MDedge Dermatology

Using high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) technology to strengthen pelvic floor muscles for the improvement of urinary incontinence (UI) and female sexual function was safe and effective at 9 months follow-up, results from a multicenter study showed.

“The pelvic floor consists of three pairs of muscles: the pubococcygeus, the iliococcygeus, and the puborectalis,” lead study author Joseph Berenholz, MD, and a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetics & Gynecology, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “They control continence through support of pelvic organs. The urethra, the vagina, and the rectum pass through that diaphragm. It also contributes to sexual sensation and arousal. A deconditioning of the pelvic floor is usually the result of child-bearing years or aging, which usually results in urinary incontinence and impairment of sexual function. The noninvasive strengthening of the pelvic floor muscles helps to regain muscle tone and strength.”

In a prospective, open-label, single-arm study conducted at four sites, Dr. Berenholz, medical director of the Michigan Center for Women’s Health in Farmington Hills, and colleagues investigated the long-term effectiveness of HIFEM-induced pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strengthening for improvement of UI and sexual function. HIFEM selectively targets neuromuscular tissue and induces supramaximal PFM contractions that cannot be achieved voluntarily, he said, causing muscle strengthening due to muscle fiber hypertrophy, which helps patients to better isolate and command their muscles.

The study population consisted of 33 females with a mean age of 49 years who had UI and UI-related problems in sexual life. They received six 28-minute HIFEM treatments of the pelvic floor with the BTL Emsella, which is FDA cleared for both stress and urge incontinence. The frequency of visits was two treatments per week and the intensity of HIFEM was adjusted between 0% and 100% based on the patient’s tolerance threshold. Evaluations were conducted at baseline, after the last treatment, at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. The primary outcomes were change in urine leakage based on the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) and change in sexual function based on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Secondary endpoints were adverse events and the comfort of therapy based on a 7-point Likert scale.

Dr. Berenholz reported that from baseline the severity of UI based on the ICIQ-SF significantly decreased 60% by a mean of 8.1 points between baseline and 9 months (P < .001). At 1 month, the FSFI score improved 32% by a mean of 7.1 points (P < .001) and was sustained throughout the study. The most prominent changes were seen in the subdomains of desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm response.

The PISQ-12 score incrementally increased 25% to a mean improvement of 8.2 points at 9 months (P < .001). Subjects improved most in the emotive subdomain, reporting more frequent orgasms, increased desire, and sexual excitement. The minimal important difference was 6 points.

“This is a true paradigm shift in the treatment of incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Berenholz said. “The therapy was safe, comfortable, no adverse events emerged, and 31 subjects (94%) described the therapy as comfortable. Interim data suggest that treatment effect was maintained for 9 months, and there were no significant declines in scores in the long term. The upcoming 12-month follow-up data will let us know if more maintenance therapy is needed.”

During a question-and-answer session, one of the abstract section chairs, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, wondered about the potential for combination treatments in this patient population. “I can imagine that something that is working on the muscle tone has a totally different mechanism than something that is working on the mucosa and the underlying tissue without really affecting the muscle,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam. “Would a combination be the way to go?”

Dr. Berenholz said that he sometimes combines HIFEM with the ULTRA Femme 360, a radiofrequency thermal energy device. “We thought this addresses two issues,” he said. “One is fascial muscle, which is the underlying structural issue for incontinence. The other is thermal energy to aid in incontinence prevention by inducing production of elastin and collagen in the midurethra, but also to promote lubrication and heightened sensitivity in the patient who’s either menopausal or has undergone chemotherapy for breast cancer.”

Dr. Berenholz reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.

[email protected]

Using high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) technology to strengthen pelvic floor muscles for the improvement of urinary incontinence (UI) and female sexual function was safe and effective at 9 months follow-up, results from a multicenter study showed.

“The pelvic floor consists of three pairs of muscles: the pubococcygeus, the iliococcygeus, and the puborectalis,” lead study author Joseph Berenholz, MD, and a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetics & Gynecology, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “They control continence through support of pelvic organs. The urethra, the vagina, and the rectum pass through that diaphragm. It also contributes to sexual sensation and arousal. A deconditioning of the pelvic floor is usually the result of child-bearing years or aging, which usually results in urinary incontinence and impairment of sexual function. The noninvasive strengthening of the pelvic floor muscles helps to regain muscle tone and strength.”

In a prospective, open-label, single-arm study conducted at four sites, Dr. Berenholz, medical director of the Michigan Center for Women’s Health in Farmington Hills, and colleagues investigated the long-term effectiveness of HIFEM-induced pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strengthening for improvement of UI and sexual function. HIFEM selectively targets neuromuscular tissue and induces supramaximal PFM contractions that cannot be achieved voluntarily, he said, causing muscle strengthening due to muscle fiber hypertrophy, which helps patients to better isolate and command their muscles.

The study population consisted of 33 females with a mean age of 49 years who had UI and UI-related problems in sexual life. They received six 28-minute HIFEM treatments of the pelvic floor with the BTL Emsella, which is FDA cleared for both stress and urge incontinence. The frequency of visits was two treatments per week and the intensity of HIFEM was adjusted between 0% and 100% based on the patient’s tolerance threshold. Evaluations were conducted at baseline, after the last treatment, at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. The primary outcomes were change in urine leakage based on the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) and change in sexual function based on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Secondary endpoints were adverse events and the comfort of therapy based on a 7-point Likert scale.

Dr. Berenholz reported that from baseline the severity of UI based on the ICIQ-SF significantly decreased 60% by a mean of 8.1 points between baseline and 9 months (P < .001). At 1 month, the FSFI score improved 32% by a mean of 7.1 points (P < .001) and was sustained throughout the study. The most prominent changes were seen in the subdomains of desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm response.

The PISQ-12 score incrementally increased 25% to a mean improvement of 8.2 points at 9 months (P < .001). Subjects improved most in the emotive subdomain, reporting more frequent orgasms, increased desire, and sexual excitement. The minimal important difference was 6 points.

“This is a true paradigm shift in the treatment of incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Berenholz said. “The therapy was safe, comfortable, no adverse events emerged, and 31 subjects (94%) described the therapy as comfortable. Interim data suggest that treatment effect was maintained for 9 months, and there were no significant declines in scores in the long term. The upcoming 12-month follow-up data will let us know if more maintenance therapy is needed.”

During a question-and-answer session, one of the abstract section chairs, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, wondered about the potential for combination treatments in this patient population. “I can imagine that something that is working on the muscle tone has a totally different mechanism than something that is working on the mucosa and the underlying tissue without really affecting the muscle,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam. “Would a combination be the way to go?”

Dr. Berenholz said that he sometimes combines HIFEM with the ULTRA Femme 360, a radiofrequency thermal energy device. “We thought this addresses two issues,” he said. “One is fascial muscle, which is the underlying structural issue for incontinence. The other is thermal energy to aid in incontinence prevention by inducing production of elastin and collagen in the midurethra, but also to promote lubrication and heightened sensitivity in the patient who’s either menopausal or has undergone chemotherapy for breast cancer.”

Dr. Berenholz reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.

[email protected]

Using high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) technology to strengthen pelvic floor muscles for the improvement of urinary incontinence (UI) and female sexual function was safe and effective at 9 months follow-up, results from a multicenter study showed.

“The pelvic floor consists of three pairs of muscles: the pubococcygeus, the iliococcygeus, and the puborectalis,” lead study author Joseph Berenholz, MD, and a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetics & Gynecology, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “They control continence through support of pelvic organs. The urethra, the vagina, and the rectum pass through that diaphragm. It also contributes to sexual sensation and arousal. A deconditioning of the pelvic floor is usually the result of child-bearing years or aging, which usually results in urinary incontinence and impairment of sexual function. The noninvasive strengthening of the pelvic floor muscles helps to regain muscle tone and strength.”

In a prospective, open-label, single-arm study conducted at four sites, Dr. Berenholz, medical director of the Michigan Center for Women’s Health in Farmington Hills, and colleagues investigated the long-term effectiveness of HIFEM-induced pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strengthening for improvement of UI and sexual function. HIFEM selectively targets neuromuscular tissue and induces supramaximal PFM contractions that cannot be achieved voluntarily, he said, causing muscle strengthening due to muscle fiber hypertrophy, which helps patients to better isolate and command their muscles.

The study population consisted of 33 females with a mean age of 49 years who had UI and UI-related problems in sexual life. They received six 28-minute HIFEM treatments of the pelvic floor with the BTL Emsella, which is FDA cleared for both stress and urge incontinence. The frequency of visits was two treatments per week and the intensity of HIFEM was adjusted between 0% and 100% based on the patient’s tolerance threshold. Evaluations were conducted at baseline, after the last treatment, at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. The primary outcomes were change in urine leakage based on the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) and change in sexual function based on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Secondary endpoints were adverse events and the comfort of therapy based on a 7-point Likert scale.

Dr. Berenholz reported that from baseline the severity of UI based on the ICIQ-SF significantly decreased 60% by a mean of 8.1 points between baseline and 9 months (P < .001). At 1 month, the FSFI score improved 32% by a mean of 7.1 points (P < .001) and was sustained throughout the study. The most prominent changes were seen in the subdomains of desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasm response.

The PISQ-12 score incrementally increased 25% to a mean improvement of 8.2 points at 9 months (P < .001). Subjects improved most in the emotive subdomain, reporting more frequent orgasms, increased desire, and sexual excitement. The minimal important difference was 6 points.

“This is a true paradigm shift in the treatment of incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Berenholz said. “The therapy was safe, comfortable, no adverse events emerged, and 31 subjects (94%) described the therapy as comfortable. Interim data suggest that treatment effect was maintained for 9 months, and there were no significant declines in scores in the long term. The upcoming 12-month follow-up data will let us know if more maintenance therapy is needed.”

During a question-and-answer session, one of the abstract section chairs, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, wondered about the potential for combination treatments in this patient population. “I can imagine that something that is working on the muscle tone has a totally different mechanism than something that is working on the mucosa and the underlying tissue without really affecting the muscle,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam. “Would a combination be the way to go?”

Dr. Berenholz said that he sometimes combines HIFEM with the ULTRA Femme 360, a radiofrequency thermal energy device. “We thought this addresses two issues,” he said. “One is fascial muscle, which is the underlying structural issue for incontinence. The other is thermal energy to aid in incontinence prevention by inducing production of elastin and collagen in the midurethra, but also to promote lubrication and heightened sensitivity in the patient who’s either menopausal or has undergone chemotherapy for breast cancer.”

Dr. Berenholz reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

Goodbye stress, goodbye gray hair

Last year was a doozy, so it wouldn’t be too surprising if we all had a few new gray strands in our hair. But what if we told you that you don’t need to start dying them or plucking them out? What if they could magically go back to the way they were? Well, it may be possible, sans magic and sans stress.

Investigators recently discovered that the age-old belief that stress will permanently turn your hair gray may not be true after all. There’s a strong possibility that it could turn back to its original color once the stressful agent is eliminated.

“Understanding the mechanisms that allow ‘old’ gray hairs to return to their ‘young’ pigmented states could yield new clues about the malleability of human aging in general and how it is influenced by stress,” said senior author Martin Picard, PhD, of Columbia University, New York.

NomeVisualizzato/Pixabay

One small step for squid

Space does a number on the human body. Forget the obvious like going for a walk outside without a spacesuit, or even the well-known risks like the degradation of bone in microgravity; there are numerous smaller but still important changes to the body during spaceflight, like the disruption of the symbiotic relationship between gut bacteria and the human body. This causes the immune system to lose the ability to recognize threats, and illnesses spread more easily.

Naturally, if astronauts are going to undertake years-long journeys to Mars and beyond, a thorough understanding of this disturbance is necessary, and that’s why NASA has sent a bunch of squid to the International Space Station.

When it comes to animal studies, squid aren’t the usual culprits, but there’s a reason NASA chose calamari over the alternatives: The Hawaiian bobtail squid has a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that regulate their bioluminescence in much the same way that we have a symbiotic relationship with our gut bacteria, but the squid is a much simpler animal. If the bioluminescence-regulating bacteria are disturbed during their time in space, it will be much easier to figure out what’s going wrong.

PxHere

Less plastic, more vanilla

Have you been racked by guilt over the number of plastic water bottles you use? What about the amount of ice cream you eat? Well, this one’s for you.

Plastic isn’t the first thing you think about when you open up a pint of vanilla ice cream and catch the sweet, spicy vanilla scent, or when you smell those fresh vanilla scones coming out of the oven at the coffee shop, but a new study shows that the flavor of vanilla can come from water bottles.

Here’s the deal. A compound called vanillin is responsible for the scent of vanilla, and it can come naturally from the bean or it can be made synthetically. Believe it or not, 85% of vanillin is made synthetically from fossil fuels!

We’ve definitely grown accustomed to our favorite vanilla scents, foods, and cosmetics. In 2018, the global demand for vanillin was about 40,800 tons and is expected to grow to 65,000 tons by 2025, which far exceeds the supply of natural vanilla.

So what can we do? Well, we can use genetically engineered bacteria to turn plastic water bottles into vanillin, according to a study published in the journal Green Chemistry.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

No withdrawals from this bank

Into each life, some milestones must fall: High school graduation, birth of a child, first house, 50th wedding anniversary, COVID-19. One LOTME staffer got really excited – way too excited, actually – when his Nissan Sentra reached 300,000 miles.

Well, there are milestones, and then there are milestones. “1,000 Reasons for Hope” is a report celebrating the first 1,000 brains donated to the VA-BU-CLF Brain Bank. For those of you keeping score at home, that would be the Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston University, and the Concussion Legacy Foundation.

The Brain Bank, created in 2008 to study concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is the brainchild – yes, we went there – of Chris Nowinski, PhD, a former professional wrestler, and Ann McKee, MD, an expert on neurogenerative disease. “Our discoveries have already inspired changes to sports that will prevent many future cases of CTE in the next generation of athletes,” Dr. Nowinski, the CEO of CLF, said in a written statement.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

Goodbye stress, goodbye gray hair

Last year was a doozy, so it wouldn’t be too surprising if we all had a few new gray strands in our hair. But what if we told you that you don’t need to start dying them or plucking them out? What if they could magically go back to the way they were? Well, it may be possible, sans magic and sans stress.

Investigators recently discovered that the age-old belief that stress will permanently turn your hair gray may not be true after all. There’s a strong possibility that it could turn back to its original color once the stressful agent is eliminated.

“Understanding the mechanisms that allow ‘old’ gray hairs to return to their ‘young’ pigmented states could yield new clues about the malleability of human aging in general and how it is influenced by stress,” said senior author Martin Picard, PhD, of Columbia University, New York.

NomeVisualizzato/Pixabay

One small step for squid

Space does a number on the human body. Forget the obvious like going for a walk outside without a spacesuit, or even the well-known risks like the degradation of bone in microgravity; there are numerous smaller but still important changes to the body during spaceflight, like the disruption of the symbiotic relationship between gut bacteria and the human body. This causes the immune system to lose the ability to recognize threats, and illnesses spread more easily.

Naturally, if astronauts are going to undertake years-long journeys to Mars and beyond, a thorough understanding of this disturbance is necessary, and that’s why NASA has sent a bunch of squid to the International Space Station.

When it comes to animal studies, squid aren’t the usual culprits, but there’s a reason NASA chose calamari over the alternatives: The Hawaiian bobtail squid has a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that regulate their bioluminescence in much the same way that we have a symbiotic relationship with our gut bacteria, but the squid is a much simpler animal. If the bioluminescence-regulating bacteria are disturbed during their time in space, it will be much easier to figure out what’s going wrong.

PxHere

Less plastic, more vanilla

Have you been racked by guilt over the number of plastic water bottles you use? What about the amount of ice cream you eat? Well, this one’s for you.

Plastic isn’t the first thing you think about when you open up a pint of vanilla ice cream and catch the sweet, spicy vanilla scent, or when you smell those fresh vanilla scones coming out of the oven at the coffee shop, but a new study shows that the flavor of vanilla can come from water bottles.

Here’s the deal. A compound called vanillin is responsible for the scent of vanilla, and it can come naturally from the bean or it can be made synthetically. Believe it or not, 85% of vanillin is made synthetically from fossil fuels!

We’ve definitely grown accustomed to our favorite vanilla scents, foods, and cosmetics. In 2018, the global demand for vanillin was about 40,800 tons and is expected to grow to 65,000 tons by 2025, which far exceeds the supply of natural vanilla.

So what can we do? Well, we can use genetically engineered bacteria to turn plastic water bottles into vanillin, according to a study published in the journal Green Chemistry.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

No withdrawals from this bank

Into each life, some milestones must fall: High school graduation, birth of a child, first house, 50th wedding anniversary, COVID-19. One LOTME staffer got really excited – way too excited, actually – when his Nissan Sentra reached 300,000 miles.

Well, there are milestones, and then there are milestones. “1,000 Reasons for Hope” is a report celebrating the first 1,000 brains donated to the VA-BU-CLF Brain Bank. For those of you keeping score at home, that would be the Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston University, and the Concussion Legacy Foundation.

The Brain Bank, created in 2008 to study concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is the brainchild – yes, we went there – of Chris Nowinski, PhD, a former professional wrestler, and Ann McKee, MD, an expert on neurogenerative disease. “Our discoveries have already inspired changes to sports that will prevent many future cases of CTE in the next generation of athletes,” Dr. Nowinski, the CEO of CLF, said in a written statement.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

Goodbye stress, goodbye gray hair

Last year was a doozy, so it wouldn’t be too surprising if we all had a few new gray strands in our hair. But what if we told you that you don’t need to start dying them or plucking them out? What if they could magically go back to the way they were? Well, it may be possible, sans magic and sans stress.

Investigators recently discovered that the age-old belief that stress will permanently turn your hair gray may not be true after all. There’s a strong possibility that it could turn back to its original color once the stressful agent is eliminated.

“Understanding the mechanisms that allow ‘old’ gray hairs to return to their ‘young’ pigmented states could yield new clues about the malleability of human aging in general and how it is influenced by stress,” said senior author Martin Picard, PhD, of Columbia University, New York.

NomeVisualizzato/Pixabay

One small step for squid

Space does a number on the human body. Forget the obvious like going for a walk outside without a spacesuit, or even the well-known risks like the degradation of bone in microgravity; there are numerous smaller but still important changes to the body during spaceflight, like the disruption of the symbiotic relationship between gut bacteria and the human body. This causes the immune system to lose the ability to recognize threats, and illnesses spread more easily.

Naturally, if astronauts are going to undertake years-long journeys to Mars and beyond, a thorough understanding of this disturbance is necessary, and that’s why NASA has sent a bunch of squid to the International Space Station.

When it comes to animal studies, squid aren’t the usual culprits, but there’s a reason NASA chose calamari over the alternatives: The Hawaiian bobtail squid has a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that regulate their bioluminescence in much the same way that we have a symbiotic relationship with our gut bacteria, but the squid is a much simpler animal. If the bioluminescence-regulating bacteria are disturbed during their time in space, it will be much easier to figure out what’s going wrong.

PxHere

Less plastic, more vanilla

Have you been racked by guilt over the number of plastic water bottles you use? What about the amount of ice cream you eat? Well, this one’s for you.

Plastic isn’t the first thing you think about when you open up a pint of vanilla ice cream and catch the sweet, spicy vanilla scent, or when you smell those fresh vanilla scones coming out of the oven at the coffee shop, but a new study shows that the flavor of vanilla can come from water bottles.

Here’s the deal. A compound called vanillin is responsible for the scent of vanilla, and it can come naturally from the bean or it can be made synthetically. Believe it or not, 85% of vanillin is made synthetically from fossil fuels!

We’ve definitely grown accustomed to our favorite vanilla scents, foods, and cosmetics. In 2018, the global demand for vanillin was about 40,800 tons and is expected to grow to 65,000 tons by 2025, which far exceeds the supply of natural vanilla.

So what can we do? Well, we can use genetically engineered bacteria to turn plastic water bottles into vanillin, according to a study published in the journal Green Chemistry.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

No withdrawals from this bank

Into each life, some milestones must fall: High school graduation, birth of a child, first house, 50th wedding anniversary, COVID-19. One LOTME staffer got really excited – way too excited, actually – when his Nissan Sentra reached 300,000 miles.

Well, there are milestones, and then there are milestones. “1,000 Reasons for Hope” is a report celebrating the first 1,000 brains donated to the VA-BU-CLF Brain Bank. For those of you keeping score at home, that would be the Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston University, and the Concussion Legacy Foundation.

The Brain Bank, created in 2008 to study concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is the brainchild – yes, we went there – of Chris Nowinski, PhD, a former professional wrestler, and Ann McKee, MD, an expert on neurogenerative disease. “Our discoveries have already inspired changes to sports that will prevent many future cases of CTE in the next generation of athletes,” Dr. Nowinski, the CEO of CLF, said in a written statement.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

A large retrospective U.S. study published June 23 in JAMA Dermatology finds that chilblains, an inflammatory skin condition marked by erythema and also known as ‘COVID toes,’ is likely not associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis, despite an unprecedented number of new chilblain cases reported in 2020.

This study follows a report published almost 2 weeks earlier, of 17 adolescents in Italy with chilblain lesions of the toes. That report indicated that the lesions were not related to current or past infections, and that lifestyle changes may have been a contributing factor .

Early last year, clinicians in Europe and the United States began reporting an unusually high number of chilblain cases, but few of the patients described in the cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2 or its antibodies. The possible connection was explored in studies and featured extensively in the lay press. After all, viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, are known to be associated with skin rashes. Plus, SARS-CoV-2 infections are known to exhibit a number of dermatological manifestations, such as urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and vesicular eruptions. More than 150 papers have been published on the spectrum of cutaneous reactions to this virus.

In the new study, led by Patrick E. McCleskey, MD, a dermatologist with Kaiser Permanente Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center, a review of chilblain cases from six Bay Area counties in Northern California found a weak correlation confirming 2% of chilblain cases as potentially secondary to COVID-19.

“While chilblains do seem to follow COVID-19 infection in some cases, most cases of chilblains in our study were not shown to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Dr. McCleskey said in an interview.

“We think the increase in cases probably had more to do with changes in behavior as children and adults were at home instead of work and school. The highest incidence in chilblains were seen in children ages 13-19, who were staying home from school. Only 6% in our study said they wear shoes at home, and half of our patients don’t have home heating in northern California,” he said.

The condition of chilblains primarily affects the dorsal feet or hands and is almost uniquely associated with spending an inordinate amount of time in damp and cold conditions. There are some medical conditions associated with chilblains, such as Raynaud’s disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, hyperhidrosis, and lymphomas and leukemias. And, as with COVID-19, chilblains affect more women than men.

Northern California study

The retrospective cohort study evaluated 780 patients (464 female; mean age 36.8 years) from six Bay Area counties in Northern California, who were treated for chilblains between April and December 2020 when stay-at-home orders were in effect in California. Of the 780 patients, 456 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 17 patients (3.7%) tested positive for the virus. In nine patients (2%), a COVID-19 infection was preceded by 6 weeks of chilblains. By September, testing for the COVID-19 virus was more reliable. Testing showed that of 97 chilblains cases, 1% were positive for the virus.

“The finding that some patients with COVID-19 developed chilblains at the same time, or subsequent to the infection, is suggestive of secondary chilblains due to COVID-19,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The 2020 cases were compared with 539 patients (mean age 44.7 years) with chilblains who were treated during the same period in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. During these years, the annual incidence of chilblains was 5.2 (95% confidence interval, 4.8-5.6) per 100,000 person years, compared with 28.6 (95% CI, 26.8-30.4) in 2020, during the pandemic.
 

Possible explanations

The authors suggest there are several explanations for the increased reports of chilblains in 2020. First, the lack of shoes: During the pandemic, children between the ages of 13 and 19 years had more cases of chilblains than any other age group despite the fact that teenagers have a low-risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Six percent of teenagers with newly diagnosed chilblains wore shoes at home during the study period in 2020.

Chilblains was almost three times more common in Asian American (42.5; 95% CI, 37.7-47.8) and White individuals (35.7; 95% CI, 32.6-39.1), compared with Black (11.6; 95% CI, 7.8-17.3) and Latinx (12.5; 95% CI, 10.1-15.4) individuals. But the authors noted that the Latinx community had the highest number of COVID-19 cases (62.5; 95% CI, 61.9-63.1), three times more than Asian Americans (19.0; 95% CI, 18.6-19.3) and White individuals (17.9; 95% CI, 17.7-18.2) and two times more than in Black individuals (29.2; 95% CI, 28.4-29.9).

“Latinx patients had the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in our population, but the lowest rates of chilblains. Groups in Northern California who were more likely to stay home during the pandemic because they could work from home – White and Asian American and White patients – had much higher rates of chilblains than groups who were more likely to have to work outside the home – Latinx and African American patients,” Dr. McCleskey said.

A report by the Bay Area Council in December 2020 found that Asian Americans and Whites were more likely to work from home during the pandemic (52% and 50% respectively) compared with Black and Latinx workers (33% and 30% respectively). While Latinx individuals made up 46% of all COVID-19 cases, they accounted for 9% of chilblain cases in 2020 (but cases may have been underreported), the authors wrote.

And while there may have been more cases of chilblains during the pandemic in 2020, they did not occur in cities with higher rates of COVID-19. “If chilblains were occurring in the same communities where COVID-19 cases were occurring, the Spearman coefficient would be closer to 1,” wrote the authors, referring to the measure used to rank correlation in the study. In this case, the Spearman coefficient was 0.18.

Another explanation for the increase in chilblain cases could be that more patients sought care in response to news reports about ‘COVID toes.’

“The exact cause of chilblains is still elusive. Some publications coming out of the pandemic suggest an interferon response is part of the pathophysiology of chilblains, but this was not the focus of our research,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The authors hypothesized that in affected individuals, particularly younger patients, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 contributed to chilblains in asymptomatic individuals. “It is possible that some patients with chilblains were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but produced such a robust innate immune response that it was later difficult to find any evidence of infection,” they wrote.

They suggested that better testing may help identify past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and secondary chilblains.

The strengths of this study included its size, community base, a control group dating back to 2016, validation by medical records review, and the ability to control for geographic variation allowing investigators to track weather, which can be a factor in chilblain cases. The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the lack of reliable antibody testing early in the year and the lack of IgA antibody testing.

The authors had no disclosures. The study was funded by The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research initiative.

A large retrospective U.S. study published June 23 in JAMA Dermatology finds that chilblains, an inflammatory skin condition marked by erythema and also known as ‘COVID toes,’ is likely not associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis, despite an unprecedented number of new chilblain cases reported in 2020.

This study follows a report published almost 2 weeks earlier, of 17 adolescents in Italy with chilblain lesions of the toes. That report indicated that the lesions were not related to current or past infections, and that lifestyle changes may have been a contributing factor .

Early last year, clinicians in Europe and the United States began reporting an unusually high number of chilblain cases, but few of the patients described in the cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2 or its antibodies. The possible connection was explored in studies and featured extensively in the lay press. After all, viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, are known to be associated with skin rashes. Plus, SARS-CoV-2 infections are known to exhibit a number of dermatological manifestations, such as urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and vesicular eruptions. More than 150 papers have been published on the spectrum of cutaneous reactions to this virus.

In the new study, led by Patrick E. McCleskey, MD, a dermatologist with Kaiser Permanente Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center, a review of chilblain cases from six Bay Area counties in Northern California found a weak correlation confirming 2% of chilblain cases as potentially secondary to COVID-19.

“While chilblains do seem to follow COVID-19 infection in some cases, most cases of chilblains in our study were not shown to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Dr. McCleskey said in an interview.

“We think the increase in cases probably had more to do with changes in behavior as children and adults were at home instead of work and school. The highest incidence in chilblains were seen in children ages 13-19, who were staying home from school. Only 6% in our study said they wear shoes at home, and half of our patients don’t have home heating in northern California,” he said.

The condition of chilblains primarily affects the dorsal feet or hands and is almost uniquely associated with spending an inordinate amount of time in damp and cold conditions. There are some medical conditions associated with chilblains, such as Raynaud’s disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, hyperhidrosis, and lymphomas and leukemias. And, as with COVID-19, chilblains affect more women than men.

Northern California study

The retrospective cohort study evaluated 780 patients (464 female; mean age 36.8 years) from six Bay Area counties in Northern California, who were treated for chilblains between April and December 2020 when stay-at-home orders were in effect in California. Of the 780 patients, 456 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 17 patients (3.7%) tested positive for the virus. In nine patients (2%), a COVID-19 infection was preceded by 6 weeks of chilblains. By September, testing for the COVID-19 virus was more reliable. Testing showed that of 97 chilblains cases, 1% were positive for the virus.

“The finding that some patients with COVID-19 developed chilblains at the same time, or subsequent to the infection, is suggestive of secondary chilblains due to COVID-19,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The 2020 cases were compared with 539 patients (mean age 44.7 years) with chilblains who were treated during the same period in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. During these years, the annual incidence of chilblains was 5.2 (95% confidence interval, 4.8-5.6) per 100,000 person years, compared with 28.6 (95% CI, 26.8-30.4) in 2020, during the pandemic.
 

Possible explanations

The authors suggest there are several explanations for the increased reports of chilblains in 2020. First, the lack of shoes: During the pandemic, children between the ages of 13 and 19 years had more cases of chilblains than any other age group despite the fact that teenagers have a low-risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Six percent of teenagers with newly diagnosed chilblains wore shoes at home during the study period in 2020.

Chilblains was almost three times more common in Asian American (42.5; 95% CI, 37.7-47.8) and White individuals (35.7; 95% CI, 32.6-39.1), compared with Black (11.6; 95% CI, 7.8-17.3) and Latinx (12.5; 95% CI, 10.1-15.4) individuals. But the authors noted that the Latinx community had the highest number of COVID-19 cases (62.5; 95% CI, 61.9-63.1), three times more than Asian Americans (19.0; 95% CI, 18.6-19.3) and White individuals (17.9; 95% CI, 17.7-18.2) and two times more than in Black individuals (29.2; 95% CI, 28.4-29.9).

“Latinx patients had the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in our population, but the lowest rates of chilblains. Groups in Northern California who were more likely to stay home during the pandemic because they could work from home – White and Asian American and White patients – had much higher rates of chilblains than groups who were more likely to have to work outside the home – Latinx and African American patients,” Dr. McCleskey said.

A report by the Bay Area Council in December 2020 found that Asian Americans and Whites were more likely to work from home during the pandemic (52% and 50% respectively) compared with Black and Latinx workers (33% and 30% respectively). While Latinx individuals made up 46% of all COVID-19 cases, they accounted for 9% of chilblain cases in 2020 (but cases may have been underreported), the authors wrote.

And while there may have been more cases of chilblains during the pandemic in 2020, they did not occur in cities with higher rates of COVID-19. “If chilblains were occurring in the same communities where COVID-19 cases were occurring, the Spearman coefficient would be closer to 1,” wrote the authors, referring to the measure used to rank correlation in the study. In this case, the Spearman coefficient was 0.18.

Another explanation for the increase in chilblain cases could be that more patients sought care in response to news reports about ‘COVID toes.’

“The exact cause of chilblains is still elusive. Some publications coming out of the pandemic suggest an interferon response is part of the pathophysiology of chilblains, but this was not the focus of our research,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The authors hypothesized that in affected individuals, particularly younger patients, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 contributed to chilblains in asymptomatic individuals. “It is possible that some patients with chilblains were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but produced such a robust innate immune response that it was later difficult to find any evidence of infection,” they wrote.

They suggested that better testing may help identify past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and secondary chilblains.

The strengths of this study included its size, community base, a control group dating back to 2016, validation by medical records review, and the ability to control for geographic variation allowing investigators to track weather, which can be a factor in chilblain cases. The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the lack of reliable antibody testing early in the year and the lack of IgA antibody testing.

The authors had no disclosures. The study was funded by The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research initiative.

A large retrospective U.S. study published June 23 in JAMA Dermatology finds that chilblains, an inflammatory skin condition marked by erythema and also known as ‘COVID toes,’ is likely not associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis, despite an unprecedented number of new chilblain cases reported in 2020.

This study follows a report published almost 2 weeks earlier, of 17 adolescents in Italy with chilblain lesions of the toes. That report indicated that the lesions were not related to current or past infections, and that lifestyle changes may have been a contributing factor .

Early last year, clinicians in Europe and the United States began reporting an unusually high number of chilblain cases, but few of the patients described in the cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2 or its antibodies. The possible connection was explored in studies and featured extensively in the lay press. After all, viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, are known to be associated with skin rashes. Plus, SARS-CoV-2 infections are known to exhibit a number of dermatological manifestations, such as urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and vesicular eruptions. More than 150 papers have been published on the spectrum of cutaneous reactions to this virus.

In the new study, led by Patrick E. McCleskey, MD, a dermatologist with Kaiser Permanente Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center, a review of chilblain cases from six Bay Area counties in Northern California found a weak correlation confirming 2% of chilblain cases as potentially secondary to COVID-19.

“While chilblains do seem to follow COVID-19 infection in some cases, most cases of chilblains in our study were not shown to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Dr. McCleskey said in an interview.

“We think the increase in cases probably had more to do with changes in behavior as children and adults were at home instead of work and school. The highest incidence in chilblains were seen in children ages 13-19, who were staying home from school. Only 6% in our study said they wear shoes at home, and half of our patients don’t have home heating in northern California,” he said.

The condition of chilblains primarily affects the dorsal feet or hands and is almost uniquely associated with spending an inordinate amount of time in damp and cold conditions. There are some medical conditions associated with chilblains, such as Raynaud’s disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, hyperhidrosis, and lymphomas and leukemias. And, as with COVID-19, chilblains affect more women than men.

Northern California study

The retrospective cohort study evaluated 780 patients (464 female; mean age 36.8 years) from six Bay Area counties in Northern California, who were treated for chilblains between April and December 2020 when stay-at-home orders were in effect in California. Of the 780 patients, 456 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 17 patients (3.7%) tested positive for the virus. In nine patients (2%), a COVID-19 infection was preceded by 6 weeks of chilblains. By September, testing for the COVID-19 virus was more reliable. Testing showed that of 97 chilblains cases, 1% were positive for the virus.

“The finding that some patients with COVID-19 developed chilblains at the same time, or subsequent to the infection, is suggestive of secondary chilblains due to COVID-19,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The 2020 cases were compared with 539 patients (mean age 44.7 years) with chilblains who were treated during the same period in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. During these years, the annual incidence of chilblains was 5.2 (95% confidence interval, 4.8-5.6) per 100,000 person years, compared with 28.6 (95% CI, 26.8-30.4) in 2020, during the pandemic.
 

Possible explanations

The authors suggest there are several explanations for the increased reports of chilblains in 2020. First, the lack of shoes: During the pandemic, children between the ages of 13 and 19 years had more cases of chilblains than any other age group despite the fact that teenagers have a low-risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Six percent of teenagers with newly diagnosed chilblains wore shoes at home during the study period in 2020.

Chilblains was almost three times more common in Asian American (42.5; 95% CI, 37.7-47.8) and White individuals (35.7; 95% CI, 32.6-39.1), compared with Black (11.6; 95% CI, 7.8-17.3) and Latinx (12.5; 95% CI, 10.1-15.4) individuals. But the authors noted that the Latinx community had the highest number of COVID-19 cases (62.5; 95% CI, 61.9-63.1), three times more than Asian Americans (19.0; 95% CI, 18.6-19.3) and White individuals (17.9; 95% CI, 17.7-18.2) and two times more than in Black individuals (29.2; 95% CI, 28.4-29.9).

“Latinx patients had the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in our population, but the lowest rates of chilblains. Groups in Northern California who were more likely to stay home during the pandemic because they could work from home – White and Asian American and White patients – had much higher rates of chilblains than groups who were more likely to have to work outside the home – Latinx and African American patients,” Dr. McCleskey said.

A report by the Bay Area Council in December 2020 found that Asian Americans and Whites were more likely to work from home during the pandemic (52% and 50% respectively) compared with Black and Latinx workers (33% and 30% respectively). While Latinx individuals made up 46% of all COVID-19 cases, they accounted for 9% of chilblain cases in 2020 (but cases may have been underreported), the authors wrote.

And while there may have been more cases of chilblains during the pandemic in 2020, they did not occur in cities with higher rates of COVID-19. “If chilblains were occurring in the same communities where COVID-19 cases were occurring, the Spearman coefficient would be closer to 1,” wrote the authors, referring to the measure used to rank correlation in the study. In this case, the Spearman coefficient was 0.18.

Another explanation for the increase in chilblain cases could be that more patients sought care in response to news reports about ‘COVID toes.’

“The exact cause of chilblains is still elusive. Some publications coming out of the pandemic suggest an interferon response is part of the pathophysiology of chilblains, but this was not the focus of our research,” Dr. McCleskey said.

The authors hypothesized that in affected individuals, particularly younger patients, the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 contributed to chilblains in asymptomatic individuals. “It is possible that some patients with chilblains were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but produced such a robust innate immune response that it was later difficult to find any evidence of infection,” they wrote.

They suggested that better testing may help identify past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and secondary chilblains.

The strengths of this study included its size, community base, a control group dating back to 2016, validation by medical records review, and the ability to control for geographic variation allowing investigators to track weather, which can be a factor in chilblain cases. The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the lack of reliable antibody testing early in the year and the lack of IgA antibody testing.

The authors had no disclosures. The study was funded by The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research initiative.

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

To the Editor:

Annular leukoderma, or the halo phenomenon, is a circular reaction of hypopigmentation that most commonly is observed alongside congenital nevi, acquired melanocytic nevi, blue nevi, Spitz nevi, vitiligo, and rarely melanoma.¹ There is limited literature on the mechanism of the halo phenomenon. Most of the literature proposes a T cell–mediated immune response to antigens, which causes not only surrounding pigment loss but also heralds the regression of central lesions.² Others have suggested a vascular mechanism, with blood shunted away from the lesions.³ Because guidelines discourage biopsy of typical halo nevi, it becomes important to evaluate lesions for worrisome features such as ulceration or asymmetry, especially in older patients. We present a case of a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that exhibited the halo phenomenon. Four other cases have been described in the literature.^3-6

A 53-year-old man presented for evaluation of an asymptomatic lesion on the left side of the abdomen of approximately 8 months’ duration. He had no personal or family history of skin cancer. Physical examination revealed a central 1-cm, pink, verrucous papule surrounded by a 2×1.2-cm, depigmented, circular patch on the left side of the inferior abdomen (Figure 1). Upon questioning, the patient produced cell phone photographs of the trunk from 3 years prior, which did not show any lesions present. Full-body skin examination did not reveal any other concerning pigmented lesions. Excisional biopsy was performed due to concern for amelanotic melanoma, and histopathology revealed a superficial and pigmented BCC (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry with Melan-A was negative for atypical melanocytes, with no uptake in the leukoderma areas.

Our patient’s final histologic diagnosis was pigmented BCC, which comprises only 6% of all BCCs.³ The proposed mechanism is that melanocytes colonize the tumor in the surrounding stroma and produce excess melanin. Basal cell carcinoma with halo phenomenon is a rare presentation. As in our case, 2 prior BCC reports also involved patients older than 50 years,^3,5 with the 2 other cases describing women in their late twenties and early thirties.^4,6 Additionally, 2 of 4 reports described patients with a history of multiple BCCs.^3,5

In summary, the seemingly benign halo phenomenon may accompany malignant processes such as nonmelanoma skin cancer. Careful consideration of lesion time course and atypia is imperative for proper clinical suspicion in such cases.

To the Editor:

Annular leukoderma, or the halo phenomenon, is a circular reaction of hypopigmentation that most commonly is observed alongside congenital nevi, acquired melanocytic nevi, blue nevi, Spitz nevi, vitiligo, and rarely melanoma.¹ There is limited literature on the mechanism of the halo phenomenon. Most of the literature proposes a T cell–mediated immune response to antigens, which causes not only surrounding pigment loss but also heralds the regression of central lesions.² Others have suggested a vascular mechanism, with blood shunted away from the lesions.³ Because guidelines discourage biopsy of typical halo nevi, it becomes important to evaluate lesions for worrisome features such as ulceration or asymmetry, especially in older patients. We present a case of a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that exhibited the halo phenomenon. Four other cases have been described in the literature.^3-6

A 53-year-old man presented for evaluation of an asymptomatic lesion on the left side of the abdomen of approximately 8 months’ duration. He had no personal or family history of skin cancer. Physical examination revealed a central 1-cm, pink, verrucous papule surrounded by a 2×1.2-cm, depigmented, circular patch on the left side of the inferior abdomen (Figure 1). Upon questioning, the patient produced cell phone photographs of the trunk from 3 years prior, which did not show any lesions present. Full-body skin examination did not reveal any other concerning pigmented lesions. Excisional biopsy was performed due to concern for amelanotic melanoma, and histopathology revealed a superficial and pigmented BCC (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry with Melan-A was negative for atypical melanocytes, with no uptake in the leukoderma areas.

Our patient’s final histologic diagnosis was pigmented BCC, which comprises only 6% of all BCCs.³ The proposed mechanism is that melanocytes colonize the tumor in the surrounding stroma and produce excess melanin. Basal cell carcinoma with halo phenomenon is a rare presentation. As in our case, 2 prior BCC reports also involved patients older than 50 years,^3,5 with the 2 other cases describing women in their late twenties and early thirties.^4,6 Additionally, 2 of 4 reports described patients with a history of multiple BCCs.^3,5

In summary, the seemingly benign halo phenomenon may accompany malignant processes such as nonmelanoma skin cancer. Careful consideration of lesion time course and atypia is imperative for proper clinical suspicion in such cases.

To the Editor:

Annular leukoderma, or the halo phenomenon, is a circular reaction of hypopigmentation that most commonly is observed alongside congenital nevi, acquired melanocytic nevi, blue nevi, Spitz nevi, vitiligo, and rarely melanoma.¹ There is limited literature on the mechanism of the halo phenomenon. Most of the literature proposes a T cell–mediated immune response to antigens, which causes not only surrounding pigment loss but also heralds the regression of central lesions.² Others have suggested a vascular mechanism, with blood shunted away from the lesions.³ Because guidelines discourage biopsy of typical halo nevi, it becomes important to evaluate lesions for worrisome features such as ulceration or asymmetry, especially in older patients. We present a case of a pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that exhibited the halo phenomenon. Four other cases have been described in the literature.^3-6

A 53-year-old man presented for evaluation of an asymptomatic lesion on the left side of the abdomen of approximately 8 months’ duration. He had no personal or family history of skin cancer. Physical examination revealed a central 1-cm, pink, verrucous papule surrounded by a 2×1.2-cm, depigmented, circular patch on the left side of the inferior abdomen (Figure 1). Upon questioning, the patient produced cell phone photographs of the trunk from 3 years prior, which did not show any lesions present. Full-body skin examination did not reveal any other concerning pigmented lesions. Excisional biopsy was performed due to concern for amelanotic melanoma, and histopathology revealed a superficial and pigmented BCC (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry with Melan-A was negative for atypical melanocytes, with no uptake in the leukoderma areas.

Our patient’s final histologic diagnosis was pigmented BCC, which comprises only 6% of all BCCs.³ The proposed mechanism is that melanocytes colonize the tumor in the surrounding stroma and produce excess melanin. Basal cell carcinoma with halo phenomenon is a rare presentation. As in our case, 2 prior BCC reports also involved patients older than 50 years,^3,5 with the 2 other cases describing women in their late twenties and early thirties.^4,6 Additionally, 2 of 4 reports described patients with a history of multiple BCCs.^3,5

In summary, the seemingly benign halo phenomenon may accompany malignant processes such as nonmelanoma skin cancer. Careful consideration of lesion time course and atypia is imperative for proper clinical suspicion in such cases.

As dermatology residents, we have a lot on our plates. With so many diagnoses to learn and treatments to understand, the sheer volume of knowledge we are expected to be familiar with sometimes can be overwhelming. The thought of adding yet another thing to the list of many things we already need to know—least of all a topic such as dermatoethics—may be unappealing. This article will discuss the importance of ethics training in dermatology residency as well as provide helpful resources for how this training can be achieved.

Professionalism as a Core Competency

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) considers professionalism as 1 of its 6 core competencies.¹ These competencies provide a conceptual framework detailing the domains physicians should be proficient in before they can enter autonomous practice. When it comes to professionalism, residents are expected to demonstrate compassion, integrity, and respect for others; honesty with patients; respect for patient confidentiality and autonomy; appropriate relationships with patients; accountability to patients, society, and the profession; and a sensitivity and responsiveness to diverse patient population.¹

The ACGME milestones are intended to assess resident development within the 6 competencies with more specific parameters for evaluation.² Those pertaining to professionalism evaluate a resident’s ability to demonstrate professional behavior, an understanding of ethical principles, accountability, and conscientiousness, as well as self-awareness and the ability to seek help for personal or professional well-being. The crux of the kinds of activities that constitute acquisition of these professional skills are specialty specific. The ACGME ultimately believes that having a working knowledge of professionalism and ethical principles prepares residents for practicing medicine in the real world. Because of these requirements, residency programs are expected to provide resources for residents to explore ethical problems faced by dermatologists.

Beyond “Passing” Residency

The reality is that learning about medical ethics and practicing professional behavior is not just about ticking boxes to get ACGME accreditation or to “pass” residency. The data suggest that having a strong foundation in these principles is good for overall personal well-being, job satisfaction, and patient care. Studies have shown that unprofessional behavior in medical school is correlated to disciplinary action by state licensing boards against practicing physicians.^3,4 In fact, a study found that in one cohort of physicians (N=68), 95% of disciplinary actions were for lapses in professionalism, which included activities such as sexual misconduct and inappropriate prescribing.⁴ Behaving appropriately protects your license to practice medicine.

Thinking through these problematic ethical scenarios also goes beyond coming up with the right answer. Exploring ethical conundrums is thought to develop analytical skills that can help one navigate future tricky situations that can be morally distressing and can lead to burnout. Introspection and self-awareness coupled with these skills ideally will help physicians think through sensitive and difficult situations with the courage to hold true to their convictions and ultimately uphold the professionalism of the specialty.⁵

Self-awareness has the additional bonus of empowering physicians to acknowledge personal and professional limitations with the goal of seeking help when it is needed before it is too late. It comes as no surprise that how we feel as physicians directly impacts how we treat our patients. One study found that depressed residents were more than 6 times more likely to make medication errors compared to nondepressed colleagues.⁶ Regularly taking stock of our professional and personal reserves can go a long way to improving overall well-being.

Resources for Dermatoethics Training

The best starting point for developing a robust dermatoethics curriculum is the material provided by the American Board of Dermatology, which is available online.⁷ An ad hoc subcommittee of the American Board of Dermatology composed of experts in dermatoethics and resident education reviewed relevant ethics literature and identified 6 core domains considered fundamental to dermatology resident education in ethics and professionalism.⁸ This team also provided a thorough list of relevant background readings for each topic. To cover pertinent material, the subcommittee recommended a 60-minute teaching session every other month with the intent of covering all the material over a 3-year period. If your program directors are not aware of this great resource and you feel your own ethics training may be lacking, bringing this up as a template might be helpful. A detailed description of an innovative dermatoethics curriculum organized at the Department of Dermatology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) in 2001 also may serve as a guide for programs hoping to design their own approach.⁵

For those interested in self-study, there is an excellent text dedicated to dermatoethics, which is aptly entitled Dermatoethics: Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology.⁹ This book offers superb case-based discussions on a wide range of ethical quandaries that dermatologists may face, ranging from unsolicited dermatologic advice (eg, Is it wrong to tell the person next to you in the grocery store that they might have a melanoma?) to research and publication ethics. This text provides a toolkit for handling tough situations in the clinic and beyond. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology publishes an Ethics Journal Club for which contributors can submit real-life practical ethical dilemmas, and the journal solicits a resolution or response from a dermatoethicist.

Additionally, a pilot curriculum project out of the University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah), of which I am a team member, currently is designing and testing several dermatoethics PowerPoint modules with the intention of making this material widely available through medical education portals.

The Hidden Curriculum

A formal curriculum can only provide so much when it comes to ethics training. In truth, much of what we learn as ethically minded dermatologists comes from our day-to-day practice.¹⁰ Paying attention to the more informal curriculum that we are immersed in during routine as well as unusual encounters also is important for achieving milestones. Teaching moments for thinking through ethical dilemmas abound, and this approach easily can be incorporated into routine workflow.¹¹ Next time you encounter an ethical situation that gives you pause (eg, Can I biopsy an intubated patient without getting appropriate consent?), talk it through with your supervisor. Gems of autonomous practice often can be mined from these off-the-cuff conversations.

Can Professionalism Be Taught?

Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the number of resources available to dermatology residents for honing their ethics skills is increasing, ways of measuring the impact of this additional training in vivo are not.¹² There are no good tools available to determine how ethics training influences resident behaviors. Similarly, there is no good evidence for what constitutes the most effective method for teaching medical ethics to trainees. It is a growing field with lots of room for more robust research. For now, the overall goal of a dermatoethics curriculum is to provide a mix of curriculum opportunities, ranging from formal lectures and readings to more informal conversations, with the hope of providing residents a toolbox for dealing with ethical dilemmas and a working knowledge of professionalism.

Final Thoughts

There are several resources available for dermatology programs to provide quality dermatoethics training to their residents. These can be mixed and matched to create a tailored formal curriculum alongside the more informal ethics training that happens in the clinic and on the wards. Providing this education is about more than just fulfilling accreditation requirements. Understanding ethical principles and how they can be applied to navigate sensitive situations is ultimately good for both professional and personal well-being.

As dermatology residents, we have a lot on our plates. With so many diagnoses to learn and treatments to understand, the sheer volume of knowledge we are expected to be familiar with sometimes can be overwhelming. The thought of adding yet another thing to the list of many things we already need to know—least of all a topic such as dermatoethics—may be unappealing. This article will discuss the importance of ethics training in dermatology residency as well as provide helpful resources for how this training can be achieved.

Professionalism as a Core Competency

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) considers professionalism as 1 of its 6 core competencies.¹ These competencies provide a conceptual framework detailing the domains physicians should be proficient in before they can enter autonomous practice. When it comes to professionalism, residents are expected to demonstrate compassion, integrity, and respect for others; honesty with patients; respect for patient confidentiality and autonomy; appropriate relationships with patients; accountability to patients, society, and the profession; and a sensitivity and responsiveness to diverse patient population.¹

The ACGME milestones are intended to assess resident development within the 6 competencies with more specific parameters for evaluation.² Those pertaining to professionalism evaluate a resident’s ability to demonstrate professional behavior, an understanding of ethical principles, accountability, and conscientiousness, as well as self-awareness and the ability to seek help for personal or professional well-being. The crux of the kinds of activities that constitute acquisition of these professional skills are specialty specific. The ACGME ultimately believes that having a working knowledge of professionalism and ethical principles prepares residents for practicing medicine in the real world. Because of these requirements, residency programs are expected to provide resources for residents to explore ethical problems faced by dermatologists.

Beyond “Passing” Residency

The reality is that learning about medical ethics and practicing professional behavior is not just about ticking boxes to get ACGME accreditation or to “pass” residency. The data suggest that having a strong foundation in these principles is good for overall personal well-being, job satisfaction, and patient care. Studies have shown that unprofessional behavior in medical school is correlated to disciplinary action by state licensing boards against practicing physicians.^3,4 In fact, a study found that in one cohort of physicians (N=68), 95% of disciplinary actions were for lapses in professionalism, which included activities such as sexual misconduct and inappropriate prescribing.⁴ Behaving appropriately protects your license to practice medicine.

Thinking through these problematic ethical scenarios also goes beyond coming up with the right answer. Exploring ethical conundrums is thought to develop analytical skills that can help one navigate future tricky situations that can be morally distressing and can lead to burnout. Introspection and self-awareness coupled with these skills ideally will help physicians think through sensitive and difficult situations with the courage to hold true to their convictions and ultimately uphold the professionalism of the specialty.⁵

Self-awareness has the additional bonus of empowering physicians to acknowledge personal and professional limitations with the goal of seeking help when it is needed before it is too late. It comes as no surprise that how we feel as physicians directly impacts how we treat our patients. One study found that depressed residents were more than 6 times more likely to make medication errors compared to nondepressed colleagues.⁶ Regularly taking stock of our professional and personal reserves can go a long way to improving overall well-being.

Resources for Dermatoethics Training

The best starting point for developing a robust dermatoethics curriculum is the material provided by the American Board of Dermatology, which is available online.⁷ An ad hoc subcommittee of the American Board of Dermatology composed of experts in dermatoethics and resident education reviewed relevant ethics literature and identified 6 core domains considered fundamental to dermatology resident education in ethics and professionalism.⁸ This team also provided a thorough list of relevant background readings for each topic. To cover pertinent material, the subcommittee recommended a 60-minute teaching session every other month with the intent of covering all the material over a 3-year period. If your program directors are not aware of this great resource and you feel your own ethics training may be lacking, bringing this up as a template might be helpful. A detailed description of an innovative dermatoethics curriculum organized at the Department of Dermatology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) in 2001 also may serve as a guide for programs hoping to design their own approach.⁵

For those interested in self-study, there is an excellent text dedicated to dermatoethics, which is aptly entitled Dermatoethics: Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology.⁹ This book offers superb case-based discussions on a wide range of ethical quandaries that dermatologists may face, ranging from unsolicited dermatologic advice (eg, Is it wrong to tell the person next to you in the grocery store that they might have a melanoma?) to research and publication ethics. This text provides a toolkit for handling tough situations in the clinic and beyond. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology publishes an Ethics Journal Club for which contributors can submit real-life practical ethical dilemmas, and the journal solicits a resolution or response from a dermatoethicist.

Additionally, a pilot curriculum project out of the University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah), of which I am a team member, currently is designing and testing several dermatoethics PowerPoint modules with the intention of making this material widely available through medical education portals.

The Hidden Curriculum

A formal curriculum can only provide so much when it comes to ethics training. In truth, much of what we learn as ethically minded dermatologists comes from our day-to-day practice.¹⁰ Paying attention to the more informal curriculum that we are immersed in during routine as well as unusual encounters also is important for achieving milestones. Teaching moments for thinking through ethical dilemmas abound, and this approach easily can be incorporated into routine workflow.¹¹ Next time you encounter an ethical situation that gives you pause (eg, Can I biopsy an intubated patient without getting appropriate consent?), talk it through with your supervisor. Gems of autonomous practice often can be mined from these off-the-cuff conversations.

Can Professionalism Be Taught?

Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the number of resources available to dermatology residents for honing their ethics skills is increasing, ways of measuring the impact of this additional training in vivo are not.¹² There are no good tools available to determine how ethics training influences resident behaviors. Similarly, there is no good evidence for what constitutes the most effective method for teaching medical ethics to trainees. It is a growing field with lots of room for more robust research. For now, the overall goal of a dermatoethics curriculum is to provide a mix of curriculum opportunities, ranging from formal lectures and readings to more informal conversations, with the hope of providing residents a toolbox for dealing with ethical dilemmas and a working knowledge of professionalism.

Final Thoughts

There are several resources available for dermatology programs to provide quality dermatoethics training to their residents. These can be mixed and matched to create a tailored formal curriculum alongside the more informal ethics training that happens in the clinic and on the wards. Providing this education is about more than just fulfilling accreditation requirements. Understanding ethical principles and how they can be applied to navigate sensitive situations is ultimately good for both professional and personal well-being.

As dermatology residents, we have a lot on our plates. With so many diagnoses to learn and treatments to understand, the sheer volume of knowledge we are expected to be familiar with sometimes can be overwhelming. The thought of adding yet another thing to the list of many things we already need to know—least of all a topic such as dermatoethics—may be unappealing. This article will discuss the importance of ethics training in dermatology residency as well as provide helpful resources for how this training can be achieved.

Professionalism as a Core Competency

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) considers professionalism as 1 of its 6 core competencies.¹ These competencies provide a conceptual framework detailing the domains physicians should be proficient in before they can enter autonomous practice. When it comes to professionalism, residents are expected to demonstrate compassion, integrity, and respect for others; honesty with patients; respect for patient confidentiality and autonomy; appropriate relationships with patients; accountability to patients, society, and the profession; and a sensitivity and responsiveness to diverse patient population.¹

The ACGME milestones are intended to assess resident development within the 6 competencies with more specific parameters for evaluation.² Those pertaining to professionalism evaluate a resident’s ability to demonstrate professional behavior, an understanding of ethical principles, accountability, and conscientiousness, as well as self-awareness and the ability to seek help for personal or professional well-being. The crux of the kinds of activities that constitute acquisition of these professional skills are specialty specific. The ACGME ultimately believes that having a working knowledge of professionalism and ethical principles prepares residents for practicing medicine in the real world. Because of these requirements, residency programs are expected to provide resources for residents to explore ethical problems faced by dermatologists.

Beyond “Passing” Residency

The reality is that learning about medical ethics and practicing professional behavior is not just about ticking boxes to get ACGME accreditation or to “pass” residency. The data suggest that having a strong foundation in these principles is good for overall personal well-being, job satisfaction, and patient care. Studies have shown that unprofessional behavior in medical school is correlated to disciplinary action by state licensing boards against practicing physicians.^3,4 In fact, a study found that in one cohort of physicians (N=68), 95% of disciplinary actions were for lapses in professionalism, which included activities such as sexual misconduct and inappropriate prescribing.⁴ Behaving appropriately protects your license to practice medicine.

Thinking through these problematic ethical scenarios also goes beyond coming up with the right answer. Exploring ethical conundrums is thought to develop analytical skills that can help one navigate future tricky situations that can be morally distressing and can lead to burnout. Introspection and self-awareness coupled with these skills ideally will help physicians think through sensitive and difficult situations with the courage to hold true to their convictions and ultimately uphold the professionalism of the specialty.⁵

Self-awareness has the additional bonus of empowering physicians to acknowledge personal and professional limitations with the goal of seeking help when it is needed before it is too late. It comes as no surprise that how we feel as physicians directly impacts how we treat our patients. One study found that depressed residents were more than 6 times more likely to make medication errors compared to nondepressed colleagues.⁶ Regularly taking stock of our professional and personal reserves can go a long way to improving overall well-being.

Resources for Dermatoethics Training

The best starting point for developing a robust dermatoethics curriculum is the material provided by the American Board of Dermatology, which is available online.⁷ An ad hoc subcommittee of the American Board of Dermatology composed of experts in dermatoethics and resident education reviewed relevant ethics literature and identified 6 core domains considered fundamental to dermatology resident education in ethics and professionalism.⁸ This team also provided a thorough list of relevant background readings for each topic. To cover pertinent material, the subcommittee recommended a 60-minute teaching session every other month with the intent of covering all the material over a 3-year period. If your program directors are not aware of this great resource and you feel your own ethics training may be lacking, bringing this up as a template might be helpful. A detailed description of an innovative dermatoethics curriculum organized at the Department of Dermatology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) in 2001 also may serve as a guide for programs hoping to design their own approach.⁵

For those interested in self-study, there is an excellent text dedicated to dermatoethics, which is aptly entitled Dermatoethics: Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology.⁹ This book offers superb case-based discussions on a wide range of ethical quandaries that dermatologists may face, ranging from unsolicited dermatologic advice (eg, Is it wrong to tell the person next to you in the grocery store that they might have a melanoma?) to research and publication ethics. This text provides a toolkit for handling tough situations in the clinic and beyond. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology publishes an Ethics Journal Club for which contributors can submit real-life practical ethical dilemmas, and the journal solicits a resolution or response from a dermatoethicist.

Additionally, a pilot curriculum project out of the University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah), of which I am a team member, currently is designing and testing several dermatoethics PowerPoint modules with the intention of making this material widely available through medical education portals.

The Hidden Curriculum

A formal curriculum can only provide so much when it comes to ethics training. In truth, much of what we learn as ethically minded dermatologists comes from our day-to-day practice.¹⁰ Paying attention to the more informal curriculum that we are immersed in during routine as well as unusual encounters also is important for achieving milestones. Teaching moments for thinking through ethical dilemmas abound, and this approach easily can be incorporated into routine workflow.¹¹ Next time you encounter an ethical situation that gives you pause (eg, Can I biopsy an intubated patient without getting appropriate consent?), talk it through with your supervisor. Gems of autonomous practice often can be mined from these off-the-cuff conversations.

Can Professionalism Be Taught?

Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the number of resources available to dermatology residents for honing their ethics skills is increasing, ways of measuring the impact of this additional training in vivo are not.¹² There are no good tools available to determine how ethics training influences resident behaviors. Similarly, there is no good evidence for what constitutes the most effective method for teaching medical ethics to trainees. It is a growing field with lots of room for more robust research. For now, the overall goal of a dermatoethics curriculum is to provide a mix of curriculum opportunities, ranging from formal lectures and readings to more informal conversations, with the hope of providing residents a toolbox for dealing with ethical dilemmas and a working knowledge of professionalism.

Final Thoughts

There are several resources available for dermatology programs to provide quality dermatoethics training to their residents. These can be mixed and matched to create a tailored formal curriculum alongside the more informal ethics training that happens in the clinic and on the wards. Providing this education is about more than just fulfilling accreditation requirements. Understanding ethical principles and how they can be applied to navigate sensitive situations is ultimately good for both professional and personal well-being.

The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis 

Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2). 

Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.^1,2 

Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.¹ A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.² 

Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.^3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.³ Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.  

The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.⁵ Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.  

Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.⁶ 

Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.⁷  

The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.⁸ Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.

The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis 

Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2). 

Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.^1,2 

Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.¹ A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.² 

Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.^3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.³ Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.  

The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.⁵ Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.  

Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.⁶ 

Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.⁷  

The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.⁸ Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.

The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis 

Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2). 

Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.^1,2 

Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.¹ A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.² 

Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.^3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.³ Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.  

The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.⁵ Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.  

Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.⁶ 

Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.⁷  

The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.⁸ Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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