, and around 0.1%-0.3% identify as Indigenous Americans, Native Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders.

Is free medical school the answer? Well, that’s based on a huge assumption that the cost of medical school — incoming debt — is the single greatest barrier for students from diverse backgrounds, as if every single student from every background had the same level of resources in the same opportunity and were all equally competitive prior to applying, and just the prospect of debt is what caused the disparity. I don’t know if that’s reality. Let’s take a look at NYU.

After the free tuition announcement, total applications to the medical school went up nearly 50%. And from underrepresented groups, it was 100%. In 2019, the associate dean for admissions said, “A key driver was to remove a financial disincentive that dissuades people from pursuing a path in medicine.” But the acceptance rate stayed under 3%, and the average Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and grade point average (GPA) to get in went up. Basically, the school just became more competitive.

I will always commend anyone, anywhere, who is making medical school more affordable and more accessible. With NYU, it seems a tuition gift just made it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to actually get in. I mean, congratulations, you got more applications. This probably helped in ratings, and you got mentioned in news headlines, but are you actually achieving your mission?

At NYU, over the last few years, Black students made up about 11% of the medical school class, which is actually down from 2017 before the tuition gift. Students from low-income backgrounds, whom this would really benefit, used to make up around 12% of the class prior to the free tuition announcement, and now it’s around 3%-7%.

According to students from underrepresented backgrounds, the outreach and the equal opportunity need to start way earlier. The K-12 process needs to be addressed, as do mentorship opportunities and guidance throughout college, MCAT prep, resources for interviews, research opportunities, and so much more.

The following quote is from an interview with an interventional cardiology fellow who came here as a refugee: “For me, growing up, basic necessities like a quiet study space, high-speed internet, healthy meals and proper sleep were luxuries of which I could only dream. After resettling in the US as a political refugee, I lived in circumstances where such comforts were out of reach, and my path to medical school seemed insurmountable.” 

I also spoke to a friend in pediatric cancer, Michael Galvez, MD, who was outspoken about the need to improve representation in medicine, about what he thought would actually work to diversify medical schools. He mentioned adversity scores or looking at the distance traveled for applicants, as well as efforts to recruit from local, state, and community colleges, which often reflect local underserved populations. 

Dr. Galvez also agreed that although such metrics as GPA and MCAT are important, medical schools should also consider the impact applicants may have had for local, underserved communities and life experiences that may represent significant potential contributions applicants can make for public health.

The effort needs to start early. If we take a look at one of the most diverse medical schools in the country, UC Davis, we can see how this makes a difference. At UC Davis, in the class of 2026, about half of the 133 students come from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine. I’m taking a look at their website from the Office of Student and Resident Diversity, and it lists:

• K-12 outreach programs
• Undergraduate and community college programs
• Specific plans for postbaccalaureate students
• Support systems
• Resources for students that extend far beyond just premedical students

My home institution, Stanford School of Medicine, has similar programs as well, with similar ways for students from underrepresented backgrounds to find support and mentorship. This all makes a huge difference.

Regarding the actual admissions process for medical school, I’ll highlight the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the adaptions they’ve made to create a more fair and holistic process. It includes:

• A clear mission statement about diversity enhancement
• Anonymous voting
• A larger group to avoid bias
• Not showing academic metrics to interviewers
• Implicit association tests and trainings
• Removing photos from applications
• Appointing women, minorities, and young people with less implicit bias to the committees

Does this seem like a lot? It is, because a comprehensive approach is what it takes to build a more diverse US physician workforce, which will provide more culturally competent care, empower future generations, break down barriers and disparities in health care, and ultimately improve public health. Free tuition is awesome. I’m jealous. But on its own to solve these problems? This all feels like a misguided attempt.
 

Dr. Patel is clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and pediatric hospitalist at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need more diverse students — more students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds in medical school. That is not a controversial take. That’s not even a new thought.

What is a hot take, however, is that free medical school alone is not going to accomplish this goal. In fact, based on data and what people think and are saying, that’s just reality.

I recently chatted about whether or not free medical school would motivate more students to pursue primary care. That was New York University’s (NYU’s) goal. If you haven’t seen that video, check it out. Now I want to explore whether free medical school would actually create a more diverse medical student body.

This topic is especially important now because, in 2023, the Supreme Court ended affirmative action for college admissions, and this naturally has a downstream effect when it comes to getting into medical school. Right now, about 6% of US physicians are Black or Hispanic/Latina, and around 0.1%-0.3% identify as Indigenous Americans, Native Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders.

Is free medical school the answer? Well, that’s based on a huge assumption that the cost of medical school — incoming debt — is the single greatest barrier for students from diverse backgrounds, as if every single student from every background had the same level of resources in the same opportunity and were all equally competitive prior to applying, and just the prospect of debt is what caused the disparity. I don’t know if that’s reality. Let’s take a look at NYU.

After the free tuition announcement, total applications to the medical school went up nearly 50%. And from underrepresented groups, it was 100%. In 2019, the associate dean for admissions said, “A key driver was to remove a financial disincentive that dissuades people from pursuing a path in medicine.” But the acceptance rate stayed under 3%, and the average Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and grade point average (GPA) to get in went up. Basically, the school just became more competitive.

I will always commend anyone, anywhere, who is making medical school more affordable and more accessible. With NYU, it seems a tuition gift just made it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to actually get in. I mean, congratulations, you got more applications. This probably helped in ratings, and you got mentioned in news headlines, but are you actually achieving your mission?

At NYU, over the last few years, Black students made up about 11% of the medical school class, which is actually down from 2017 before the tuition gift. Students from low-income backgrounds, whom this would really benefit, used to make up around 12% of the class prior to the free tuition announcement, and now it’s around 3%-7%.

According to students from underrepresented backgrounds, the outreach and the equal opportunity need to start way earlier. The K-12 process needs to be addressed, as do mentorship opportunities and guidance throughout college, MCAT prep, resources for interviews, research opportunities, and so much more.

The following quote is from an interview with an interventional cardiology fellow who came here as a refugee: “For me, growing up, basic necessities like a quiet study space, high-speed internet, healthy meals and proper sleep were luxuries of which I could only dream. After resettling in the US as a political refugee, I lived in circumstances where such comforts were out of reach, and my path to medical school seemed insurmountable.” 

I also spoke to a friend in pediatric cancer, Michael Galvez, MD, who was outspoken about the need to improve representation in medicine, about what he thought would actually work to diversify medical schools. He mentioned adversity scores or looking at the distance traveled for applicants, as well as efforts to recruit from local, state, and community colleges, which often reflect local underserved populations. 

Dr. Galvez also agreed that although such metrics as GPA and MCAT are important, medical schools should also consider the impact applicants may have had for local, underserved communities and life experiences that may represent significant potential contributions applicants can make for public health.

The effort needs to start early. If we take a look at one of the most diverse medical schools in the country, UC Davis, we can see how this makes a difference. At UC Davis, in the class of 2026, about half of the 133 students come from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine. I’m taking a look at their website from the Office of Student and Resident Diversity, and it lists:

• K-12 outreach programs
• Undergraduate and community college programs
• Specific plans for postbaccalaureate students
• Support systems
• Resources for students that extend far beyond just premedical students

My home institution, Stanford School of Medicine, has similar programs as well, with similar ways for students from underrepresented backgrounds to find support and mentorship. This all makes a huge difference.

Regarding the actual admissions process for medical school, I’ll highlight the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the adaptions they’ve made to create a more fair and holistic process. It includes:

• A clear mission statement about diversity enhancement
• Anonymous voting
• A larger group to avoid bias
• Not showing academic metrics to interviewers
• Implicit association tests and trainings
• Removing photos from applications
• Appointing women, minorities, and young people with less implicit bias to the committees

Does this seem like a lot? It is, because a comprehensive approach is what it takes to build a more diverse US physician workforce, which will provide more culturally competent care, empower future generations, break down barriers and disparities in health care, and ultimately improve public health. Free tuition is awesome. I’m jealous. But on its own to solve these problems? This all feels like a misguided attempt.
 

Dr. Patel is clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and pediatric hospitalist at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

We need more diverse students — more students from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds in medical school. That is not a controversial take. That’s not even a new thought.

What is a hot take, however, is that free medical school alone is not going to accomplish this goal. In fact, based on data and what people think and are saying, that’s just reality.

I recently chatted about whether or not free medical school would motivate more students to pursue primary care. That was New York University’s (NYU’s) goal. If you haven’t seen that video, check it out. Now I want to explore whether free medical school would actually create a more diverse medical student body.

This topic is especially important now because, in 2023, the Supreme Court ended affirmative action for college admissions, and this naturally has a downstream effect when it comes to getting into medical school. Right now, about 6% of US physicians are Black or Hispanic/Latina, and around 0.1%-0.3% identify as Indigenous Americans, Native Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders.

Is free medical school the answer? Well, that’s based on a huge assumption that the cost of medical school — incoming debt — is the single greatest barrier for students from diverse backgrounds, as if every single student from every background had the same level of resources in the same opportunity and were all equally competitive prior to applying, and just the prospect of debt is what caused the disparity. I don’t know if that’s reality. Let’s take a look at NYU.

After the free tuition announcement, total applications to the medical school went up nearly 50%. And from underrepresented groups, it was 100%. In 2019, the associate dean for admissions said, “A key driver was to remove a financial disincentive that dissuades people from pursuing a path in medicine.” But the acceptance rate stayed under 3%, and the average Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and grade point average (GPA) to get in went up. Basically, the school just became more competitive.

I will always commend anyone, anywhere, who is making medical school more affordable and more accessible. With NYU, it seems a tuition gift just made it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to actually get in. I mean, congratulations, you got more applications. This probably helped in ratings, and you got mentioned in news headlines, but are you actually achieving your mission?

At NYU, over the last few years, Black students made up about 11% of the medical school class, which is actually down from 2017 before the tuition gift. Students from low-income backgrounds, whom this would really benefit, used to make up around 12% of the class prior to the free tuition announcement, and now it’s around 3%-7%.

According to students from underrepresented backgrounds, the outreach and the equal opportunity need to start way earlier. The K-12 process needs to be addressed, as do mentorship opportunities and guidance throughout college, MCAT prep, resources for interviews, research opportunities, and so much more.

The following quote is from an interview with an interventional cardiology fellow who came here as a refugee: “For me, growing up, basic necessities like a quiet study space, high-speed internet, healthy meals and proper sleep were luxuries of which I could only dream. After resettling in the US as a political refugee, I lived in circumstances where such comforts were out of reach, and my path to medical school seemed insurmountable.” 

I also spoke to a friend in pediatric cancer, Michael Galvez, MD, who was outspoken about the need to improve representation in medicine, about what he thought would actually work to diversify medical schools. He mentioned adversity scores or looking at the distance traveled for applicants, as well as efforts to recruit from local, state, and community colleges, which often reflect local underserved populations. 

Dr. Galvez also agreed that although such metrics as GPA and MCAT are important, medical schools should also consider the impact applicants may have had for local, underserved communities and life experiences that may represent significant potential contributions applicants can make for public health.

The effort needs to start early. If we take a look at one of the most diverse medical schools in the country, UC Davis, we can see how this makes a difference. At UC Davis, in the class of 2026, about half of the 133 students come from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine. I’m taking a look at their website from the Office of Student and Resident Diversity, and it lists:

• K-12 outreach programs
• Undergraduate and community college programs
• Specific plans for postbaccalaureate students
• Support systems
• Resources for students that extend far beyond just premedical students

My home institution, Stanford School of Medicine, has similar programs as well, with similar ways for students from underrepresented backgrounds to find support and mentorship. This all makes a huge difference.

Regarding the actual admissions process for medical school, I’ll highlight the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the adaptions they’ve made to create a more fair and holistic process. It includes:

• A clear mission statement about diversity enhancement
• Anonymous voting
• A larger group to avoid bias
• Not showing academic metrics to interviewers
• Implicit association tests and trainings
• Removing photos from applications
• Appointing women, minorities, and young people with less implicit bias to the committees

Does this seem like a lot? It is, because a comprehensive approach is what it takes to build a more diverse US physician workforce, which will provide more culturally competent care, empower future generations, break down barriers and disparities in health care, and ultimately improve public health. Free tuition is awesome. I’m jealous. But on its own to solve these problems? This all feels like a misguided attempt.
 

Dr. Patel is clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and pediatric hospitalist at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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