Diversity in Medicine

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

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

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

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

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Every branch of science has its constants. Physics has the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the Planck constant. Chemistry gives us Avogadro’s number, Faraday’s constant, the charge of an electron. Medicine isn’t quite as reliable as physics when it comes to these things, but insofar as there are any constants in medicine, might I suggest normal body temperature: 37° Celsius, 98.6° Fahrenheit.

Sure, serum sodium may be less variable and lactate concentration more clinically relevant, but even my 7-year-old knows that normal body temperature is 98.6°.

Except, as it turns out, 98.6° isn’t normal at all.

How did we arrive at 37.0° C for normal body temperature? We got it from this guy – German physician Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich, who, in addition to looking eerily like Luciano Pavarotti, was the first to realize that fever was not itself a disease but a symptom of one.

In 1851, Dr. Wunderlich released his measurements of more than 1 million body temperatures taken from 25,000 Germans – a painstaking process at the time, which employed a foot-long thermometer and took 20 minutes to obtain a measurement.

The average temperature measured, of course, was 37° C.

We’re more than 150 years post-Wunderlich right now, and the average person in the United States might be quite a bit different from the average German in 1850. Moreover, we can do a lot better than just measuring a ton of people and taking the average, because we have statistics. The problem with measuring a bunch of people and taking the average temperature as normal is that you can’t be sure that the people you are measuring are normal. There are obvious causes of elevated temperature that you could exclude. Let’s not take people with a respiratory infection or who are taking Tylenol, for example. But as highlighted in this paper in JAMA Internal Medicine, we can do a lot better than that.

The study leverages the fact that body temperature is typically measured during all medical office visits and recorded in the ever-present electronic medical record.

Researchers from Stanford identified 724,199 patient encounters with outpatient temperature data. They excluded extreme temperatures – less than 34° C or greater than 40° C – excluded patients under 20 or above 80 years, and excluded those with extremes of height, weight, or body mass index.

You end up with a distribution like this. Note that the peak is clearly lower than 37° C.

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Every branch of science has its constants. Physics has the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the Planck constant. Chemistry gives us Avogadro’s number, Faraday’s constant, the charge of an electron. Medicine isn’t quite as reliable as physics when it comes to these things, but insofar as there are any constants in medicine, might I suggest normal body temperature: 37° Celsius, 98.6° Fahrenheit.

Sure, serum sodium may be less variable and lactate concentration more clinically relevant, but even my 7-year-old knows that normal body temperature is 98.6°.

Except, as it turns out, 98.6° isn’t normal at all.

How did we arrive at 37.0° C for normal body temperature? We got it from this guy – German physician Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich, who, in addition to looking eerily like Luciano Pavarotti, was the first to realize that fever was not itself a disease but a symptom of one.

In 1851, Dr. Wunderlich released his measurements of more than 1 million body temperatures taken from 25,000 Germans – a painstaking process at the time, which employed a foot-long thermometer and took 20 minutes to obtain a measurement.

The average temperature measured, of course, was 37° C.

We’re more than 150 years post-Wunderlich right now, and the average person in the United States might be quite a bit different from the average German in 1850. Moreover, we can do a lot better than just measuring a ton of people and taking the average, because we have statistics. The problem with measuring a bunch of people and taking the average temperature as normal is that you can’t be sure that the people you are measuring are normal. There are obvious causes of elevated temperature that you could exclude. Let’s not take people with a respiratory infection or who are taking Tylenol, for example. But as highlighted in this paper in JAMA Internal Medicine, we can do a lot better than that.

The study leverages the fact that body temperature is typically measured during all medical office visits and recorded in the ever-present electronic medical record.

Researchers from Stanford identified 724,199 patient encounters with outpatient temperature data. They excluded extreme temperatures – less than 34° C or greater than 40° C – excluded patients under 20 or above 80 years, and excluded those with extremes of height, weight, or body mass index.

You end up with a distribution like this. Note that the peak is clearly lower than 37° C.

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Every branch of science has its constants. Physics has the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the Planck constant. Chemistry gives us Avogadro’s number, Faraday’s constant, the charge of an electron. Medicine isn’t quite as reliable as physics when it comes to these things, but insofar as there are any constants in medicine, might I suggest normal body temperature: 37° Celsius, 98.6° Fahrenheit.

Sure, serum sodium may be less variable and lactate concentration more clinically relevant, but even my 7-year-old knows that normal body temperature is 98.6°.

Except, as it turns out, 98.6° isn’t normal at all.

How did we arrive at 37.0° C for normal body temperature? We got it from this guy – German physician Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich, who, in addition to looking eerily like Luciano Pavarotti, was the first to realize that fever was not itself a disease but a symptom of one.

In 1851, Dr. Wunderlich released his measurements of more than 1 million body temperatures taken from 25,000 Germans – a painstaking process at the time, which employed a foot-long thermometer and took 20 minutes to obtain a measurement.

The average temperature measured, of course, was 37° C.

We’re more than 150 years post-Wunderlich right now, and the average person in the United States might be quite a bit different from the average German in 1850. Moreover, we can do a lot better than just measuring a ton of people and taking the average, because we have statistics. The problem with measuring a bunch of people and taking the average temperature as normal is that you can’t be sure that the people you are measuring are normal. There are obvious causes of elevated temperature that you could exclude. Let’s not take people with a respiratory infection or who are taking Tylenol, for example. But as highlighted in this paper in JAMA Internal Medicine, we can do a lot better than that.

The study leverages the fact that body temperature is typically measured during all medical office visits and recorded in the ever-present electronic medical record.

Researchers from Stanford identified 724,199 patient encounters with outpatient temperature data. They excluded extreme temperatures – less than 34° C or greater than 40° C – excluded patients under 20 or above 80 years, and excluded those with extremes of height, weight, or body mass index.

You end up with a distribution like this. Note that the peak is clearly lower than 37° C.

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Across all industries, studies by the U.S. Department of Labor have shown that women, on average, earn 83.7 percent of what their male peers earn. While a lot has been written about the struggles women face in medicine, there have been decidedly fewer analyses that focus on women who choose to become mothers while working in medicine.

Elina Maymind

I’ve been privileged to work with medical students and residents for the last 8 years as the director of graduate and medical student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. Often, the women I see as patients speak about their struggles with the elusive goal of “having it all.” While both men and women in medicine have difficulty maintaining a work-life balance, I’ve learned, both personally and professionally, that many women face a unique set of challenges.

No matter what their professional status, our society often views a woman as the default parent. For example, the teacher often calls the mothers first. The camp nurse calls me first, not my husband, when our child scrapes a knee. After-school play dates are arranged by the mothers, not fathers.

But mothers also bring to medicine a wealth of unique experiences, ideas, and viewpoints. They learn firsthand how to foster affect regulation and frustration tolerance in their kids and become efficient at managing the constant, conflicting tug of war of demands.

Some may argue that, over time, women end up earning significantly less than their male counterparts because they leave the workforce while on maternity leave, ultimately delaying their upward career progression. It’s likely a much more complex problem. Many of my patients believe that, in our male-dominated society (and workforce), women are punished for being aggressive or stating bold opinions, while men are rewarded for the same actions. While a man may sound forceful and in charge, a women will likely be thought of as brusque and unappreciative.

Outside of work, many women may have more on their plate. A 2020 Gallup poll of more than 3,000 heterosexual couples found that women are responsible for the majority of household chores. Women continue to handle more of the emotional labor within their families, regardless of income, age, or professional status. This is sometimes called the “Mental Load’ or “Second Shift.” As our society continues to view women as the default parent for childcare, medical issues, and overarching social and emotional tasks vital to raising happy, healthy children, the struggle a female medical professional feels is palpable.

Despite the very real and difficult challenges in finding a perfect balance and having it all, both at home and at work, the role of mother and physician must be intimately intertwined. Raising kids requires a parent to consistently dole out control, predictability, and reassurance for a child to thrive. Good limit and boundary setting leads to healthy development from a young age.

Psychiatric patients (and perhaps all patients) also require control, predictability, and reassurance from their doctor. The lessons learned in being a good mother can be directly applied in patient care, and vice versa. The cross-pollination of this relationship continues to grow more powerful as a woman’s children grow and her career matures.

Pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s idea of a “good enough” mother cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Women who self-select into the world of medicine often hold themselves to a higher standard than “good enough.” Acknowledging that the demands from both home and work will fluctuate is key to achieving success both personally and professionally, and lessons from home can and should be utilized to become a more effective physician. The notion of having it all, and the definition of success, must evolve over time.

Dr. Maymind is director of medical and graduate student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. She has no relevant disclosures.

Across all industries, studies by the U.S. Department of Labor have shown that women, on average, earn 83.7 percent of what their male peers earn. While a lot has been written about the struggles women face in medicine, there have been decidedly fewer analyses that focus on women who choose to become mothers while working in medicine.

Elina Maymind

I’ve been privileged to work with medical students and residents for the last 8 years as the director of graduate and medical student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. Often, the women I see as patients speak about their struggles with the elusive goal of “having it all.” While both men and women in medicine have difficulty maintaining a work-life balance, I’ve learned, both personally and professionally, that many women face a unique set of challenges.

No matter what their professional status, our society often views a woman as the default parent. For example, the teacher often calls the mothers first. The camp nurse calls me first, not my husband, when our child scrapes a knee. After-school play dates are arranged by the mothers, not fathers.

But mothers also bring to medicine a wealth of unique experiences, ideas, and viewpoints. They learn firsthand how to foster affect regulation and frustration tolerance in their kids and become efficient at managing the constant, conflicting tug of war of demands.

Some may argue that, over time, women end up earning significantly less than their male counterparts because they leave the workforce while on maternity leave, ultimately delaying their upward career progression. It’s likely a much more complex problem. Many of my patients believe that, in our male-dominated society (and workforce), women are punished for being aggressive or stating bold opinions, while men are rewarded for the same actions. While a man may sound forceful and in charge, a women will likely be thought of as brusque and unappreciative.

Outside of work, many women may have more on their plate. A 2020 Gallup poll of more than 3,000 heterosexual couples found that women are responsible for the majority of household chores. Women continue to handle more of the emotional labor within their families, regardless of income, age, or professional status. This is sometimes called the “Mental Load’ or “Second Shift.” As our society continues to view women as the default parent for childcare, medical issues, and overarching social and emotional tasks vital to raising happy, healthy children, the struggle a female medical professional feels is palpable.

Despite the very real and difficult challenges in finding a perfect balance and having it all, both at home and at work, the role of mother and physician must be intimately intertwined. Raising kids requires a parent to consistently dole out control, predictability, and reassurance for a child to thrive. Good limit and boundary setting leads to healthy development from a young age.

Psychiatric patients (and perhaps all patients) also require control, predictability, and reassurance from their doctor. The lessons learned in being a good mother can be directly applied in patient care, and vice versa. The cross-pollination of this relationship continues to grow more powerful as a woman’s children grow and her career matures.

Pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s idea of a “good enough” mother cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Women who self-select into the world of medicine often hold themselves to a higher standard than “good enough.” Acknowledging that the demands from both home and work will fluctuate is key to achieving success both personally and professionally, and lessons from home can and should be utilized to become a more effective physician. The notion of having it all, and the definition of success, must evolve over time.

Dr. Maymind is director of medical and graduate student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. She has no relevant disclosures.

Across all industries, studies by the U.S. Department of Labor have shown that women, on average, earn 83.7 percent of what their male peers earn. While a lot has been written about the struggles women face in medicine, there have been decidedly fewer analyses that focus on women who choose to become mothers while working in medicine.

Elina Maymind

I’ve been privileged to work with medical students and residents for the last 8 years as the director of graduate and medical student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. Often, the women I see as patients speak about their struggles with the elusive goal of “having it all.” While both men and women in medicine have difficulty maintaining a work-life balance, I’ve learned, both personally and professionally, that many women face a unique set of challenges.

No matter what their professional status, our society often views a woman as the default parent. For example, the teacher often calls the mothers first. The camp nurse calls me first, not my husband, when our child scrapes a knee. After-school play dates are arranged by the mothers, not fathers.

But mothers also bring to medicine a wealth of unique experiences, ideas, and viewpoints. They learn firsthand how to foster affect regulation and frustration tolerance in their kids and become efficient at managing the constant, conflicting tug of war of demands.

Some may argue that, over time, women end up earning significantly less than their male counterparts because they leave the workforce while on maternity leave, ultimately delaying their upward career progression. It’s likely a much more complex problem. Many of my patients believe that, in our male-dominated society (and workforce), women are punished for being aggressive or stating bold opinions, while men are rewarded for the same actions. While a man may sound forceful and in charge, a women will likely be thought of as brusque and unappreciative.

Outside of work, many women may have more on their plate. A 2020 Gallup poll of more than 3,000 heterosexual couples found that women are responsible for the majority of household chores. Women continue to handle more of the emotional labor within their families, regardless of income, age, or professional status. This is sometimes called the “Mental Load’ or “Second Shift.” As our society continues to view women as the default parent for childcare, medical issues, and overarching social and emotional tasks vital to raising happy, healthy children, the struggle a female medical professional feels is palpable.

Despite the very real and difficult challenges in finding a perfect balance and having it all, both at home and at work, the role of mother and physician must be intimately intertwined. Raising kids requires a parent to consistently dole out control, predictability, and reassurance for a child to thrive. Good limit and boundary setting leads to healthy development from a young age.

Psychiatric patients (and perhaps all patients) also require control, predictability, and reassurance from their doctor. The lessons learned in being a good mother can be directly applied in patient care, and vice versa. The cross-pollination of this relationship continues to grow more powerful as a woman’s children grow and her career matures.

Pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s idea of a “good enough” mother cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Women who self-select into the world of medicine often hold themselves to a higher standard than “good enough.” Acknowledging that the demands from both home and work will fluctuate is key to achieving success both personally and professionally, and lessons from home can and should be utilized to become a more effective physician. The notion of having it all, and the definition of success, must evolve over time.

Dr. Maymind is director of medical and graduate student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. She has no relevant disclosures.

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

In a case series of 17 men with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), almost half had a family history of alopecia, most were Black, and the most common symptom was scalp pruritus.

Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 17 male patients with a clinical diagnosis of CCCA who were seen at University of Pennsylvania outpatient clinics between 2012 and 2022. They excluded patients who had no scalp biopsy or if the scalp biopsy features limited characterization. Temitayo Ogunleye, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, led the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

CCCA, a type of scarring alopecia, most often affects women of African descent, and published data on the demographics, clinical findings, and medical histories of CCCA in men are limited, according to the authors.

The average age of the men was 43 years and 88.2% were Black, similar to women with CCCA, who tend to be middle-aged and Black. The four most common symptoms were scalp pruritus (58.8%), lesions (29.4%), pain or tenderness (23.5%), and hair thinning (23.5%). None of the men had type 2 diabetes (considered a possible CCCA risk factor), but 47.1% had a family history of alopecia. The four most common CCCA distributions were classic (47.1%), occipital (17.6%), patchy (11.8%), and posterior vertex (11.8%).

“Larger studies are needed to fully elucidate these relationships and explore etiology in males with CCCA,” the researchers wrote. “Nonetheless, we hope the data will prompt clinicians to assess for CCCA and risk factors in adult males with scarring alopecia.”

Limitations of the study included the retrospective, single-center design, and small sample size.

The researchers reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a case series of 17 men with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), almost half had a family history of alopecia, most were Black, and the most common symptom was scalp pruritus.

Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 17 male patients with a clinical diagnosis of CCCA who were seen at University of Pennsylvania outpatient clinics between 2012 and 2022. They excluded patients who had no scalp biopsy or if the scalp biopsy features limited characterization. Temitayo Ogunleye, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, led the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

CCCA, a type of scarring alopecia, most often affects women of African descent, and published data on the demographics, clinical findings, and medical histories of CCCA in men are limited, according to the authors.

The average age of the men was 43 years and 88.2% were Black, similar to women with CCCA, who tend to be middle-aged and Black. The four most common symptoms were scalp pruritus (58.8%), lesions (29.4%), pain or tenderness (23.5%), and hair thinning (23.5%). None of the men had type 2 diabetes (considered a possible CCCA risk factor), but 47.1% had a family history of alopecia. The four most common CCCA distributions were classic (47.1%), occipital (17.6%), patchy (11.8%), and posterior vertex (11.8%).

“Larger studies are needed to fully elucidate these relationships and explore etiology in males with CCCA,” the researchers wrote. “Nonetheless, we hope the data will prompt clinicians to assess for CCCA and risk factors in adult males with scarring alopecia.”

Limitations of the study included the retrospective, single-center design, and small sample size.

The researchers reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a case series of 17 men with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), almost half had a family history of alopecia, most were Black, and the most common symptom was scalp pruritus.

Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 17 male patients with a clinical diagnosis of CCCA who were seen at University of Pennsylvania outpatient clinics between 2012 and 2022. They excluded patients who had no scalp biopsy or if the scalp biopsy features limited characterization. Temitayo Ogunleye, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, led the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

CCCA, a type of scarring alopecia, most often affects women of African descent, and published data on the demographics, clinical findings, and medical histories of CCCA in men are limited, according to the authors.

The average age of the men was 43 years and 88.2% were Black, similar to women with CCCA, who tend to be middle-aged and Black. The four most common symptoms were scalp pruritus (58.8%), lesions (29.4%), pain or tenderness (23.5%), and hair thinning (23.5%). None of the men had type 2 diabetes (considered a possible CCCA risk factor), but 47.1% had a family history of alopecia. The four most common CCCA distributions were classic (47.1%), occipital (17.6%), patchy (11.8%), and posterior vertex (11.8%).

“Larger studies are needed to fully elucidate these relationships and explore etiology in males with CCCA,” the researchers wrote. “Nonetheless, we hope the data will prompt clinicians to assess for CCCA and risk factors in adult males with scarring alopecia.”

Limitations of the study included the retrospective, single-center design, and small sample size.

The researchers reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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