Opinion

During peak group A streptococcal pharyngitis (GAS) season, are we using the best tools in the best way?

It’s wintertime, peak season for GAS pharyngitis, and you’d think that this far into the 21st century we would have a foolproof process for diagnosing which among the many patients with pharyngitis have true GAS pharyngitis. Thinking back to the 1980s, we have come a long way from simple throat cultures for detecting GAS, e.g., numerous point of care (POC) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), waved rapid antigen detection tests (RADT), and numerous highly sensitive molecular assays, e.g. nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). But if you think the issues surrounding management of GAS pharyngitis have been solved by these newer tests, think again.

 

Several good reviews^1-3 are excellent resources for those wishing a refresher on GAS diagnosis/management issues. They present nitty gritty details on comparative advantages/disadvantages of the many testing options while reminding us of the nuts and bolts of GAS pharyngitis. The following are a few nuggets from these articles. 

Properly collected throat specimen. A quality throat specimen involves swabbing both tonsillar pillars plus posterior pharynx without touching tongue or inner cheeks. Two swab collections increase sensitivity by almost 10% compared with a single swab. Transport media is preferred if samples will not be cultured within 24 hours. Caveat: RADT testing of a transport media-diluted sample lowers sensitivity compared with direct swab use.

Reliable GAS detection. Commercially available tests in 2025 are well studied. Culture is considered a gold standard for detecting clinically relevant GAS by CDC.⁴ Culture has good sensitivity (estimated 80%-90% varying among studies and by quality of specimens) and 99% specificity but requires 16-24 hours for results. RADT solves the time-delay issues and has near 100% specificity but sensitivity used to be as low as 65%, hence the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline recommendation for backup throat culture for negative tests.⁵ However, current RADT have sensitivities in the 85%-90% range.^3,4 So a positive RADT reliably and quickly indicates GAS antigens are present. NAAT have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity, near 100% for each, and a positive reliably indicates GAS nucleic acids are present.

So why not simply always use NAAT? First, it’s a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. NAAT can, and do, detect dead remnants and colonizing GAS way more than culture.^2,3 So NAAT are overly sensitive, adding an extra layer of interpretation difficulty, ie, as many as 20% of positive NAAT detections may be carriers or dead GAS. Second, NAAT often requires special instrumentation and kits are more expensive. That said, reimbursement is often higher for NAAT. 

Choice based on accuracy in detecting GAS. If time delays were not a problem, culture would still seem the answer. If more rapid detection is needed, either RADT with culture back up or NAAT could be the answer. That said, consider that in the real world, throat cultures are less sensitive and RADT are less specific than indicated by some published data.⁶ So, the ideal answer, it seems, would be NAAT GAS detection coupled with a confirmatory biomarker of GAS infection. Such innate immune biomarkers may be on the horizon.³

But first, pretest screening. In 2025 what do we do with a positive result? Do we prescribe antibiotics? Do we think the detected GAS bacteria/antigens/nucleic acids represent the cause of the pharyngitis? Or did we just detect dead GAS or even a carrier, while a virus is the true cause? Challenges for this decision include most pharyngitis (up to 70%) being due to viruses, not GAS, plus up to 20% of GAS detections even by less sensitive culture or RADT can be carriers, plus an added 10%-20% of RADT and NAAT detections are dead GAS. Thus, with indiscriminate testing of all pharyngitis patients, the number of truly positive GAS detections that are actually “false positives” (GAS in some form is present but not causing pharyngitis) may be almost as high as for those representing true GAS pharyngitis. 

Some tool is needed to minimize testing patients who are likely to have viral pharyngitis to reduce test-positive/GAS-pharyngitis-negative scenarios. Pretest patient screening therefore is critical to increase the positive predictive value of positive GAS testing results. The history and physical can be helpful. In the simplest form of pretest screening, eliminate those younger than 3 years old^* or those with viral type sign/symptoms, eg conjunctivitis, cough, coryza.⁷ This could cut “false” positives by as much as a half. More complete validated scoring systems are also available but remain imperfect. The most published is the McIsaac score (modified Centor score).^3-5,8 (See Table and Figure.) 

However, even with this validated scoring system, misdiagnoses and some antibiotic misuse will likely occur, particularly if the controversial option to treat a patient with a score above 4 without testing is used. For example, a 2004 study in patients older than 3 years old revealed that 45% with a score above 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis. (McIsaac et al.) A 2012 study showed similar potential overdiagnosis from using the score without testing (45% with > 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis). Of note, clinical scores of below 2 comprised up to 10% and would be neither tested nor treated. (Figure.)

 

Best clinical judgment. Regardless of the chosen test, we still need to interpret positive results, ie, use best clinical judgment. We know that even with pretest screening some positives tests will represent carriers or nonviable GAS. Yet true GAS pharyngitis needs antibiotic treatment to minimize nonpyogenic and pyogenic complications, plus reduce contagion/transmission risk and days of illness. Thus, we are forced to use best clinical judgment when considering if what could be GAS pharyngitis, particularly exudative pharyngitis, could actually be due to EBV, adenovirus, or gonococcus, each of which can mimic GAS findings. Differentiating these requires discussion beyond the scope of this article, but clues are often found in the history, the patient’s age, associated symptoms and distribution of tonsillopharyngeal exudate. Likewise Group C and G streptococcal pharyngitis can mimic GAS. Note: A comprehensive throat culture can identify these streptococci but requires a special order and likely a call to the laboratory.

Summary: The age-old problem persists, ie, differentiating the minority (~30%) of pharyngitis cases needing antibiotics from the majority that do not. We all wish to promptly treat true GAS pharyngitis; however our current tools remain imperfect. That said, we should strive to correctly diagnose/manage as many patients with pharyngitis as possible. I, for one, can’t wait until we get a validated biomarker that confirms GAS as the culprit in pharyngitis episodes. In the meantime, most providers likely have clinic or hospital approved pathways for managing GAS pharyngitis, many of which are at least in part based on data from sources for this discussion. If not, a firm foundation for creating one can be found in sources among the reference list below. Finally, if you think such pathways somehow interfere with patient flow, consider that a busy multi-provider private practice successfully integrated pretest screening and a pathway while maintaining patient flow and improving antibiotic stewardship.⁷

*Focal pharyngotonsillar GAS infection is rare in children younger than 3 years old, when GAS nasal passage infection may manifest as streptococcosis.⁹

Dr Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected]. 

References

1. Bannerjee D, Selvarangan RS. The Evolution of Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis Testing. Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Sep 1.

2. Cohen JF et al. Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis in Children: New Perspectives on Rapid Diagnostic Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024 Apr 24;13(4):250-256. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piae0223. 

3. Boyanton Jr BL et al. Current Laboratory and Point-of-Care Pharyngitis Diagnostic Testing and Knowledge Gaps. J Infect Dis. 2024 Oct 23;230(Suppl 3):S182–S189. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae415.

4. Group A Strep Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024, Mar 1.

5. Shulman ST et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis: 2012 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;55(10):e86-102. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis629.

6. Rao A et al. Diagnosis and Antibiotic Treatment of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Children in a Primary Care Setting: Impact of Point-of-Care Polymerase Chain Reaction. BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jan 16;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1393-y.

7. Norton LE et al. Improving Guideline-Based Streptococcal Pharyngitis Testing: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Pediatrics. 2018 Jul;142(1):e20172033. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2033.

8. MD+ Calc website. Centor Score (Modified/McIsaac) for Strep Pharyngitis. 

9. Langlois DM, Andreae M. Group A Streptococcal Infections. Pediatr Rev. 2011 Oct;32(10):423-9; quiz 430. doi: 10.1542/pir.32-10-423.

During peak group A streptococcal pharyngitis (GAS) season, are we using the best tools in the best way?

It’s wintertime, peak season for GAS pharyngitis, and you’d think that this far into the 21st century we would have a foolproof process for diagnosing which among the many patients with pharyngitis have true GAS pharyngitis. Thinking back to the 1980s, we have come a long way from simple throat cultures for detecting GAS, e.g., numerous point of care (POC) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), waved rapid antigen detection tests (RADT), and numerous highly sensitive molecular assays, e.g. nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). But if you think the issues surrounding management of GAS pharyngitis have been solved by these newer tests, think again.

 

Several good reviews^1-3 are excellent resources for those wishing a refresher on GAS diagnosis/management issues. They present nitty gritty details on comparative advantages/disadvantages of the many testing options while reminding us of the nuts and bolts of GAS pharyngitis. The following are a few nuggets from these articles. 

Properly collected throat specimen. A quality throat specimen involves swabbing both tonsillar pillars plus posterior pharynx without touching tongue or inner cheeks. Two swab collections increase sensitivity by almost 10% compared with a single swab. Transport media is preferred if samples will not be cultured within 24 hours. Caveat: RADT testing of a transport media-diluted sample lowers sensitivity compared with direct swab use.

Reliable GAS detection. Commercially available tests in 2025 are well studied. Culture is considered a gold standard for detecting clinically relevant GAS by CDC.⁴ Culture has good sensitivity (estimated 80%-90% varying among studies and by quality of specimens) and 99% specificity but requires 16-24 hours for results. RADT solves the time-delay issues and has near 100% specificity but sensitivity used to be as low as 65%, hence the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline recommendation for backup throat culture for negative tests.⁵ However, current RADT have sensitivities in the 85%-90% range.^3,4 So a positive RADT reliably and quickly indicates GAS antigens are present. NAAT have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity, near 100% for each, and a positive reliably indicates GAS nucleic acids are present.

So why not simply always use NAAT? First, it’s a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. NAAT can, and do, detect dead remnants and colonizing GAS way more than culture.^2,3 So NAAT are overly sensitive, adding an extra layer of interpretation difficulty, ie, as many as 20% of positive NAAT detections may be carriers or dead GAS. Second, NAAT often requires special instrumentation and kits are more expensive. That said, reimbursement is often higher for NAAT. 

Choice based on accuracy in detecting GAS. If time delays were not a problem, culture would still seem the answer. If more rapid detection is needed, either RADT with culture back up or NAAT could be the answer. That said, consider that in the real world, throat cultures are less sensitive and RADT are less specific than indicated by some published data.⁶ So, the ideal answer, it seems, would be NAAT GAS detection coupled with a confirmatory biomarker of GAS infection. Such innate immune biomarkers may be on the horizon.³

But first, pretest screening. In 2025 what do we do with a positive result? Do we prescribe antibiotics? Do we think the detected GAS bacteria/antigens/nucleic acids represent the cause of the pharyngitis? Or did we just detect dead GAS or even a carrier, while a virus is the true cause? Challenges for this decision include most pharyngitis (up to 70%) being due to viruses, not GAS, plus up to 20% of GAS detections even by less sensitive culture or RADT can be carriers, plus an added 10%-20% of RADT and NAAT detections are dead GAS. Thus, with indiscriminate testing of all pharyngitis patients, the number of truly positive GAS detections that are actually “false positives” (GAS in some form is present but not causing pharyngitis) may be almost as high as for those representing true GAS pharyngitis. 

Some tool is needed to minimize testing patients who are likely to have viral pharyngitis to reduce test-positive/GAS-pharyngitis-negative scenarios. Pretest patient screening therefore is critical to increase the positive predictive value of positive GAS testing results. The history and physical can be helpful. In the simplest form of pretest screening, eliminate those younger than 3 years old^* or those with viral type sign/symptoms, eg conjunctivitis, cough, coryza.⁷ This could cut “false” positives by as much as a half. More complete validated scoring systems are also available but remain imperfect. The most published is the McIsaac score (modified Centor score).^3-5,8 (See Table and Figure.) 

However, even with this validated scoring system, misdiagnoses and some antibiotic misuse will likely occur, particularly if the controversial option to treat a patient with a score above 4 without testing is used. For example, a 2004 study in patients older than 3 years old revealed that 45% with a score above 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis. (McIsaac et al.) A 2012 study showed similar potential overdiagnosis from using the score without testing (45% with > 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis). Of note, clinical scores of below 2 comprised up to 10% and would be neither tested nor treated. (Figure.)

 

Best clinical judgment. Regardless of the chosen test, we still need to interpret positive results, ie, use best clinical judgment. We know that even with pretest screening some positives tests will represent carriers or nonviable GAS. Yet true GAS pharyngitis needs antibiotic treatment to minimize nonpyogenic and pyogenic complications, plus reduce contagion/transmission risk and days of illness. Thus, we are forced to use best clinical judgment when considering if what could be GAS pharyngitis, particularly exudative pharyngitis, could actually be due to EBV, adenovirus, or gonococcus, each of which can mimic GAS findings. Differentiating these requires discussion beyond the scope of this article, but clues are often found in the history, the patient’s age, associated symptoms and distribution of tonsillopharyngeal exudate. Likewise Group C and G streptococcal pharyngitis can mimic GAS. Note: A comprehensive throat culture can identify these streptococci but requires a special order and likely a call to the laboratory.

Summary: The age-old problem persists, ie, differentiating the minority (~30%) of pharyngitis cases needing antibiotics from the majority that do not. We all wish to promptly treat true GAS pharyngitis; however our current tools remain imperfect. That said, we should strive to correctly diagnose/manage as many patients with pharyngitis as possible. I, for one, can’t wait until we get a validated biomarker that confirms GAS as the culprit in pharyngitis episodes. In the meantime, most providers likely have clinic or hospital approved pathways for managing GAS pharyngitis, many of which are at least in part based on data from sources for this discussion. If not, a firm foundation for creating one can be found in sources among the reference list below. Finally, if you think such pathways somehow interfere with patient flow, consider that a busy multi-provider private practice successfully integrated pretest screening and a pathway while maintaining patient flow and improving antibiotic stewardship.⁷

*Focal pharyngotonsillar GAS infection is rare in children younger than 3 years old, when GAS nasal passage infection may manifest as streptococcosis.⁹

Dr Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected]. 

References

1. Bannerjee D, Selvarangan RS. The Evolution of Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis Testing. Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Sep 1.

2. Cohen JF et al. Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis in Children: New Perspectives on Rapid Diagnostic Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024 Apr 24;13(4):250-256. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piae0223. 

3. Boyanton Jr BL et al. Current Laboratory and Point-of-Care Pharyngitis Diagnostic Testing and Knowledge Gaps. J Infect Dis. 2024 Oct 23;230(Suppl 3):S182–S189. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae415.

4. Group A Strep Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024, Mar 1.

5. Shulman ST et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis: 2012 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;55(10):e86-102. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis629.

6. Rao A et al. Diagnosis and Antibiotic Treatment of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Children in a Primary Care Setting: Impact of Point-of-Care Polymerase Chain Reaction. BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jan 16;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1393-y.

7. Norton LE et al. Improving Guideline-Based Streptococcal Pharyngitis Testing: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Pediatrics. 2018 Jul;142(1):e20172033. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2033.

8. MD+ Calc website. Centor Score (Modified/McIsaac) for Strep Pharyngitis. 

9. Langlois DM, Andreae M. Group A Streptococcal Infections. Pediatr Rev. 2011 Oct;32(10):423-9; quiz 430. doi: 10.1542/pir.32-10-423.

During peak group A streptococcal pharyngitis (GAS) season, are we using the best tools in the best way?

It’s wintertime, peak season for GAS pharyngitis, and you’d think that this far into the 21st century we would have a foolproof process for diagnosing which among the many patients with pharyngitis have true GAS pharyngitis. Thinking back to the 1980s, we have come a long way from simple throat cultures for detecting GAS, e.g., numerous point of care (POC) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), waved rapid antigen detection tests (RADT), and numerous highly sensitive molecular assays, e.g. nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). But if you think the issues surrounding management of GAS pharyngitis have been solved by these newer tests, think again.

 

Several good reviews^1-3 are excellent resources for those wishing a refresher on GAS diagnosis/management issues. They present nitty gritty details on comparative advantages/disadvantages of the many testing options while reminding us of the nuts and bolts of GAS pharyngitis. The following are a few nuggets from these articles. 

Properly collected throat specimen. A quality throat specimen involves swabbing both tonsillar pillars plus posterior pharynx without touching tongue or inner cheeks. Two swab collections increase sensitivity by almost 10% compared with a single swab. Transport media is preferred if samples will not be cultured within 24 hours. Caveat: RADT testing of a transport media-diluted sample lowers sensitivity compared with direct swab use.

Reliable GAS detection. Commercially available tests in 2025 are well studied. Culture is considered a gold standard for detecting clinically relevant GAS by CDC.⁴ Culture has good sensitivity (estimated 80%-90% varying among studies and by quality of specimens) and 99% specificity but requires 16-24 hours for results. RADT solves the time-delay issues and has near 100% specificity but sensitivity used to be as low as 65%, hence the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline recommendation for backup throat culture for negative tests.⁵ However, current RADT have sensitivities in the 85%-90% range.^3,4 So a positive RADT reliably and quickly indicates GAS antigens are present. NAAT have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity, near 100% for each, and a positive reliably indicates GAS nucleic acids are present.

So why not simply always use NAAT? First, it’s a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. NAAT can, and do, detect dead remnants and colonizing GAS way more than culture.^2,3 So NAAT are overly sensitive, adding an extra layer of interpretation difficulty, ie, as many as 20% of positive NAAT detections may be carriers or dead GAS. Second, NAAT often requires special instrumentation and kits are more expensive. That said, reimbursement is often higher for NAAT. 

Choice based on accuracy in detecting GAS. If time delays were not a problem, culture would still seem the answer. If more rapid detection is needed, either RADT with culture back up or NAAT could be the answer. That said, consider that in the real world, throat cultures are less sensitive and RADT are less specific than indicated by some published data.⁶ So, the ideal answer, it seems, would be NAAT GAS detection coupled with a confirmatory biomarker of GAS infection. Such innate immune biomarkers may be on the horizon.³

But first, pretest screening. In 2025 what do we do with a positive result? Do we prescribe antibiotics? Do we think the detected GAS bacteria/antigens/nucleic acids represent the cause of the pharyngitis? Or did we just detect dead GAS or even a carrier, while a virus is the true cause? Challenges for this decision include most pharyngitis (up to 70%) being due to viruses, not GAS, plus up to 20% of GAS detections even by less sensitive culture or RADT can be carriers, plus an added 10%-20% of RADT and NAAT detections are dead GAS. Thus, with indiscriminate testing of all pharyngitis patients, the number of truly positive GAS detections that are actually “false positives” (GAS in some form is present but not causing pharyngitis) may be almost as high as for those representing true GAS pharyngitis. 

Some tool is needed to minimize testing patients who are likely to have viral pharyngitis to reduce test-positive/GAS-pharyngitis-negative scenarios. Pretest patient screening therefore is critical to increase the positive predictive value of positive GAS testing results. The history and physical can be helpful. In the simplest form of pretest screening, eliminate those younger than 3 years old^* or those with viral type sign/symptoms, eg conjunctivitis, cough, coryza.⁷ This could cut “false” positives by as much as a half. More complete validated scoring systems are also available but remain imperfect. The most published is the McIsaac score (modified Centor score).^3-5,8 (See Table and Figure.) 

However, even with this validated scoring system, misdiagnoses and some antibiotic misuse will likely occur, particularly if the controversial option to treat a patient with a score above 4 without testing is used. For example, a 2004 study in patients older than 3 years old revealed that 45% with a score above 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis. (McIsaac et al.) A 2012 study showed similar potential overdiagnosis from using the score without testing (45% with > 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis). Of note, clinical scores of below 2 comprised up to 10% and would be neither tested nor treated. (Figure.)

 

Best clinical judgment. Regardless of the chosen test, we still need to interpret positive results, ie, use best clinical judgment. We know that even with pretest screening some positives tests will represent carriers or nonviable GAS. Yet true GAS pharyngitis needs antibiotic treatment to minimize nonpyogenic and pyogenic complications, plus reduce contagion/transmission risk and days of illness. Thus, we are forced to use best clinical judgment when considering if what could be GAS pharyngitis, particularly exudative pharyngitis, could actually be due to EBV, adenovirus, or gonococcus, each of which can mimic GAS findings. Differentiating these requires discussion beyond the scope of this article, but clues are often found in the history, the patient’s age, associated symptoms and distribution of tonsillopharyngeal exudate. Likewise Group C and G streptococcal pharyngitis can mimic GAS. Note: A comprehensive throat culture can identify these streptococci but requires a special order and likely a call to the laboratory.

Summary: The age-old problem persists, ie, differentiating the minority (~30%) of pharyngitis cases needing antibiotics from the majority that do not. We all wish to promptly treat true GAS pharyngitis; however our current tools remain imperfect. That said, we should strive to correctly diagnose/manage as many patients with pharyngitis as possible. I, for one, can’t wait until we get a validated biomarker that confirms GAS as the culprit in pharyngitis episodes. In the meantime, most providers likely have clinic or hospital approved pathways for managing GAS pharyngitis, many of which are at least in part based on data from sources for this discussion. If not, a firm foundation for creating one can be found in sources among the reference list below. Finally, if you think such pathways somehow interfere with patient flow, consider that a busy multi-provider private practice successfully integrated pretest screening and a pathway while maintaining patient flow and improving antibiotic stewardship.⁷

*Focal pharyngotonsillar GAS infection is rare in children younger than 3 years old, when GAS nasal passage infection may manifest as streptococcosis.⁹

Dr Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected]. 

References

1. Bannerjee D, Selvarangan RS. The Evolution of Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis Testing. Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Sep 1.

2. Cohen JF et al. Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis in Children: New Perspectives on Rapid Diagnostic Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024 Apr 24;13(4):250-256. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piae0223. 

3. Boyanton Jr BL et al. Current Laboratory and Point-of-Care Pharyngitis Diagnostic Testing and Knowledge Gaps. J Infect Dis. 2024 Oct 23;230(Suppl 3):S182–S189. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae415.

4. Group A Strep Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024, Mar 1.

5. Shulman ST et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis: 2012 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;55(10):e86-102. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis629.

6. Rao A et al. Diagnosis and Antibiotic Treatment of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Children in a Primary Care Setting: Impact of Point-of-Care Polymerase Chain Reaction. BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jan 16;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1393-y.

7. Norton LE et al. Improving Guideline-Based Streptococcal Pharyngitis Testing: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Pediatrics. 2018 Jul;142(1):e20172033. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2033.

8. MD+ Calc website. Centor Score (Modified/McIsaac) for Strep Pharyngitis. 

9. Langlois DM, Andreae M. Group A Streptococcal Infections. Pediatr Rev. 2011 Oct;32(10):423-9; quiz 430. doi: 10.1542/pir.32-10-423.

Most of the papers I review merely validate a relationship that most of us, including the investigators, have already assumed based on common sense. However, every now and then I encounter a study whose findings clearly don’t support the researchers’ initial thesis. The most recent example of this unexpected finding is a paper designed to determine whether the sound of a crying infant would have an effect on a parent’s ability to accurately mix formula.

After a cursory reading of the investigators’ plan, most of us would have assumed from our own difficulties trying to accomplish something while our infant is crying that the crying would have a negative effect on our accuracy. Especially if it was a task that required careful measurement. However, when I skipped ahead to read the paper’s conclusion I was surprised that the investigators could found no significant negative relationship.

The explanation for this counterintuitive finding became readily apparent when I read the details of the study’s design more carefully. The investigators had chosen to use a generic recording of an infant crying, not the parent’s child nor even a live generic child on site.

No one enjoys listening to a child cry. It is certainly not a pleasant sound to the human ear. We seem to be hardwired to find it irritating. But, listening to our own child cry raises an entirely different suite of emotions, particularly if the child is close enough for us to intervene.

I’m not sure exactly what made the investigators choose a generic recording, but I suspect it was less expensive. Otherwise it would have required that the parents agree to subjecting their child to some stimulus that would have predictably induced the child to cry. Fortunately, the investigators were able to regroup in the wake of this lack of common sense in their experimental design and realized that, while their data failed to show a negative association with crying, it did provide an important message. Formula mixing errors, some with potentially harmful consequences, are far too common. In a commentary accompanying this paper, a pediatrician not involved in the study observes that, in our efforts to promote breastfeeding, we have given short shrift to teaching parents about accurate and safe formula preparation. 

But, let’s return to the crying piece. Why is it so difficult for parents to tolerate their own crying infant? Common sense should tell us that we know our infant is helpless. The little child is totally reliant on us to for nutrition and protection from the ever-present environmental threats to its health and safety in the environment. In short, whether we are parents, daycare providers, or the mother’s boyfriend who has been left in charge, we are totally responsible for the life of that infant, at times a heavy burden.

We must accept that from birth some of us are better able to tolerate and function with a crying infant in our care. That example of biologic variability is just one of the reasons why so many families find it difficult to set limits and follow through with consequences. When I have written about and spoken to parents in the office about discipline, I am happy if I can convince both parents to be on the same page (literally sometimes) in how they respond to their crying child.

Helping an infant learn to put itself to sleep is usually the first challenge that requires some agreement between parents on how long they can tolerate crying. Although allowing the infant to cry itself to sleep may be the best and most efficient strategy, it isn’t going to work when two parents and/or caregivers have widely different cry tolerances. In some situations these discrepancies can be managed by having the less tolerant parent temporarily move himself/herself to a location out of earshot. Something often easier said than accomplished.

At the heart of the solution is an acceptance by both parents that differing cry intolerances are not unusual and don’t imply that one partner is a better parent. As advisors we also must accept this reality and help the family find some other solution. Nothing is gained by allowing a disagreement between parents to make an already uncomfortable situation any worse.

While we don’t give out merit badges for it, being able to tolerate one’s own child crying for brief periods of time is a gift that can be helpful in certain situations. It is not a skill listed in the curriculum of most parenting classes, but learning more about what prompts babies to cry can be very helpful. This educational approach is exemplified by a Pediatrics Patient Page in a recent issue of JAMA Pediatrics. It’s rarely hunger and most often is sleep deprivation. It’s rarely the result of an undiscovered injury or medical condition, but may be a response to an overstimulating environment.

For those of us who are advisers, one of our responsibilities is to be alert to those few individuals whose intolerance to crying is so great that they are likely to injure the child or its mother to stop the crying. The simple question at an early well-child visit should be something like “How is everyone in the house when the child starts crying” might save a life. The stereotypic example is the young boyfriend of the mother, who may suspect that he is not the biologic father. However, any parent who is feeling insecure because of a financial situation, poor physical or mental health, or fatigue may lash out to achieve quiet. Crying is one of the realities of infancy. It is our job to help parents cope with it safely.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Most of the papers I review merely validate a relationship that most of us, including the investigators, have already assumed based on common sense. However, every now and then I encounter a study whose findings clearly don’t support the researchers’ initial thesis. The most recent example of this unexpected finding is a paper designed to determine whether the sound of a crying infant would have an effect on a parent’s ability to accurately mix formula.

After a cursory reading of the investigators’ plan, most of us would have assumed from our own difficulties trying to accomplish something while our infant is crying that the crying would have a negative effect on our accuracy. Especially if it was a task that required careful measurement. However, when I skipped ahead to read the paper’s conclusion I was surprised that the investigators could found no significant negative relationship.

The explanation for this counterintuitive finding became readily apparent when I read the details of the study’s design more carefully. The investigators had chosen to use a generic recording of an infant crying, not the parent’s child nor even a live generic child on site.

No one enjoys listening to a child cry. It is certainly not a pleasant sound to the human ear. We seem to be hardwired to find it irritating. But, listening to our own child cry raises an entirely different suite of emotions, particularly if the child is close enough for us to intervene.

I’m not sure exactly what made the investigators choose a generic recording, but I suspect it was less expensive. Otherwise it would have required that the parents agree to subjecting their child to some stimulus that would have predictably induced the child to cry. Fortunately, the investigators were able to regroup in the wake of this lack of common sense in their experimental design and realized that, while their data failed to show a negative association with crying, it did provide an important message. Formula mixing errors, some with potentially harmful consequences, are far too common. In a commentary accompanying this paper, a pediatrician not involved in the study observes that, in our efforts to promote breastfeeding, we have given short shrift to teaching parents about accurate and safe formula preparation. 

But, let’s return to the crying piece. Why is it so difficult for parents to tolerate their own crying infant? Common sense should tell us that we know our infant is helpless. The little child is totally reliant on us to for nutrition and protection from the ever-present environmental threats to its health and safety in the environment. In short, whether we are parents, daycare providers, or the mother’s boyfriend who has been left in charge, we are totally responsible for the life of that infant, at times a heavy burden.

We must accept that from birth some of us are better able to tolerate and function with a crying infant in our care. That example of biologic variability is just one of the reasons why so many families find it difficult to set limits and follow through with consequences. When I have written about and spoken to parents in the office about discipline, I am happy if I can convince both parents to be on the same page (literally sometimes) in how they respond to their crying child.

Helping an infant learn to put itself to sleep is usually the first challenge that requires some agreement between parents on how long they can tolerate crying. Although allowing the infant to cry itself to sleep may be the best and most efficient strategy, it isn’t going to work when two parents and/or caregivers have widely different cry tolerances. In some situations these discrepancies can be managed by having the less tolerant parent temporarily move himself/herself to a location out of earshot. Something often easier said than accomplished.

At the heart of the solution is an acceptance by both parents that differing cry intolerances are not unusual and don’t imply that one partner is a better parent. As advisors we also must accept this reality and help the family find some other solution. Nothing is gained by allowing a disagreement between parents to make an already uncomfortable situation any worse.

While we don’t give out merit badges for it, being able to tolerate one’s own child crying for brief periods of time is a gift that can be helpful in certain situations. It is not a skill listed in the curriculum of most parenting classes, but learning more about what prompts babies to cry can be very helpful. This educational approach is exemplified by a Pediatrics Patient Page in a recent issue of JAMA Pediatrics. It’s rarely hunger and most often is sleep deprivation. It’s rarely the result of an undiscovered injury or medical condition, but may be a response to an overstimulating environment.

For those of us who are advisers, one of our responsibilities is to be alert to those few individuals whose intolerance to crying is so great that they are likely to injure the child or its mother to stop the crying. The simple question at an early well-child visit should be something like “How is everyone in the house when the child starts crying” might save a life. The stereotypic example is the young boyfriend of the mother, who may suspect that he is not the biologic father. However, any parent who is feeling insecure because of a financial situation, poor physical or mental health, or fatigue may lash out to achieve quiet. Crying is one of the realities of infancy. It is our job to help parents cope with it safely.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Most of the papers I review merely validate a relationship that most of us, including the investigators, have already assumed based on common sense. However, every now and then I encounter a study whose findings clearly don’t support the researchers’ initial thesis. The most recent example of this unexpected finding is a paper designed to determine whether the sound of a crying infant would have an effect on a parent’s ability to accurately mix formula.

After a cursory reading of the investigators’ plan, most of us would have assumed from our own difficulties trying to accomplish something while our infant is crying that the crying would have a negative effect on our accuracy. Especially if it was a task that required careful measurement. However, when I skipped ahead to read the paper’s conclusion I was surprised that the investigators could found no significant negative relationship.

The explanation for this counterintuitive finding became readily apparent when I read the details of the study’s design more carefully. The investigators had chosen to use a generic recording of an infant crying, not the parent’s child nor even a live generic child on site.

No one enjoys listening to a child cry. It is certainly not a pleasant sound to the human ear. We seem to be hardwired to find it irritating. But, listening to our own child cry raises an entirely different suite of emotions, particularly if the child is close enough for us to intervene.

I’m not sure exactly what made the investigators choose a generic recording, but I suspect it was less expensive. Otherwise it would have required that the parents agree to subjecting their child to some stimulus that would have predictably induced the child to cry. Fortunately, the investigators were able to regroup in the wake of this lack of common sense in their experimental design and realized that, while their data failed to show a negative association with crying, it did provide an important message. Formula mixing errors, some with potentially harmful consequences, are far too common. In a commentary accompanying this paper, a pediatrician not involved in the study observes that, in our efforts to promote breastfeeding, we have given short shrift to teaching parents about accurate and safe formula preparation. 

But, let’s return to the crying piece. Why is it so difficult for parents to tolerate their own crying infant? Common sense should tell us that we know our infant is helpless. The little child is totally reliant on us to for nutrition and protection from the ever-present environmental threats to its health and safety in the environment. In short, whether we are parents, daycare providers, or the mother’s boyfriend who has been left in charge, we are totally responsible for the life of that infant, at times a heavy burden.

We must accept that from birth some of us are better able to tolerate and function with a crying infant in our care. That example of biologic variability is just one of the reasons why so many families find it difficult to set limits and follow through with consequences. When I have written about and spoken to parents in the office about discipline, I am happy if I can convince both parents to be on the same page (literally sometimes) in how they respond to their crying child.

Helping an infant learn to put itself to sleep is usually the first challenge that requires some agreement between parents on how long they can tolerate crying. Although allowing the infant to cry itself to sleep may be the best and most efficient strategy, it isn’t going to work when two parents and/or caregivers have widely different cry tolerances. In some situations these discrepancies can be managed by having the less tolerant parent temporarily move himself/herself to a location out of earshot. Something often easier said than accomplished.

At the heart of the solution is an acceptance by both parents that differing cry intolerances are not unusual and don’t imply that one partner is a better parent. As advisors we also must accept this reality and help the family find some other solution. Nothing is gained by allowing a disagreement between parents to make an already uncomfortable situation any worse.

While we don’t give out merit badges for it, being able to tolerate one’s own child crying for brief periods of time is a gift that can be helpful in certain situations. It is not a skill listed in the curriculum of most parenting classes, but learning more about what prompts babies to cry can be very helpful. This educational approach is exemplified by a Pediatrics Patient Page in a recent issue of JAMA Pediatrics. It’s rarely hunger and most often is sleep deprivation. It’s rarely the result of an undiscovered injury or medical condition, but may be a response to an overstimulating environment.

For those of us who are advisers, one of our responsibilities is to be alert to those few individuals whose intolerance to crying is so great that they are likely to injure the child or its mother to stop the crying. The simple question at an early well-child visit should be something like “How is everyone in the house when the child starts crying” might save a life. The stereotypic example is the young boyfriend of the mother, who may suspect that he is not the biologic father. However, any parent who is feeling insecure because of a financial situation, poor physical or mental health, or fatigue may lash out to achieve quiet. Crying is one of the realities of infancy. It is our job to help parents cope with it safely.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

At the close of 2024, to an odd mix of disappointment and jubilation, Cassava Sciences announced that simufilam didn’t do anything for Alzheimer’s disease.

An Alzheimer’s drug trial failing is, unfortunately, nothing new. This one, however, had more baggage behind it than most.

Like all of these things, it was worth a try. It’s an interesting molecule with a reasonable mechanism of action.

 

But the trials have been raising questions for a few years, with allegations of misconduct against the drug’s co-discoverer Hoau-Yan Wang. He’s been indicted for defrauding the National Institutes of Health of $16 million in grants related to the drug. There have been concerns over doctored images and other not-so-minor issues in trying to move simufilam forward. Cassava itself agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $40 million in 2024 to settle charges about misleading investors.

Yet, like an innocent child with criminal parents, many of us hoped that the drug would work, regardless of the ethical shenanigans behind it. On the front lines we deal with a tragic disease that robs people of what makes them human and robs the families who have to live with it.

As the wheels started to come off the bus I told a friend, “it would be really sad if this drug is THE ONE and it never gets to finish trials because of everything else.”

Now we know it isn’t. Regardless of the controversy, the final data show that simufilam is just another placebo, joining the ranks of many others in the Alzheimer’s development graveyard.

Yes, there is a vague sense of jubilation behind it. I believe in fair play, and it’s good to know that those who misled investors and falsified data were wrong and will never have their day in the sun.

At the same time, however, I’m disappointed. I’m happy that the drug at least got a chance to prove itself, but when it’s all said and done, it doesn’t do anything.

I feel bad for the innocent people in the company, who had nothing to do with the scheming and were just hoping the drug would go somewhere. The majority, if not all, of them will likely lose their jobs. Like me, they have families, bills, and mortgages.

But I’m even more disappointed for the patients and families who only wanted an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, and were hoping that, regardless of its dirty laundry, simufilam would work.

They’re the ones that I, and many other neurologists, have to face every day when they ask “is there anything new out?” and we sadly shake our heads.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

At the close of 2024, to an odd mix of disappointment and jubilation, Cassava Sciences announced that simufilam didn’t do anything for Alzheimer’s disease.

An Alzheimer’s drug trial failing is, unfortunately, nothing new. This one, however, had more baggage behind it than most.

Like all of these things, it was worth a try. It’s an interesting molecule with a reasonable mechanism of action.

 

But the trials have been raising questions for a few years, with allegations of misconduct against the drug’s co-discoverer Hoau-Yan Wang. He’s been indicted for defrauding the National Institutes of Health of $16 million in grants related to the drug. There have been concerns over doctored images and other not-so-minor issues in trying to move simufilam forward. Cassava itself agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $40 million in 2024 to settle charges about misleading investors.

Yet, like an innocent child with criminal parents, many of us hoped that the drug would work, regardless of the ethical shenanigans behind it. On the front lines we deal with a tragic disease that robs people of what makes them human and robs the families who have to live with it.

As the wheels started to come off the bus I told a friend, “it would be really sad if this drug is THE ONE and it never gets to finish trials because of everything else.”

Now we know it isn’t. Regardless of the controversy, the final data show that simufilam is just another placebo, joining the ranks of many others in the Alzheimer’s development graveyard.

Yes, there is a vague sense of jubilation behind it. I believe in fair play, and it’s good to know that those who misled investors and falsified data were wrong and will never have their day in the sun.

At the same time, however, I’m disappointed. I’m happy that the drug at least got a chance to prove itself, but when it’s all said and done, it doesn’t do anything.

I feel bad for the innocent people in the company, who had nothing to do with the scheming and were just hoping the drug would go somewhere. The majority, if not all, of them will likely lose their jobs. Like me, they have families, bills, and mortgages.

But I’m even more disappointed for the patients and families who only wanted an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, and were hoping that, regardless of its dirty laundry, simufilam would work.

They’re the ones that I, and many other neurologists, have to face every day when they ask “is there anything new out?” and we sadly shake our heads.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

At the close of 2024, to an odd mix of disappointment and jubilation, Cassava Sciences announced that simufilam didn’t do anything for Alzheimer’s disease.

An Alzheimer’s drug trial failing is, unfortunately, nothing new. This one, however, had more baggage behind it than most.

Like all of these things, it was worth a try. It’s an interesting molecule with a reasonable mechanism of action.

 

But the trials have been raising questions for a few years, with allegations of misconduct against the drug’s co-discoverer Hoau-Yan Wang. He’s been indicted for defrauding the National Institutes of Health of $16 million in grants related to the drug. There have been concerns over doctored images and other not-so-minor issues in trying to move simufilam forward. Cassava itself agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $40 million in 2024 to settle charges about misleading investors.

Yet, like an innocent child with criminal parents, many of us hoped that the drug would work, regardless of the ethical shenanigans behind it. On the front lines we deal with a tragic disease that robs people of what makes them human and robs the families who have to live with it.

As the wheels started to come off the bus I told a friend, “it would be really sad if this drug is THE ONE and it never gets to finish trials because of everything else.”

Now we know it isn’t. Regardless of the controversy, the final data show that simufilam is just another placebo, joining the ranks of many others in the Alzheimer’s development graveyard.

Yes, there is a vague sense of jubilation behind it. I believe in fair play, and it’s good to know that those who misled investors and falsified data were wrong and will never have their day in the sun.

At the same time, however, I’m disappointed. I’m happy that the drug at least got a chance to prove itself, but when it’s all said and done, it doesn’t do anything.

I feel bad for the innocent people in the company, who had nothing to do with the scheming and were just hoping the drug would go somewhere. The majority, if not all, of them will likely lose their jobs. Like me, they have families, bills, and mortgages.

But I’m even more disappointed for the patients and families who only wanted an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, and were hoping that, regardless of its dirty laundry, simufilam would work.

They’re the ones that I, and many other neurologists, have to face every day when they ask “is there anything new out?” and we sadly shake our heads.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Blood pressure. If you’re a primary care provider trying to do right by your patients, you might be understandably confused by the current mishmash of guidelines with different blood pressure targets. But as chaotic as things are, at least it’s not the 1930s, when you might hear John Hay give a lecture to the British Medical Association and say, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

Yeah, he said that. But what happened in the 1930s stays in the 1930s. And now we can at least agree that we should be treating high blood pressure. But what’s the goal we should be aiming for? This is On Second Thought. 

We’ve come a long way since FDR was recording blood pressures of 200 and his doctor prescribed him barbiturates and massage therapy.

That s#$# don’t fly no more. Over the past hundred years, we have become much more aggressive in treating blood pressure. Remember the Oslo study? It defined mild hypertension as a blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg. Now, those numbers send people screaming to the emergency room. So, let’s acknowledge that things are substantially better than they once were. Let’s agree on that and we can start to heal this nation again. 

Before we get into the numbers, when we’re treating blood pressure, let’s make a few points about measuring it. Obviously, to treat something, you have to measure it properly. Two recent trials have illustrated that these details matter a lot.

The Cuff(SZ) randomized crossover trial — and it took me a minute to realize that Cuff(SZ) meant cuff size, so bravo, Ishigami et al — showed that picking the wrong cuff size could affect BP measurements by 4.5 points if you were one size off. If you were two sizes too small, you overestimated BP by almost 20 points.

Add on here another recent study, the ARMS crossover randomized clinical trial, looking at how arm position affected BP measures. If the arm was resting on your lap or hanging by your side, that overestimated blood pressure by 4 and 6.5 points. So sometimes you have to remember the fundamentals: cuff size, arm position — it might make the difference between increasing or maintaining the patient’s meds.

But on to the main show. What numbers should we be aiming for? We no longer live in the “BP 200, the president’s going to have a stroke” world of the 1940s, and even a BP of 150 is considered quite high these days. Studies like the MRC trial, INVEST, and SPRINT have pushed BP targets ever lower. SPRINT, in particular, randomized patients to a blood pressure target under 120 systolic vs under 140 systolic, and the under-120 arm won out with fewer cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality.

Pretty definitive slam dunk. But the more intensive treatment came with more hypotension, syncope, and kidney injury, because there is no free lunch in medicine. And ditto with BPROAD, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the American Heart Association annual meeting. A diabetic population randomized to 120 vs 140 as a BP target showed that more aggressive treatment was better.

Fewer cardiovascular events, like stroke, but no mortality difference, and more hypotension. So a cardiovascular benefit at the cost of more side effects. Now, like all cardiologists, my motto is “Save the heart and screw the kidney.” But if you do care about the other organs in this meat sack that we call a human body, the question you need to wrestle with is, how much do you value cardiovascular protection vs how willing are you to tolerate side effects?

Hypotension may not sound dangerous, but gravity is an unforgiving mistress. If you painstakingly compile the summary of the various BP guidelines for easy perusal, you would notice something critical: One, I have too much free time on my hands; two, the disagreements are not really all that profound.

Arguing about 120 vs 130 vs 140 is not the same as saying, “Drugs schmugs; a good massage will fix what ails you, and here are some addictive sleeping pills for good measure.” Physicians from the 1930s were a little sketchy. So much of this controversy is about how you define high-risk patients and what are the age cutoffs.

Basically, the cardiovascular guidelines say, “Treat them all and let God sort it out” because they care about cardiovascular events and are concerned about cardiovascular endpoints. Whereas general practice guidelines put more emphasis on potential side effects and admittedly tend to treat a not so high-risk population, so they have laxer targets.

A 2014 analysis from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration [The Lancet] had a good mathematical way of explaining this problem. Now, lowering blood pressure is obviously a good thing. That prevents heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, and all that. Please don’t let hypertension denialism become a thing.

Let’s start with the basics. Treating high blood pressure led to a 15% to 18% decrease in cardiovascular events, pretty consistently across all risk categories, and other analyses have found that every 5-point decrease in blood pressure gives you about a 10% decrease in major cardiovascular events on the relative-risk scale. 

While the benefits are pretty consistent across all groups, that difference in baseline risk translates into different absolute benefits. In the Lancet paper, when the population was divided into four different groups based on their cardiovascular risk, the absolute risk reduction in the lowest-risk group was 14 fewer cardiovascular events if you treat 1000 patients for 5 years.

With each higher-risk group, it was 20 fewer, 24 fewer, and 38 fewer. At the lowest-risk group, the number needed to treat was 71, 50, 42, and 26 fewer cardiovascular events with 5 years of treatment. 

And herein lies the secret to the disagreement: If you have a high-risk patient, there is a big benefit to bringing that blood pressure down from 135 to 130. Whereas for a low-risk patient, it probably doesn’t matter as much. And the cardiovascular benefits are going to be offset by the side effects and the risks for hypotension. 

Of course, there’s a simple solution to this dilemma: Just speak to the patient in front of you. Treat high blood pressure, and if your patient’s blood pressure drops or they get dizzy or have fainting spells, then just ease up on the meds. It’s not rocket science; it’s just cardiology. 

Arguing about five millimeters of mercury of blood pressure is probably less important from the public health perspective than the fact that tens of millions of people in the United States are unaware that they have hypertension, and even those diagnosed are being inadequately treated.

So, let’s all do better as a medical community. Nobody should have untreated hypertension in this day and age. It’s not the 1930s. 
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Blood pressure. If you’re a primary care provider trying to do right by your patients, you might be understandably confused by the current mishmash of guidelines with different blood pressure targets. But as chaotic as things are, at least it’s not the 1930s, when you might hear John Hay give a lecture to the British Medical Association and say, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

Yeah, he said that. But what happened in the 1930s stays in the 1930s. And now we can at least agree that we should be treating high blood pressure. But what’s the goal we should be aiming for? This is On Second Thought. 

We’ve come a long way since FDR was recording blood pressures of 200 and his doctor prescribed him barbiturates and massage therapy.

That s#$# don’t fly no more. Over the past hundred years, we have become much more aggressive in treating blood pressure. Remember the Oslo study? It defined mild hypertension as a blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg. Now, those numbers send people screaming to the emergency room. So, let’s acknowledge that things are substantially better than they once were. Let’s agree on that and we can start to heal this nation again. 

Before we get into the numbers, when we’re treating blood pressure, let’s make a few points about measuring it. Obviously, to treat something, you have to measure it properly. Two recent trials have illustrated that these details matter a lot.

The Cuff(SZ) randomized crossover trial — and it took me a minute to realize that Cuff(SZ) meant cuff size, so bravo, Ishigami et al — showed that picking the wrong cuff size could affect BP measurements by 4.5 points if you were one size off. If you were two sizes too small, you overestimated BP by almost 20 points.

Add on here another recent study, the ARMS crossover randomized clinical trial, looking at how arm position affected BP measures. If the arm was resting on your lap or hanging by your side, that overestimated blood pressure by 4 and 6.5 points. So sometimes you have to remember the fundamentals: cuff size, arm position — it might make the difference between increasing or maintaining the patient’s meds.

But on to the main show. What numbers should we be aiming for? We no longer live in the “BP 200, the president’s going to have a stroke” world of the 1940s, and even a BP of 150 is considered quite high these days. Studies like the MRC trial, INVEST, and SPRINT have pushed BP targets ever lower. SPRINT, in particular, randomized patients to a blood pressure target under 120 systolic vs under 140 systolic, and the under-120 arm won out with fewer cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality.

Pretty definitive slam dunk. But the more intensive treatment came with more hypotension, syncope, and kidney injury, because there is no free lunch in medicine. And ditto with BPROAD, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the American Heart Association annual meeting. A diabetic population randomized to 120 vs 140 as a BP target showed that more aggressive treatment was better.

Fewer cardiovascular events, like stroke, but no mortality difference, and more hypotension. So a cardiovascular benefit at the cost of more side effects. Now, like all cardiologists, my motto is “Save the heart and screw the kidney.” But if you do care about the other organs in this meat sack that we call a human body, the question you need to wrestle with is, how much do you value cardiovascular protection vs how willing are you to tolerate side effects?

Hypotension may not sound dangerous, but gravity is an unforgiving mistress. If you painstakingly compile the summary of the various BP guidelines for easy perusal, you would notice something critical: One, I have too much free time on my hands; two, the disagreements are not really all that profound.

Arguing about 120 vs 130 vs 140 is not the same as saying, “Drugs schmugs; a good massage will fix what ails you, and here are some addictive sleeping pills for good measure.” Physicians from the 1930s were a little sketchy. So much of this controversy is about how you define high-risk patients and what are the age cutoffs.

Basically, the cardiovascular guidelines say, “Treat them all and let God sort it out” because they care about cardiovascular events and are concerned about cardiovascular endpoints. Whereas general practice guidelines put more emphasis on potential side effects and admittedly tend to treat a not so high-risk population, so they have laxer targets.

A 2014 analysis from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration [The Lancet] had a good mathematical way of explaining this problem. Now, lowering blood pressure is obviously a good thing. That prevents heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, and all that. Please don’t let hypertension denialism become a thing.

Let’s start with the basics. Treating high blood pressure led to a 15% to 18% decrease in cardiovascular events, pretty consistently across all risk categories, and other analyses have found that every 5-point decrease in blood pressure gives you about a 10% decrease in major cardiovascular events on the relative-risk scale. 

While the benefits are pretty consistent across all groups, that difference in baseline risk translates into different absolute benefits. In the Lancet paper, when the population was divided into four different groups based on their cardiovascular risk, the absolute risk reduction in the lowest-risk group was 14 fewer cardiovascular events if you treat 1000 patients for 5 years.

With each higher-risk group, it was 20 fewer, 24 fewer, and 38 fewer. At the lowest-risk group, the number needed to treat was 71, 50, 42, and 26 fewer cardiovascular events with 5 years of treatment. 

And herein lies the secret to the disagreement: If you have a high-risk patient, there is a big benefit to bringing that blood pressure down from 135 to 130. Whereas for a low-risk patient, it probably doesn’t matter as much. And the cardiovascular benefits are going to be offset by the side effects and the risks for hypotension. 

Of course, there’s a simple solution to this dilemma: Just speak to the patient in front of you. Treat high blood pressure, and if your patient’s blood pressure drops or they get dizzy or have fainting spells, then just ease up on the meds. It’s not rocket science; it’s just cardiology. 

Arguing about five millimeters of mercury of blood pressure is probably less important from the public health perspective than the fact that tens of millions of people in the United States are unaware that they have hypertension, and even those diagnosed are being inadequately treated.

So, let’s all do better as a medical community. Nobody should have untreated hypertension in this day and age. It’s not the 1930s. 
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Blood pressure. If you’re a primary care provider trying to do right by your patients, you might be understandably confused by the current mishmash of guidelines with different blood pressure targets. But as chaotic as things are, at least it’s not the 1930s, when you might hear John Hay give a lecture to the British Medical Association and say, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

Yeah, he said that. But what happened in the 1930s stays in the 1930s. And now we can at least agree that we should be treating high blood pressure. But what’s the goal we should be aiming for? This is On Second Thought. 

We’ve come a long way since FDR was recording blood pressures of 200 and his doctor prescribed him barbiturates and massage therapy.

That s#$# don’t fly no more. Over the past hundred years, we have become much more aggressive in treating blood pressure. Remember the Oslo study? It defined mild hypertension as a blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg. Now, those numbers send people screaming to the emergency room. So, let’s acknowledge that things are substantially better than they once were. Let’s agree on that and we can start to heal this nation again. 

Before we get into the numbers, when we’re treating blood pressure, let’s make a few points about measuring it. Obviously, to treat something, you have to measure it properly. Two recent trials have illustrated that these details matter a lot.

The Cuff(SZ) randomized crossover trial — and it took me a minute to realize that Cuff(SZ) meant cuff size, so bravo, Ishigami et al — showed that picking the wrong cuff size could affect BP measurements by 4.5 points if you were one size off. If you were two sizes too small, you overestimated BP by almost 20 points.

Add on here another recent study, the ARMS crossover randomized clinical trial, looking at how arm position affected BP measures. If the arm was resting on your lap or hanging by your side, that overestimated blood pressure by 4 and 6.5 points. So sometimes you have to remember the fundamentals: cuff size, arm position — it might make the difference between increasing or maintaining the patient’s meds.

But on to the main show. What numbers should we be aiming for? We no longer live in the “BP 200, the president’s going to have a stroke” world of the 1940s, and even a BP of 150 is considered quite high these days. Studies like the MRC trial, INVEST, and SPRINT have pushed BP targets ever lower. SPRINT, in particular, randomized patients to a blood pressure target under 120 systolic vs under 140 systolic, and the under-120 arm won out with fewer cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality.

Pretty definitive slam dunk. But the more intensive treatment came with more hypotension, syncope, and kidney injury, because there is no free lunch in medicine. And ditto with BPROAD, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the American Heart Association annual meeting. A diabetic population randomized to 120 vs 140 as a BP target showed that more aggressive treatment was better.

Fewer cardiovascular events, like stroke, but no mortality difference, and more hypotension. So a cardiovascular benefit at the cost of more side effects. Now, like all cardiologists, my motto is “Save the heart and screw the kidney.” But if you do care about the other organs in this meat sack that we call a human body, the question you need to wrestle with is, how much do you value cardiovascular protection vs how willing are you to tolerate side effects?

Hypotension may not sound dangerous, but gravity is an unforgiving mistress. If you painstakingly compile the summary of the various BP guidelines for easy perusal, you would notice something critical: One, I have too much free time on my hands; two, the disagreements are not really all that profound.

Arguing about 120 vs 130 vs 140 is not the same as saying, “Drugs schmugs; a good massage will fix what ails you, and here are some addictive sleeping pills for good measure.” Physicians from the 1930s were a little sketchy. So much of this controversy is about how you define high-risk patients and what are the age cutoffs.

Basically, the cardiovascular guidelines say, “Treat them all and let God sort it out” because they care about cardiovascular events and are concerned about cardiovascular endpoints. Whereas general practice guidelines put more emphasis on potential side effects and admittedly tend to treat a not so high-risk population, so they have laxer targets.

A 2014 analysis from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration [The Lancet] had a good mathematical way of explaining this problem. Now, lowering blood pressure is obviously a good thing. That prevents heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, and all that. Please don’t let hypertension denialism become a thing.

Let’s start with the basics. Treating high blood pressure led to a 15% to 18% decrease in cardiovascular events, pretty consistently across all risk categories, and other analyses have found that every 5-point decrease in blood pressure gives you about a 10% decrease in major cardiovascular events on the relative-risk scale. 

While the benefits are pretty consistent across all groups, that difference in baseline risk translates into different absolute benefits. In the Lancet paper, when the population was divided into four different groups based on their cardiovascular risk, the absolute risk reduction in the lowest-risk group was 14 fewer cardiovascular events if you treat 1000 patients for 5 years.

With each higher-risk group, it was 20 fewer, 24 fewer, and 38 fewer. At the lowest-risk group, the number needed to treat was 71, 50, 42, and 26 fewer cardiovascular events with 5 years of treatment. 

And herein lies the secret to the disagreement: If you have a high-risk patient, there is a big benefit to bringing that blood pressure down from 135 to 130. Whereas for a low-risk patient, it probably doesn’t matter as much. And the cardiovascular benefits are going to be offset by the side effects and the risks for hypotension. 

Of course, there’s a simple solution to this dilemma: Just speak to the patient in front of you. Treat high blood pressure, and if your patient’s blood pressure drops or they get dizzy or have fainting spells, then just ease up on the meds. It’s not rocket science; it’s just cardiology. 

Arguing about five millimeters of mercury of blood pressure is probably less important from the public health perspective than the fact that tens of millions of people in the United States are unaware that they have hypertension, and even those diagnosed are being inadequately treated.

So, let’s all do better as a medical community. Nobody should have untreated hypertension in this day and age. It’s not the 1930s. 
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the third straight year, firearms killed more children and teens than any other cause, including motor vehicle crashes and cancer. The population-wide toll taken by guns is equally as discouraging. Finally, this elephant in the room is getting some attention from the medical community, but the voices asking for change have most recently been coming from medical students who feel that gun violence deserves to be given a larger role in their education. It’s unclear why this plea is coming from the younger end of the medical community. It may be that, unlike most of their older instructors, these 18- to 25-year-olds have grown up under the growing threat of school shootings and become uncomfortably accustomed to active shooter drills.

Should We Look to Medical School for Answers?

There is no question that compared with the rest of this country the medical community needs to take gun violence more seriously. But, does the medical community need to take gun violence more seriously than the rest of the population? What should our response look like? To answer those questions we need to take several steps back to view the bigger picture.

Is the medical community more responsible for this current situation than any other segment of the population? Do physicians bear any more culpability than publishers who sell gun-related magazines? Since its inception pediatrics has taken on the role of advocate for children and their health and well-being. But, is there more we can and should do other than turn up the volume on our advocacy? 

While still taking the longer view, let’s ask ourselves what the role of medical school should be. Not just with respect to gun violence but in producing physicians and healthcare providers. We are approaching a crisis in primary care as it loses appeal with physicians at both ends of the age continuum. It could be because it pays poorly — certainly in relation to the cost of medical school — or because the awareness that if done well primary care requires a commitment that is difficult to square with many individuals’ lifestyle expectations. 

Is the traditional medical school the right place to be training primary care providers? Medical school is currently aimed at broad and deep exposure. The student will be exposed to the all the diseases to which he or she might be seeing anywhere in the world and at the same time will have learned the mechanisms down to the cellular level that lies behind that pathology. Does a primary care pediatrician practicing in a small city or suburbia need that depth of training? He or she might benefit from some breadth. But maybe it should be focused on socioeconomic and geographic population the doctor is likely to see. This is particularly true for gun-related deaths.

Returning our attention to gun violence and its relation to healthcare, let’s ask ourselves what role the traditional medical school should play. Should it be a breeding ground for gun control advocates? When physicians speak people tend to listen but our effectiveness on issues such as immunizations and gun control has not been what many have hoped for. The supply of guns available to the public in this country is staggering and certainly contributes to gun-related injuries and death. However, I’m afraid that making a significant dent in that supply, given our political history and current climate, is an issue whose ship has sailed.

On the other hand, as gun advocates are often quoted as saying, “it’s not guns that kill, it’s people.” We don’t need to go into to the fallacy of this argument, but it gives us a starting point from which a medical school might focus its efforts on addressing the fallout from gun violence. A curriculum that begins with a presentation of the grizzly statistics and moves on to research about gun-related mental health issues and the social environments that breed violence makes good sense. Recanting the depressing history of how our society got to this place, in which guns outnumber people, should be part of the undergraduate curriculum.

Addressing the specifics of gun safety and suicide prevention in general with families and individuals would be more appropriate during clinical specialty training. 

How big a chunk of the curriculum should be committed to gun violence and its fallout? Some of the call for change seems to be suggesting a semester-long course. However, we must accept the reality that instructional time in medical school is a finite asset. Although gunshots are the leading cause of death in children, how effective will even the most cleverly crafted curriculum be in moving the needle on the embarrassing data?

Given what is known about the problem, a day, or at most a week would be sufficient in class time. This could include personal presentations by victims or family members. I’m sure there are some who would see that as insufficient. But I see it as realistic. For the large urban schools, observing an evening shift in the trauma unit of an ER could be a potent addition.

Beyond this, a commitment by the school to host seminars and workshops devoted to gun violence could be an important component. It might also be helpful for a school or training program to promote the habit of whenever an instructor is introducing a potentially fatal disease to the students for the first time, he or she would begin with “To put this in perspective, you should remember that xxx thousand children die of gunshot wounds every year.” 

Unfortunately, like obesity, gun-related deaths and injuries are the result of our society’s failure to muster the political will to act in our best interest as a nation. The medical community is left to clean up the collateral damage. There is always more that we could do, but we must be thoughtful in how we invest our energies in the effort.

Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected]. 

For the third straight year, firearms killed more children and teens than any other cause, including motor vehicle crashes and cancer. The population-wide toll taken by guns is equally as discouraging. Finally, this elephant in the room is getting some attention from the medical community, but the voices asking for change have most recently been coming from medical students who feel that gun violence deserves to be given a larger role in their education. It’s unclear why this plea is coming from the younger end of the medical community. It may be that, unlike most of their older instructors, these 18- to 25-year-olds have grown up under the growing threat of school shootings and become uncomfortably accustomed to active shooter drills.

Should We Look to Medical School for Answers?

There is no question that compared with the rest of this country the medical community needs to take gun violence more seriously. But, does the medical community need to take gun violence more seriously than the rest of the population? What should our response look like? To answer those questions we need to take several steps back to view the bigger picture.

Is the medical community more responsible for this current situation than any other segment of the population? Do physicians bear any more culpability than publishers who sell gun-related magazines? Since its inception pediatrics has taken on the role of advocate for children and their health and well-being. But, is there more we can and should do other than turn up the volume on our advocacy? 

While still taking the longer view, let’s ask ourselves what the role of medical school should be. Not just with respect to gun violence but in producing physicians and healthcare providers. We are approaching a crisis in primary care as it loses appeal with physicians at both ends of the age continuum. It could be because it pays poorly — certainly in relation to the cost of medical school — or because the awareness that if done well primary care requires a commitment that is difficult to square with many individuals’ lifestyle expectations. 

Is the traditional medical school the right place to be training primary care providers? Medical school is currently aimed at broad and deep exposure. The student will be exposed to the all the diseases to which he or she might be seeing anywhere in the world and at the same time will have learned the mechanisms down to the cellular level that lies behind that pathology. Does a primary care pediatrician practicing in a small city or suburbia need that depth of training? He or she might benefit from some breadth. But maybe it should be focused on socioeconomic and geographic population the doctor is likely to see. This is particularly true for gun-related deaths.

Returning our attention to gun violence and its relation to healthcare, let’s ask ourselves what role the traditional medical school should play. Should it be a breeding ground for gun control advocates? When physicians speak people tend to listen but our effectiveness on issues such as immunizations and gun control has not been what many have hoped for. The supply of guns available to the public in this country is staggering and certainly contributes to gun-related injuries and death. However, I’m afraid that making a significant dent in that supply, given our political history and current climate, is an issue whose ship has sailed.

On the other hand, as gun advocates are often quoted as saying, “it’s not guns that kill, it’s people.” We don’t need to go into to the fallacy of this argument, but it gives us a starting point from which a medical school might focus its efforts on addressing the fallout from gun violence. A curriculum that begins with a presentation of the grizzly statistics and moves on to research about gun-related mental health issues and the social environments that breed violence makes good sense. Recanting the depressing history of how our society got to this place, in which guns outnumber people, should be part of the undergraduate curriculum.

Addressing the specifics of gun safety and suicide prevention in general with families and individuals would be more appropriate during clinical specialty training. 

How big a chunk of the curriculum should be committed to gun violence and its fallout? Some of the call for change seems to be suggesting a semester-long course. However, we must accept the reality that instructional time in medical school is a finite asset. Although gunshots are the leading cause of death in children, how effective will even the most cleverly crafted curriculum be in moving the needle on the embarrassing data?

Given what is known about the problem, a day, or at most a week would be sufficient in class time. This could include personal presentations by victims or family members. I’m sure there are some who would see that as insufficient. But I see it as realistic. For the large urban schools, observing an evening shift in the trauma unit of an ER could be a potent addition.

Beyond this, a commitment by the school to host seminars and workshops devoted to gun violence could be an important component. It might also be helpful for a school or training program to promote the habit of whenever an instructor is introducing a potentially fatal disease to the students for the first time, he or she would begin with “To put this in perspective, you should remember that xxx thousand children die of gunshot wounds every year.” 

Unfortunately, like obesity, gun-related deaths and injuries are the result of our society’s failure to muster the political will to act in our best interest as a nation. The medical community is left to clean up the collateral damage. There is always more that we could do, but we must be thoughtful in how we invest our energies in the effort.

Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected]. 

For the third straight year, firearms killed more children and teens than any other cause, including motor vehicle crashes and cancer. The population-wide toll taken by guns is equally as discouraging. Finally, this elephant in the room is getting some attention from the medical community, but the voices asking for change have most recently been coming from medical students who feel that gun violence deserves to be given a larger role in their education. It’s unclear why this plea is coming from the younger end of the medical community. It may be that, unlike most of their older instructors, these 18- to 25-year-olds have grown up under the growing threat of school shootings and become uncomfortably accustomed to active shooter drills.

Should We Look to Medical School for Answers?

There is no question that compared with the rest of this country the medical community needs to take gun violence more seriously. But, does the medical community need to take gun violence more seriously than the rest of the population? What should our response look like? To answer those questions we need to take several steps back to view the bigger picture.

Is the medical community more responsible for this current situation than any other segment of the population? Do physicians bear any more culpability than publishers who sell gun-related magazines? Since its inception pediatrics has taken on the role of advocate for children and their health and well-being. But, is there more we can and should do other than turn up the volume on our advocacy? 

While still taking the longer view, let’s ask ourselves what the role of medical school should be. Not just with respect to gun violence but in producing physicians and healthcare providers. We are approaching a crisis in primary care as it loses appeal with physicians at both ends of the age continuum. It could be because it pays poorly — certainly in relation to the cost of medical school — or because the awareness that if done well primary care requires a commitment that is difficult to square with many individuals’ lifestyle expectations. 

Is the traditional medical school the right place to be training primary care providers? Medical school is currently aimed at broad and deep exposure. The student will be exposed to the all the diseases to which he or she might be seeing anywhere in the world and at the same time will have learned the mechanisms down to the cellular level that lies behind that pathology. Does a primary care pediatrician practicing in a small city or suburbia need that depth of training? He or she might benefit from some breadth. But maybe it should be focused on socioeconomic and geographic population the doctor is likely to see. This is particularly true for gun-related deaths.

Returning our attention to gun violence and its relation to healthcare, let’s ask ourselves what role the traditional medical school should play. Should it be a breeding ground for gun control advocates? When physicians speak people tend to listen but our effectiveness on issues such as immunizations and gun control has not been what many have hoped for. The supply of guns available to the public in this country is staggering and certainly contributes to gun-related injuries and death. However, I’m afraid that making a significant dent in that supply, given our political history and current climate, is an issue whose ship has sailed.

On the other hand, as gun advocates are often quoted as saying, “it’s not guns that kill, it’s people.” We don’t need to go into to the fallacy of this argument, but it gives us a starting point from which a medical school might focus its efforts on addressing the fallout from gun violence. A curriculum that begins with a presentation of the grizzly statistics and moves on to research about gun-related mental health issues and the social environments that breed violence makes good sense. Recanting the depressing history of how our society got to this place, in which guns outnumber people, should be part of the undergraduate curriculum.

Addressing the specifics of gun safety and suicide prevention in general with families and individuals would be more appropriate during clinical specialty training. 

How big a chunk of the curriculum should be committed to gun violence and its fallout? Some of the call for change seems to be suggesting a semester-long course. However, we must accept the reality that instructional time in medical school is a finite asset. Although gunshots are the leading cause of death in children, how effective will even the most cleverly crafted curriculum be in moving the needle on the embarrassing data?

Given what is known about the problem, a day, or at most a week would be sufficient in class time. This could include personal presentations by victims or family members. I’m sure there are some who would see that as insufficient. But I see it as realistic. For the large urban schools, observing an evening shift in the trauma unit of an ER could be a potent addition.

Beyond this, a commitment by the school to host seminars and workshops devoted to gun violence could be an important component. It might also be helpful for a school or training program to promote the habit of whenever an instructor is introducing a potentially fatal disease to the students for the first time, he or she would begin with “To put this in perspective, you should remember that xxx thousand children die of gunshot wounds every year.” 

Unfortunately, like obesity, gun-related deaths and injuries are the result of our society’s failure to muster the political will to act in our best interest as a nation. The medical community is left to clean up the collateral damage. There is always more that we could do, but we must be thoughtful in how we invest our energies in the effort.

Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected]. 

Recently, a 40-year-old woman took to Facebook to announce that she had died.

Rachel Davies, of Wales, wrote: “If you’re reading this, then it means I’m no longer here. What a life I’ve had, and surprisingly, since cancer entered my life. When I look through my photos, I’ve done and seen so much since cancer, and probably some of my best memories are from this period. In so many ways, I have to thank it for learning how to live fully. What I wish is that everyone can experience the same but without needing cancer. Get out there, experience life fully, and wear that dress!!! I’m so sad to leave my family and friends, I wish I never had to go. I’m so grateful to have had Charlie young so that I’ve watched him grow into the man he is today. I’m unbelievably proud of him. I am thankful I had the opportunity to have Kacey and Jacob in my life. Lastly, I was blessed to meet the love of my life, my husband, and my best friend. I have no regrets, I have had a wonderful life. So to all of you, don’t be sad I’ve gone. Live your life and live it well. Love, Rachel x.”

 

I didn’t know Ms. Davies, but am likely among many who wish I had. In a terrible situation she kept trying.

She had HER2 metastatic breast cancer, which can respond to the drug Enhertu (trastuzumab). Unfortunately, she never had the chance, because it wasn’t available to her in Wales. In the United Kingdom it’s available only in Scotland.

I’m not saying it was a cure. Statistically, it likely would have bought her another 6 months of family time. But that’s still another half year.

I’m not blaming the Welsh NHS, though they made the decision not to cover it because of cost. The jobs of such committees is a thankless one, trying to decide where the limited money goes — vaccines for many children that are proven to lessen morbidity and mortality over the course of a lifetime, or to add 6 months to the lives of comparatively fewer women with HER2 metastatic breast cancer.

I’m not blaming the company that makes Enhertu, though it was the cost that kept her from getting it. Bringing a drug to market, with all the labs and clinical research behind it, ain’t cheap. If the company can’t keep the lights on they’re not going to able to develop future pharmaceuticals to help others, though I do wonder if a better price could have been negotiated. (I’m not trying to justify the salaries of insurance CEOs — don’t even get me started on those.)

Money is always limited, and human suffering is infinite. Every health care organization, public or private, has to face that simple fact. There is no right place to draw the line, so we use the greatest good for the greatest many as our best guess.

In her last post, though, Ms. Davies didn’t dwell on any of this. She reflected on her joys and blessings, and encouraged others to live life fully. Things we should all focus on.

In a world that often seems to have gone mad, it’s good to keep in mind that there is more good than bad out there. 

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for the reminder.

Allan M. Block, MD, has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Recently, a 40-year-old woman took to Facebook to announce that she had died.

Rachel Davies, of Wales, wrote: “If you’re reading this, then it means I’m no longer here. What a life I’ve had, and surprisingly, since cancer entered my life. When I look through my photos, I’ve done and seen so much since cancer, and probably some of my best memories are from this period. In so many ways, I have to thank it for learning how to live fully. What I wish is that everyone can experience the same but without needing cancer. Get out there, experience life fully, and wear that dress!!! I’m so sad to leave my family and friends, I wish I never had to go. I’m so grateful to have had Charlie young so that I’ve watched him grow into the man he is today. I’m unbelievably proud of him. I am thankful I had the opportunity to have Kacey and Jacob in my life. Lastly, I was blessed to meet the love of my life, my husband, and my best friend. I have no regrets, I have had a wonderful life. So to all of you, don’t be sad I’ve gone. Live your life and live it well. Love, Rachel x.”

 

I didn’t know Ms. Davies, but am likely among many who wish I had. In a terrible situation she kept trying.

She had HER2 metastatic breast cancer, which can respond to the drug Enhertu (trastuzumab). Unfortunately, she never had the chance, because it wasn’t available to her in Wales. In the United Kingdom it’s available only in Scotland.

I’m not saying it was a cure. Statistically, it likely would have bought her another 6 months of family time. But that’s still another half year.

I’m not blaming the Welsh NHS, though they made the decision not to cover it because of cost. The jobs of such committees is a thankless one, trying to decide where the limited money goes — vaccines for many children that are proven to lessen morbidity and mortality over the course of a lifetime, or to add 6 months to the lives of comparatively fewer women with HER2 metastatic breast cancer.

I’m not blaming the company that makes Enhertu, though it was the cost that kept her from getting it. Bringing a drug to market, with all the labs and clinical research behind it, ain’t cheap. If the company can’t keep the lights on they’re not going to able to develop future pharmaceuticals to help others, though I do wonder if a better price could have been negotiated. (I’m not trying to justify the salaries of insurance CEOs — don’t even get me started on those.)

Money is always limited, and human suffering is infinite. Every health care organization, public or private, has to face that simple fact. There is no right place to draw the line, so we use the greatest good for the greatest many as our best guess.

In her last post, though, Ms. Davies didn’t dwell on any of this. She reflected on her joys and blessings, and encouraged others to live life fully. Things we should all focus on.

In a world that often seems to have gone mad, it’s good to keep in mind that there is more good than bad out there. 

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for the reminder.

Allan M. Block, MD, has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Recently, a 40-year-old woman took to Facebook to announce that she had died.

Rachel Davies, of Wales, wrote: “If you’re reading this, then it means I’m no longer here. What a life I’ve had, and surprisingly, since cancer entered my life. When I look through my photos, I’ve done and seen so much since cancer, and probably some of my best memories are from this period. In so many ways, I have to thank it for learning how to live fully. What I wish is that everyone can experience the same but without needing cancer. Get out there, experience life fully, and wear that dress!!! I’m so sad to leave my family and friends, I wish I never had to go. I’m so grateful to have had Charlie young so that I’ve watched him grow into the man he is today. I’m unbelievably proud of him. I am thankful I had the opportunity to have Kacey and Jacob in my life. Lastly, I was blessed to meet the love of my life, my husband, and my best friend. I have no regrets, I have had a wonderful life. So to all of you, don’t be sad I’ve gone. Live your life and live it well. Love, Rachel x.”

 

I didn’t know Ms. Davies, but am likely among many who wish I had. In a terrible situation she kept trying.

She had HER2 metastatic breast cancer, which can respond to the drug Enhertu (trastuzumab). Unfortunately, she never had the chance, because it wasn’t available to her in Wales. In the United Kingdom it’s available only in Scotland.

I’m not saying it was a cure. Statistically, it likely would have bought her another 6 months of family time. But that’s still another half year.

I’m not blaming the Welsh NHS, though they made the decision not to cover it because of cost. The jobs of such committees is a thankless one, trying to decide where the limited money goes — vaccines for many children that are proven to lessen morbidity and mortality over the course of a lifetime, or to add 6 months to the lives of comparatively fewer women with HER2 metastatic breast cancer.

I’m not blaming the company that makes Enhertu, though it was the cost that kept her from getting it. Bringing a drug to market, with all the labs and clinical research behind it, ain’t cheap. If the company can’t keep the lights on they’re not going to able to develop future pharmaceuticals to help others, though I do wonder if a better price could have been negotiated. (I’m not trying to justify the salaries of insurance CEOs — don’t even get me started on those.)

Money is always limited, and human suffering is infinite. Every health care organization, public or private, has to face that simple fact. There is no right place to draw the line, so we use the greatest good for the greatest many as our best guess.

In her last post, though, Ms. Davies didn’t dwell on any of this. She reflected on her joys and blessings, and encouraged others to live life fully. Things we should all focus on.

In a world that often seems to have gone mad, it’s good to keep in mind that there is more good than bad out there. 

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for the reminder.

Allan M. Block, MD, has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Earlier in December, the Supreme Court heard the first oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a critical case challenging gender-affirming bans for minors in Tennessee. The case has garnered national attention as it is the first case the Supreme Court has undertaken regarding gender-affirming care and the first time an openly transgender attorney presented a case to the high court. The ruling will have nationwide implications as it can single-handedly decide the fate of gender-affirming care for minors, and potentially adults. Even though the final verdict may not come out until June of 2025, the conservative majority of justices seems poised to uphold the Tennessee ban.¹ In what is possibly a harbinger of the US ruling, the United Kingdom announced an indefinite ban on gender-affirming care for minors the week after the oral arguments in this case were heard.2

While the legal arguments in the Skrmetti case hinge on sex discrimination and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the more fundamental argument centers around the question of what is in the best interest of the minor. I’d like to delve deeper into this question as our responsibility as physicians is to the health and well-being of our patients, not partisan politics. 

 

It is essential that we do not allow our personal views to cloud our ability to objectively analyze scientific data and prohibit individuals from accessing the health care from which they’d benefit. Conversely, we should not allow social pressure and ideologic principles interfere with our ability to challenge and regulate emerging treatments.

The answer to the question, “what is in the best interest of a minor?” is somewhat rhetorical. But in the most basic of senses, minors deserve equal protection under the law, a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and an education. Regardless of our beliefs, we would all probably agree that minors should be protected and cared for but disagree about the ways in which we do so. This discrepancy is painfully evident if you dissect legislation as it pertains to these fundamental rights. It should come as no surprise that legislation is often contradictory. 

For example, firearm-related injury is now the leading cause of death among minors in the United States.³ It is a public health crisis no different from childhood obesity or substance abuse in adolescents. Despite this fact, politicians are reluctant, and in many cases, downright defiant, about tightening restrictions on firearms. Yet, it is these same politicians who cite that we must “protect our children,” from beneficial gender-affirming medical interventions.

Most major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, support gender-affirming care for minors. Current research into medical care of minors, which includes puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and in rare cases, surgery, demonstrates improvement in mental health outcomes like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.⁴

Critics of this type of care of minors often cite small sample sizes, selection bias, and lack of long-term data, which raise concerns about the long-term impacts of these treatments. This apprehension is not entirely unfounded as there are fewer clinical trials and studies gender-affirming care than in other fields of medicine. As with all emerging medical fields, research is needed and gender-affirming care for minors is no exception. It is unlikely bans will enhance larger clinical trials but will instead further isolate these already marginalized individuals. 

Unlike in the United Kingdom, the legislators in states with bans in effect seem to have little interest in understanding gender-affirming care in this demographic. Instead, they have imposed penalties on parents who seek this type of care from other states and the providers who treat their children. The most insidious consequence of the Tennessee ban, if upheld, is the federally sanctioned interference in the ability of parents to make health care decisions for their child with a medical provider. 

Such a move sets a dangerous precedent for politicians to target other forms of healthcare and other marginalized communities. As the ruling pertains to gender-affirming care, politicians and most attorneys are not well-versed in the medical issues in the field. Nor is it in their purview to be. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court Justices were understandably unfamiliar with the medical nuances of this type of treatment. As someone who has met with various politicians to discuss gender-affirming medicine and surgery for adults, I can say that they have very little knowledge. Therefore, isn’t the argument even stronger to leave medical decisions to parents, providers, and patients rather than uninformed policymakers?

References

1. Cole D et al. CNN. Takeaways from the historic transgender care arguments at the Supreme Court. 2024 Dec 4.

CNN.com/2024/12/04/politics/transgender-care-bans-scotus-takeaways/index.html. 

2. Triggle N. BBC. Puberty blockers for under-18s banned indefinitely. BBC. 2024 Dec 11. BBC.com/news/articles/cly2z0gx3p5o. 

3. Wilson RF et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(5):1338-1345.

4. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(suppl 1):S1-S259.

Earlier in December, the Supreme Court heard the first oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a critical case challenging gender-affirming bans for minors in Tennessee. The case has garnered national attention as it is the first case the Supreme Court has undertaken regarding gender-affirming care and the first time an openly transgender attorney presented a case to the high court. The ruling will have nationwide implications as it can single-handedly decide the fate of gender-affirming care for minors, and potentially adults. Even though the final verdict may not come out until June of 2025, the conservative majority of justices seems poised to uphold the Tennessee ban.¹ In what is possibly a harbinger of the US ruling, the United Kingdom announced an indefinite ban on gender-affirming care for minors the week after the oral arguments in this case were heard.2

While the legal arguments in the Skrmetti case hinge on sex discrimination and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the more fundamental argument centers around the question of what is in the best interest of the minor. I’d like to delve deeper into this question as our responsibility as physicians is to the health and well-being of our patients, not partisan politics. 

 

It is essential that we do not allow our personal views to cloud our ability to objectively analyze scientific data and prohibit individuals from accessing the health care from which they’d benefit. Conversely, we should not allow social pressure and ideologic principles interfere with our ability to challenge and regulate emerging treatments.

The answer to the question, “what is in the best interest of a minor?” is somewhat rhetorical. But in the most basic of senses, minors deserve equal protection under the law, a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and an education. Regardless of our beliefs, we would all probably agree that minors should be protected and cared for but disagree about the ways in which we do so. This discrepancy is painfully evident if you dissect legislation as it pertains to these fundamental rights. It should come as no surprise that legislation is often contradictory. 

For example, firearm-related injury is now the leading cause of death among minors in the United States.³ It is a public health crisis no different from childhood obesity or substance abuse in adolescents. Despite this fact, politicians are reluctant, and in many cases, downright defiant, about tightening restrictions on firearms. Yet, it is these same politicians who cite that we must “protect our children,” from beneficial gender-affirming medical interventions.

Most major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, support gender-affirming care for minors. Current research into medical care of minors, which includes puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and in rare cases, surgery, demonstrates improvement in mental health outcomes like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.⁴

Critics of this type of care of minors often cite small sample sizes, selection bias, and lack of long-term data, which raise concerns about the long-term impacts of these treatments. This apprehension is not entirely unfounded as there are fewer clinical trials and studies gender-affirming care than in other fields of medicine. As with all emerging medical fields, research is needed and gender-affirming care for minors is no exception. It is unlikely bans will enhance larger clinical trials but will instead further isolate these already marginalized individuals. 

Unlike in the United Kingdom, the legislators in states with bans in effect seem to have little interest in understanding gender-affirming care in this demographic. Instead, they have imposed penalties on parents who seek this type of care from other states and the providers who treat their children. The most insidious consequence of the Tennessee ban, if upheld, is the federally sanctioned interference in the ability of parents to make health care decisions for their child with a medical provider. 

Such a move sets a dangerous precedent for politicians to target other forms of healthcare and other marginalized communities. As the ruling pertains to gender-affirming care, politicians and most attorneys are not well-versed in the medical issues in the field. Nor is it in their purview to be. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court Justices were understandably unfamiliar with the medical nuances of this type of treatment. As someone who has met with various politicians to discuss gender-affirming medicine and surgery for adults, I can say that they have very little knowledge. Therefore, isn’t the argument even stronger to leave medical decisions to parents, providers, and patients rather than uninformed policymakers?

References

1. Cole D et al. CNN. Takeaways from the historic transgender care arguments at the Supreme Court. 2024 Dec 4.

CNN.com/2024/12/04/politics/transgender-care-bans-scotus-takeaways/index.html. 

2. Triggle N. BBC. Puberty blockers for under-18s banned indefinitely. BBC. 2024 Dec 11. BBC.com/news/articles/cly2z0gx3p5o. 

3. Wilson RF et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(5):1338-1345.

4. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(suppl 1):S1-S259.

Earlier in December, the Supreme Court heard the first oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a critical case challenging gender-affirming bans for minors in Tennessee. The case has garnered national attention as it is the first case the Supreme Court has undertaken regarding gender-affirming care and the first time an openly transgender attorney presented a case to the high court. The ruling will have nationwide implications as it can single-handedly decide the fate of gender-affirming care for minors, and potentially adults. Even though the final verdict may not come out until June of 2025, the conservative majority of justices seems poised to uphold the Tennessee ban.¹ In what is possibly a harbinger of the US ruling, the United Kingdom announced an indefinite ban on gender-affirming care for minors the week after the oral arguments in this case were heard.2

While the legal arguments in the Skrmetti case hinge on sex discrimination and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the more fundamental argument centers around the question of what is in the best interest of the minor. I’d like to delve deeper into this question as our responsibility as physicians is to the health and well-being of our patients, not partisan politics. 

 

It is essential that we do not allow our personal views to cloud our ability to objectively analyze scientific data and prohibit individuals from accessing the health care from which they’d benefit. Conversely, we should not allow social pressure and ideologic principles interfere with our ability to challenge and regulate emerging treatments.

The answer to the question, “what is in the best interest of a minor?” is somewhat rhetorical. But in the most basic of senses, minors deserve equal protection under the law, a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and an education. Regardless of our beliefs, we would all probably agree that minors should be protected and cared for but disagree about the ways in which we do so. This discrepancy is painfully evident if you dissect legislation as it pertains to these fundamental rights. It should come as no surprise that legislation is often contradictory. 

For example, firearm-related injury is now the leading cause of death among minors in the United States.³ It is a public health crisis no different from childhood obesity or substance abuse in adolescents. Despite this fact, politicians are reluctant, and in many cases, downright defiant, about tightening restrictions on firearms. Yet, it is these same politicians who cite that we must “protect our children,” from beneficial gender-affirming medical interventions.

Most major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, support gender-affirming care for minors. Current research into medical care of minors, which includes puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and in rare cases, surgery, demonstrates improvement in mental health outcomes like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.⁴

Critics of this type of care of minors often cite small sample sizes, selection bias, and lack of long-term data, which raise concerns about the long-term impacts of these treatments. This apprehension is not entirely unfounded as there are fewer clinical trials and studies gender-affirming care than in other fields of medicine. As with all emerging medical fields, research is needed and gender-affirming care for minors is no exception. It is unlikely bans will enhance larger clinical trials but will instead further isolate these already marginalized individuals. 

Unlike in the United Kingdom, the legislators in states with bans in effect seem to have little interest in understanding gender-affirming care in this demographic. Instead, they have imposed penalties on parents who seek this type of care from other states and the providers who treat their children. The most insidious consequence of the Tennessee ban, if upheld, is the federally sanctioned interference in the ability of parents to make health care decisions for their child with a medical provider. 

Such a move sets a dangerous precedent for politicians to target other forms of healthcare and other marginalized communities. As the ruling pertains to gender-affirming care, politicians and most attorneys are not well-versed in the medical issues in the field. Nor is it in their purview to be. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court Justices were understandably unfamiliar with the medical nuances of this type of treatment. As someone who has met with various politicians to discuss gender-affirming medicine and surgery for adults, I can say that they have very little knowledge. Therefore, isn’t the argument even stronger to leave medical decisions to parents, providers, and patients rather than uninformed policymakers?

References

1. Cole D et al. CNN. Takeaways from the historic transgender care arguments at the Supreme Court. 2024 Dec 4.

CNN.com/2024/12/04/politics/transgender-care-bans-scotus-takeaways/index.html. 

2. Triggle N. BBC. Puberty blockers for under-18s banned indefinitely. BBC. 2024 Dec 11. BBC.com/news/articles/cly2z0gx3p5o. 

3. Wilson RF et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(5):1338-1345.

4. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(suppl 1):S1-S259.

Cutaneous melanoma is a type of skin cancer typically associated with significant ultraviolet radiation exposure. Melanoma arises from melanocytes, cells found within the lower portion of the epidermis that make the pigment melanin.

While much less common than squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma, melanoma is responsible for most deaths from skin cancer. In 2024, there will be more than 100,000 new cases of melanoma and over 8,000 melanoma-related deaths.¹ If localized at the time of diagnosis, survival rates are excellent. Cutaneous melanomas are more common in those with fair complexions or who have had long periods of exposure to natural or artificial sunlight.

Melanoma can also occur in mucous membranes. Mucosal melanoma is much less common than cutaneous melanoma and accounts for only a very small percentage of all new melanoma diagnoses. Unlike their cutaneous counterparts, risk factors for mucosal melanomas have yet to be identified. Although there is some disagreement on whether vulvar melanomas represent cutaneous or mucous melanomas, vulvovaginal melanomas have historically been considered to be mucosal melanomas.

Vulvovaginal melanomas are characterized by a high mortality rate, diagnostic challenges, and lack of awareness, making early detection and intervention crucial to improving patient outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rate for vulvar melanoma is 36% and for vaginal melanoma ranges between 5% and 25%.² Survival rates for vulvovaginal melanomas are lower than for other types of vulvar cancers (72%) or for cutaneous melanomas (72%-81%).²

Racial disparities in survival rates for mucosal and cutaneous melanomas were highlighted in a retrospective study using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Although the number of Black patients included was small, the median overall survival in that population was less than that in non-Black patients with vulvovaginal melanoma (16 vs. 39 months). Similar findings were noted in Black patients with cutaneous melanoma, compared with non-Black patients (median overall survival, 124 vs 319 months).³

One of the most significant obstacles in the diagnosis of vulvar and vaginal melanoma is its rarity. Both patients and clinicians alike may fail to recognize early warning signs. In a world where skin cancer is heavily publicized, melanoma in the genital area is not as frequently discussed or understood. Postmenopausal patients may have less regular gynecologic care, and unless they present with specific symptoms prompting an exam, melanomas can grow undetected, progressing to more advanced stages before they are discovered.

The median age of patients diagnosed with vulvar and vaginal melanomas is 67-68.^4,5 Symptoms can be subtle and nonspecific. Women with vulvar melanoma may experience symptoms that are similar to other vulvar cancers including pruritus, irritation, pain, bleeding, or a new or growing mass. While vaginal melanoma can be asymptomatic, patients frequently present with vaginal bleeding, discharge, and/or pain (including dyspareunia).

Vulvovaginal melanomas may present differently than cutaneous melanomas. Vulvar melanomas are often pigmented and frequently present as ulcerated lesions. In some cases, though, they appear amelanotic (lacking pigment), making them even harder to identify. The ABCDEs of skin cancer (asymmetry, border, color, diameter, evolving) should be applied to these lesions. Change in the size, shape, or pigment of preexisting melanosis (areas of hyperpigmentation caused by increased melanin), should raise concern for possible malignant transformation. 

Most vaginal melanomas occur within the distal third of the vagina, frequently along the anterior vaginal wall.⁶ They can be polypoid or nodular in appearance and may be ulcerated. While biopsy of any suspicious, enlarging/changing, or symptomatic lesion should be performed, it may be prudent to pause prior to biopsy of a vaginal lesion depending on its appearance. Although rare, gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) can present with vaginal metastases, and these lesions are frequently very vascular and pose a high bleeding risk if biopsied. They may look dark blue or black. If there is any concern for metastatic GTN on vaginal exam, a beta-hCG level should be obtained prior to biopsy.

Treatment of vulvovaginal melanoma may include surgical excision, systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of treatments. There is growing use of immunotherapy that mirrors cutaneous melanoma therapy.

Vulvar and vaginal melanoma represent a rare yet serious health issue for women and their impact on public health should not be underestimated. Vulvovaginal melanoma often goes unrecognized until it has reached an advanced stage. Increased awareness about these rare forms of melanoma among both patients and healthcare professionals is vital to improve early detection and treatment outcomes. With greater attention to this disease, we can strive for better diagnostic methods, more effective treatments, and ultimately, a reduction in mortality rates associated with vulvar and vaginal melanoma.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Melanoma of the skin. 2024 Dec 2. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html.

2. Piura B. Lancet Oncol. 2008 Oct;9(10):973-81. .

3. Mert I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(6):1118-25.

4. Wang D et al. Am J Cancer Res. 2020 Dec 1;10(12):4017-37.

5. Albert A et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Sep;31(5):e66.

Cutaneous melanoma is a type of skin cancer typically associated with significant ultraviolet radiation exposure. Melanoma arises from melanocytes, cells found within the lower portion of the epidermis that make the pigment melanin.

While much less common than squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma, melanoma is responsible for most deaths from skin cancer. In 2024, there will be more than 100,000 new cases of melanoma and over 8,000 melanoma-related deaths.¹ If localized at the time of diagnosis, survival rates are excellent. Cutaneous melanomas are more common in those with fair complexions or who have had long periods of exposure to natural or artificial sunlight.

Melanoma can also occur in mucous membranes. Mucosal melanoma is much less common than cutaneous melanoma and accounts for only a very small percentage of all new melanoma diagnoses. Unlike their cutaneous counterparts, risk factors for mucosal melanomas have yet to be identified. Although there is some disagreement on whether vulvar melanomas represent cutaneous or mucous melanomas, vulvovaginal melanomas have historically been considered to be mucosal melanomas.

Vulvovaginal melanomas are characterized by a high mortality rate, diagnostic challenges, and lack of awareness, making early detection and intervention crucial to improving patient outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rate for vulvar melanoma is 36% and for vaginal melanoma ranges between 5% and 25%.² Survival rates for vulvovaginal melanomas are lower than for other types of vulvar cancers (72%) or for cutaneous melanomas (72%-81%).²

Racial disparities in survival rates for mucosal and cutaneous melanomas were highlighted in a retrospective study using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Although the number of Black patients included was small, the median overall survival in that population was less than that in non-Black patients with vulvovaginal melanoma (16 vs. 39 months). Similar findings were noted in Black patients with cutaneous melanoma, compared with non-Black patients (median overall survival, 124 vs 319 months).³

One of the most significant obstacles in the diagnosis of vulvar and vaginal melanoma is its rarity. Both patients and clinicians alike may fail to recognize early warning signs. In a world where skin cancer is heavily publicized, melanoma in the genital area is not as frequently discussed or understood. Postmenopausal patients may have less regular gynecologic care, and unless they present with specific symptoms prompting an exam, melanomas can grow undetected, progressing to more advanced stages before they are discovered.

The median age of patients diagnosed with vulvar and vaginal melanomas is 67-68.^4,5 Symptoms can be subtle and nonspecific. Women with vulvar melanoma may experience symptoms that are similar to other vulvar cancers including pruritus, irritation, pain, bleeding, or a new or growing mass. While vaginal melanoma can be asymptomatic, patients frequently present with vaginal bleeding, discharge, and/or pain (including dyspareunia).

Vulvovaginal melanomas may present differently than cutaneous melanomas. Vulvar melanomas are often pigmented and frequently present as ulcerated lesions. In some cases, though, they appear amelanotic (lacking pigment), making them even harder to identify. The ABCDEs of skin cancer (asymmetry, border, color, diameter, evolving) should be applied to these lesions. Change in the size, shape, or pigment of preexisting melanosis (areas of hyperpigmentation caused by increased melanin), should raise concern for possible malignant transformation. 

Most vaginal melanomas occur within the distal third of the vagina, frequently along the anterior vaginal wall.⁶ They can be polypoid or nodular in appearance and may be ulcerated. While biopsy of any suspicious, enlarging/changing, or symptomatic lesion should be performed, it may be prudent to pause prior to biopsy of a vaginal lesion depending on its appearance. Although rare, gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) can present with vaginal metastases, and these lesions are frequently very vascular and pose a high bleeding risk if biopsied. They may look dark blue or black. If there is any concern for metastatic GTN on vaginal exam, a beta-hCG level should be obtained prior to biopsy.

Treatment of vulvovaginal melanoma may include surgical excision, systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of treatments. There is growing use of immunotherapy that mirrors cutaneous melanoma therapy.

Vulvar and vaginal melanoma represent a rare yet serious health issue for women and their impact on public health should not be underestimated. Vulvovaginal melanoma often goes unrecognized until it has reached an advanced stage. Increased awareness about these rare forms of melanoma among both patients and healthcare professionals is vital to improve early detection and treatment outcomes. With greater attention to this disease, we can strive for better diagnostic methods, more effective treatments, and ultimately, a reduction in mortality rates associated with vulvar and vaginal melanoma.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Melanoma of the skin. 2024 Dec 2. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html.

2. Piura B. Lancet Oncol. 2008 Oct;9(10):973-81. .

3. Mert I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(6):1118-25.

4. Wang D et al. Am J Cancer Res. 2020 Dec 1;10(12):4017-37.

5. Albert A et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Sep;31(5):e66.

Cutaneous melanoma is a type of skin cancer typically associated with significant ultraviolet radiation exposure. Melanoma arises from melanocytes, cells found within the lower portion of the epidermis that make the pigment melanin.

While much less common than squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma, melanoma is responsible for most deaths from skin cancer. In 2024, there will be more than 100,000 new cases of melanoma and over 8,000 melanoma-related deaths.¹ If localized at the time of diagnosis, survival rates are excellent. Cutaneous melanomas are more common in those with fair complexions or who have had long periods of exposure to natural or artificial sunlight.

Melanoma can also occur in mucous membranes. Mucosal melanoma is much less common than cutaneous melanoma and accounts for only a very small percentage of all new melanoma diagnoses. Unlike their cutaneous counterparts, risk factors for mucosal melanomas have yet to be identified. Although there is some disagreement on whether vulvar melanomas represent cutaneous or mucous melanomas, vulvovaginal melanomas have historically been considered to be mucosal melanomas.

Vulvovaginal melanomas are characterized by a high mortality rate, diagnostic challenges, and lack of awareness, making early detection and intervention crucial to improving patient outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rate for vulvar melanoma is 36% and for vaginal melanoma ranges between 5% and 25%.² Survival rates for vulvovaginal melanomas are lower than for other types of vulvar cancers (72%) or for cutaneous melanomas (72%-81%).²

Racial disparities in survival rates for mucosal and cutaneous melanomas were highlighted in a retrospective study using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Although the number of Black patients included was small, the median overall survival in that population was less than that in non-Black patients with vulvovaginal melanoma (16 vs. 39 months). Similar findings were noted in Black patients with cutaneous melanoma, compared with non-Black patients (median overall survival, 124 vs 319 months).³

One of the most significant obstacles in the diagnosis of vulvar and vaginal melanoma is its rarity. Both patients and clinicians alike may fail to recognize early warning signs. In a world where skin cancer is heavily publicized, melanoma in the genital area is not as frequently discussed or understood. Postmenopausal patients may have less regular gynecologic care, and unless they present with specific symptoms prompting an exam, melanomas can grow undetected, progressing to more advanced stages before they are discovered.

The median age of patients diagnosed with vulvar and vaginal melanomas is 67-68.^4,5 Symptoms can be subtle and nonspecific. Women with vulvar melanoma may experience symptoms that are similar to other vulvar cancers including pruritus, irritation, pain, bleeding, or a new or growing mass. While vaginal melanoma can be asymptomatic, patients frequently present with vaginal bleeding, discharge, and/or pain (including dyspareunia).

Vulvovaginal melanomas may present differently than cutaneous melanomas. Vulvar melanomas are often pigmented and frequently present as ulcerated lesions. In some cases, though, they appear amelanotic (lacking pigment), making them even harder to identify. The ABCDEs of skin cancer (asymmetry, border, color, diameter, evolving) should be applied to these lesions. Change in the size, shape, or pigment of preexisting melanosis (areas of hyperpigmentation caused by increased melanin), should raise concern for possible malignant transformation. 

Most vaginal melanomas occur within the distal third of the vagina, frequently along the anterior vaginal wall.⁶ They can be polypoid or nodular in appearance and may be ulcerated. While biopsy of any suspicious, enlarging/changing, or symptomatic lesion should be performed, it may be prudent to pause prior to biopsy of a vaginal lesion depending on its appearance. Although rare, gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) can present with vaginal metastases, and these lesions are frequently very vascular and pose a high bleeding risk if biopsied. They may look dark blue or black. If there is any concern for metastatic GTN on vaginal exam, a beta-hCG level should be obtained prior to biopsy.

Treatment of vulvovaginal melanoma may include surgical excision, systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of treatments. There is growing use of immunotherapy that mirrors cutaneous melanoma therapy.

Vulvar and vaginal melanoma represent a rare yet serious health issue for women and their impact on public health should not be underestimated. Vulvovaginal melanoma often goes unrecognized until it has reached an advanced stage. Increased awareness about these rare forms of melanoma among both patients and healthcare professionals is vital to improve early detection and treatment outcomes. With greater attention to this disease, we can strive for better diagnostic methods, more effective treatments, and ultimately, a reduction in mortality rates associated with vulvar and vaginal melanoma.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Melanoma of the skin. 2024 Dec 2. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html.

2. Piura B. Lancet Oncol. 2008 Oct;9(10):973-81. .

3. Mert I et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(6):1118-25.

4. Wang D et al. Am J Cancer Res. 2020 Dec 1;10(12):4017-37.

5. Albert A et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Sep;31(5):e66.

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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