User login
EMERGENCY MEDICINE is a practical, peer-reviewed monthly publication and Web site that meets the educational needs of emergency clinicians and urgent care clinicians for their practice.
Percentage of doctors who are Black barely changed in 120 years
according to a new study.
In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.
Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.
“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.
Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.
He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.
Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”
The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.
Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.
In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.
The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”
Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.
“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.
Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.
“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”
Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”
The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”
Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study.
In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.
Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.
“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.
Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.
He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.
Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”
The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.
Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.
In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.
The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”
Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.
“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.
Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.
“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”
Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”
The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”
Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study.
In 1900, 1.3% of physicians were Black. In 1940, 2.8% of physicians were Black, and by 2018 – when almost 13% of the population was Black – 5.4% of doctors were Black, reports Dan Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a study published online April 19, 2021, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
The proportion of male Black physicians was 2.7% in 1940 and 2.6% in 2018.
Dr. Ly also found a significant wage gap. The median income earned by White doctors was $50,000 more than the median income of Black physicians in 2018. Dr. Ly based his findings on the U.S. Census Decennial Census long form, accessed via IPUMS, a free database funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations.
“If we care about the health of the population, particularly the health of Black patients, we should care about how small the proportion of our physicians who are Black is and the extremely slow progress we have made as a medical system in increasing that proportion,” Dr. Ly said in an interview.
Dr. Ly said he took on this research in part because previous studies have shown that Black patients are more likely to seek preventive care from Black doctors. Thus, increasing the numbers of Black physicians could narrow gaps in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks.
He also wanted to see whether progress had been made as a result of various medical organizations and the Association of American Medical Colleges undertaking initiatives to increase workforce diversity. There has been “very, very little” progress, he said.
Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, the AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity, said Dr. Ly’s report “was not surprising at all.”
The AAMC reported in 2014 that the number of Black men who apply to and matriculate into medical schools has been declining since 1978. That year, there were 1,410 Black male applicants and 542 Black enrollees. In 2014, there were 1,337 applicants and 515 enrollees.
Since 2014, Black male enrollment has increased slightly, rising from 2.4% in the 2014-2015 school year to 2.9% in the 2019-2020 year, the AAMC reported last year.
In addition, among other historically underrepresented minorities, “we really have seen very small progress” despite the increase in the number of medical schools, Dr. Poll-Hunter said in an interview.
The AAMC and the National Medical Association consider the lack of Black male applicants and matriculants to be a national crisis. The two groups started an alliance in 2020 aimed at finding ways to amplify and support Black men’s interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences and to “develop systems-based solutions to address exclusionary practices that create barriers for Black men and prevent them from having equitable opportunities to successfully enroll in medical school.”
Solutions include requiring medical school admissions committees and application screeners to undergo implicit bias awareness and mitigation training, adopting holistic admissions reviews, and incentivizing institutions of higher learning to partner with Black communities in urban and rural school systems to establish K-12 health sciences academies, said NMA President Leon McDougle, MD, MPH.
“There are the systems factors, and racism is a big one that we have to tackle,” said Dr. Poll-Hunter.
Diversity isn’t just about numbers, said Dr. McDougle, a professor of family medicine and associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Ohio State University, Columbus. “We know that medical school graduates who are African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native are more likely to serve those communities as practicing physicians.
“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for more African American or Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or American Indian or Alaskan Native physicians,” he said. “Inadequate access to culturally competent care has exacerbated existing health disparities, resulting in death and hospitalization rates up to three to four times the rates of European American or White people.”
Dr. Poll-Hunter also said that studies have shown that diversity in the classroom creates a more enriched learning environment and increases civic mindedness and cognitive complexity, “as well as helps us understand people who are different than ourselves.”
The diversity goal “is not about quotas, it’s about excellence,” she said. “We know that there’s talent that exists, and we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be successful.”
Dr. Ly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Remote cardio visits expand access for underserved during COVID
Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.
“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.
The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.
The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.
The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.
In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).
Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.
Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).
In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.
“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”
In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
An eye-opening study
Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.
“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”
An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.
“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”
Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.
“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”
Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.
“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”
Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.
“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.
In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.
“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”
Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.
“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.
The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.
The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.
The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.
In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).
Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.
Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).
In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.
“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”
In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
An eye-opening study
Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.
“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”
An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.
“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”
Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.
“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”
Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.
“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”
Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.
“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.
In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.
“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”
Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.
“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.
The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.
The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.
The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.
In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).
Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.
Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).
In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.
“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”
In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
An eye-opening study
Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.
“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”
An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.
“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”
Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.
“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”
Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.
“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”
Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.
“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.
In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.
“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”
Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Lesions Following Tumor Necrosis Factor α Inhibitors
To the Editor:
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.1 The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.
Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.2 In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.
A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.
The patient returned to our clinic 3 months later with a severe flare and intractable pain after 4 infusions of infliximab. Physical examination showed a 7×5-cm deep malodorous ulcer with fibrinous exudate on the left buttock, several 2- to 3-cm shallow ulcers draining yellow exudate, and numerous fluctuant subcutaneous nodules on a background of scarring and sinus tracts. He was started again on doxycycline and a prednisone taper. At follow-up 2 weeks later, the largest ulcer had increased to 8 cm, and more indurated and tender subcutaneous nodules and scattered ulcerations developed (Figure 1B). Two punch biopsies of the left buttock revealed an invasive keratinizing carcinoma with no connection to the epidermis, consistent with SCC (Figure 2). Human papillomavirus (HPV) test results with probes for 37 HPV types—13 that were high risk (HPV-16, −18, −31, −33, −35, −39, −45, −51, −52, −56, −58, −59, −68)—were negative. Computerized tomography demonstrated diffuse thickening of the skin on the buttocks, inguinal adenopathy suspicious for nodal metastases, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease. Given the extent of the disease, surgical treatment was not an option, and he began receiving palliative radiotherapy. However, his health declined, and he developed aspiration pneumonia and hypotension requiring pressor support. He was transitioned to hospice care and died 3 months after presentation.
Tumor necrosis factor α antagonist treatment is being increasingly used to control HS but also may increase the risk for SCC development. We performed a search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE as well as Web of Science using the terms hidradenitis suppurativa or acne inversa and one of the following—tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept—and squamous cell carcinoma or Marjolin ulcer. Seven cases of SCC arising in an HS patient treated with a TNF-α inhibitor have been reported (Table).5-10 Four cases were associated with infliximab use, 2 with adalimumab, and our case occurred after both adalimumab and infliximab treatment. All individuals were men with severe, long-standing disease of the anogenital region. In addition to smoking, HPV-16 positivity also has been reported as a risk factor for developing SCC in the setting of HS.11 In our patient, however, HPV testing did not cover all HPV strains, but several high-risk strains, including HPV-16, were negative.
Hidradenitis suppurativa is caused by an immune response to ruptured follicles and TNF-α antagonists are useful in suppressing this response; however, immunosuppression can lead to an increased susceptibility to malignancy, especially in SCC. It is unclear whether the use of infliximab or adalimumab is causal, additive, or a confounder in the development of SCC in patients with severe HS. It is possible that these agents increase the rapidity of the development of SCC in already-susceptible patients. Although TNF-α antagonists can be an effective therapeutic option for patients with moderate to severe HS, the potential risk for contributing to skin cancer development should raise provider suspicion in high-risk patients. Given the findings in this report, it may be suitable for providers to consider a biopsy prior to initiating TNF-α therapy in men older than 20 years with moderate to severe HS of the groin or buttocks, in addition to more frequent monitoring and a lower threshold to biopsy lesions with rapid growth or ulceration.
- Alikhan A, Lynch PJ, Eisen DB. Hidradenitis suppurativa: a comprehensive review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60:539-561; quiz 562-533.
- Lapins J, Ye W, Nyren O, et al. Incidence of cancer among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:730-734.
- Askling J, Fahrbach K, Nordstrom B, et al. Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:119-130.
- Mariette X, Matucci-Cerinic M, Pavelka K, et al. Malignancies associated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in registries and prospective observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1895-1904.
- Maalouf E, Faye O, Poli F, et al. Fatal epidermoid carcinoma in hidradenitis suppurativa following treatment with infliximab. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2006;133(5 pt 1):473-474.
- Kurokawa I, Nishimura K, Yamanaka K, et al. Cytokeratin expression in squamous cell carcinoma arising from hidradenitis suppurativa (acne inversa). J Cutan Pathol. 2007;34:675-678.
- Scheinfeld N. A case of a patient with stage III familial hidradenitis suppurativa treated with 3 courses of infliximab and died of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20(3).
- Verdelli A, Antiga E, Bonciani D, et al. A fatal case of hidradenitis suppurativa associated with sepsis and squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55:E52-E53.
- Giesey R, Delost GR, Honaker J, et al. Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma in a patient treated with adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa. JAAD Case Rep. 2017;3:489-491.
- Roy C, Roy S, Ghazawi F, et al. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma arising in hidradenitis suppurativa: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019;7:2050313X19847359.
- Lavogiez C, Delaporte E, Darras-Vercambre S, et al. Clinicopathological study of 13 cases of squamous cell carcinoma complicating hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatology. 2010;220:147-153.
To the Editor:
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.1 The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.
Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.2 In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.
A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.
The patient returned to our clinic 3 months later with a severe flare and intractable pain after 4 infusions of infliximab. Physical examination showed a 7×5-cm deep malodorous ulcer with fibrinous exudate on the left buttock, several 2- to 3-cm shallow ulcers draining yellow exudate, and numerous fluctuant subcutaneous nodules on a background of scarring and sinus tracts. He was started again on doxycycline and a prednisone taper. At follow-up 2 weeks later, the largest ulcer had increased to 8 cm, and more indurated and tender subcutaneous nodules and scattered ulcerations developed (Figure 1B). Two punch biopsies of the left buttock revealed an invasive keratinizing carcinoma with no connection to the epidermis, consistent with SCC (Figure 2). Human papillomavirus (HPV) test results with probes for 37 HPV types—13 that were high risk (HPV-16, −18, −31, −33, −35, −39, −45, −51, −52, −56, −58, −59, −68)—were negative. Computerized tomography demonstrated diffuse thickening of the skin on the buttocks, inguinal adenopathy suspicious for nodal metastases, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease. Given the extent of the disease, surgical treatment was not an option, and he began receiving palliative radiotherapy. However, his health declined, and he developed aspiration pneumonia and hypotension requiring pressor support. He was transitioned to hospice care and died 3 months after presentation.
Tumor necrosis factor α antagonist treatment is being increasingly used to control HS but also may increase the risk for SCC development. We performed a search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE as well as Web of Science using the terms hidradenitis suppurativa or acne inversa and one of the following—tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept—and squamous cell carcinoma or Marjolin ulcer. Seven cases of SCC arising in an HS patient treated with a TNF-α inhibitor have been reported (Table).5-10 Four cases were associated with infliximab use, 2 with adalimumab, and our case occurred after both adalimumab and infliximab treatment. All individuals were men with severe, long-standing disease of the anogenital region. In addition to smoking, HPV-16 positivity also has been reported as a risk factor for developing SCC in the setting of HS.11 In our patient, however, HPV testing did not cover all HPV strains, but several high-risk strains, including HPV-16, were negative.
Hidradenitis suppurativa is caused by an immune response to ruptured follicles and TNF-α antagonists are useful in suppressing this response; however, immunosuppression can lead to an increased susceptibility to malignancy, especially in SCC. It is unclear whether the use of infliximab or adalimumab is causal, additive, or a confounder in the development of SCC in patients with severe HS. It is possible that these agents increase the rapidity of the development of SCC in already-susceptible patients. Although TNF-α antagonists can be an effective therapeutic option for patients with moderate to severe HS, the potential risk for contributing to skin cancer development should raise provider suspicion in high-risk patients. Given the findings in this report, it may be suitable for providers to consider a biopsy prior to initiating TNF-α therapy in men older than 20 years with moderate to severe HS of the groin or buttocks, in addition to more frequent monitoring and a lower threshold to biopsy lesions with rapid growth or ulceration.
To the Editor:
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.1 The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.
Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.2 In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.
A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.
The patient returned to our clinic 3 months later with a severe flare and intractable pain after 4 infusions of infliximab. Physical examination showed a 7×5-cm deep malodorous ulcer with fibrinous exudate on the left buttock, several 2- to 3-cm shallow ulcers draining yellow exudate, and numerous fluctuant subcutaneous nodules on a background of scarring and sinus tracts. He was started again on doxycycline and a prednisone taper. At follow-up 2 weeks later, the largest ulcer had increased to 8 cm, and more indurated and tender subcutaneous nodules and scattered ulcerations developed (Figure 1B). Two punch biopsies of the left buttock revealed an invasive keratinizing carcinoma with no connection to the epidermis, consistent with SCC (Figure 2). Human papillomavirus (HPV) test results with probes for 37 HPV types—13 that were high risk (HPV-16, −18, −31, −33, −35, −39, −45, −51, −52, −56, −58, −59, −68)—were negative. Computerized tomography demonstrated diffuse thickening of the skin on the buttocks, inguinal adenopathy suspicious for nodal metastases, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease. Given the extent of the disease, surgical treatment was not an option, and he began receiving palliative radiotherapy. However, his health declined, and he developed aspiration pneumonia and hypotension requiring pressor support. He was transitioned to hospice care and died 3 months after presentation.
Tumor necrosis factor α antagonist treatment is being increasingly used to control HS but also may increase the risk for SCC development. We performed a search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE as well as Web of Science using the terms hidradenitis suppurativa or acne inversa and one of the following—tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept—and squamous cell carcinoma or Marjolin ulcer. Seven cases of SCC arising in an HS patient treated with a TNF-α inhibitor have been reported (Table).5-10 Four cases were associated with infliximab use, 2 with adalimumab, and our case occurred after both adalimumab and infliximab treatment. All individuals were men with severe, long-standing disease of the anogenital region. In addition to smoking, HPV-16 positivity also has been reported as a risk factor for developing SCC in the setting of HS.11 In our patient, however, HPV testing did not cover all HPV strains, but several high-risk strains, including HPV-16, were negative.
Hidradenitis suppurativa is caused by an immune response to ruptured follicles and TNF-α antagonists are useful in suppressing this response; however, immunosuppression can lead to an increased susceptibility to malignancy, especially in SCC. It is unclear whether the use of infliximab or adalimumab is causal, additive, or a confounder in the development of SCC in patients with severe HS. It is possible that these agents increase the rapidity of the development of SCC in already-susceptible patients. Although TNF-α antagonists can be an effective therapeutic option for patients with moderate to severe HS, the potential risk for contributing to skin cancer development should raise provider suspicion in high-risk patients. Given the findings in this report, it may be suitable for providers to consider a biopsy prior to initiating TNF-α therapy in men older than 20 years with moderate to severe HS of the groin or buttocks, in addition to more frequent monitoring and a lower threshold to biopsy lesions with rapid growth or ulceration.
- Alikhan A, Lynch PJ, Eisen DB. Hidradenitis suppurativa: a comprehensive review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60:539-561; quiz 562-533.
- Lapins J, Ye W, Nyren O, et al. Incidence of cancer among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:730-734.
- Askling J, Fahrbach K, Nordstrom B, et al. Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:119-130.
- Mariette X, Matucci-Cerinic M, Pavelka K, et al. Malignancies associated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in registries and prospective observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1895-1904.
- Maalouf E, Faye O, Poli F, et al. Fatal epidermoid carcinoma in hidradenitis suppurativa following treatment with infliximab. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2006;133(5 pt 1):473-474.
- Kurokawa I, Nishimura K, Yamanaka K, et al. Cytokeratin expression in squamous cell carcinoma arising from hidradenitis suppurativa (acne inversa). J Cutan Pathol. 2007;34:675-678.
- Scheinfeld N. A case of a patient with stage III familial hidradenitis suppurativa treated with 3 courses of infliximab and died of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20(3).
- Verdelli A, Antiga E, Bonciani D, et al. A fatal case of hidradenitis suppurativa associated with sepsis and squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55:E52-E53.
- Giesey R, Delost GR, Honaker J, et al. Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma in a patient treated with adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa. JAAD Case Rep. 2017;3:489-491.
- Roy C, Roy S, Ghazawi F, et al. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma arising in hidradenitis suppurativa: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019;7:2050313X19847359.
- Lavogiez C, Delaporte E, Darras-Vercambre S, et al. Clinicopathological study of 13 cases of squamous cell carcinoma complicating hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatology. 2010;220:147-153.
- Alikhan A, Lynch PJ, Eisen DB. Hidradenitis suppurativa: a comprehensive review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60:539-561; quiz 562-533.
- Lapins J, Ye W, Nyren O, et al. Incidence of cancer among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:730-734.
- Askling J, Fahrbach K, Nordstrom B, et al. Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:119-130.
- Mariette X, Matucci-Cerinic M, Pavelka K, et al. Malignancies associated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in registries and prospective observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1895-1904.
- Maalouf E, Faye O, Poli F, et al. Fatal epidermoid carcinoma in hidradenitis suppurativa following treatment with infliximab. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2006;133(5 pt 1):473-474.
- Kurokawa I, Nishimura K, Yamanaka K, et al. Cytokeratin expression in squamous cell carcinoma arising from hidradenitis suppurativa (acne inversa). J Cutan Pathol. 2007;34:675-678.
- Scheinfeld N. A case of a patient with stage III familial hidradenitis suppurativa treated with 3 courses of infliximab and died of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20(3).
- Verdelli A, Antiga E, Bonciani D, et al. A fatal case of hidradenitis suppurativa associated with sepsis and squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55:E52-E53.
- Giesey R, Delost GR, Honaker J, et al. Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma in a patient treated with adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa. JAAD Case Rep. 2017;3:489-491.
- Roy C, Roy S, Ghazawi F, et al. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma arising in hidradenitis suppurativa: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019;7:2050313X19847359.
- Lavogiez C, Delaporte E, Darras-Vercambre S, et al. Clinicopathological study of 13 cases of squamous cell carcinoma complicating hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatology. 2010;220:147-153.
Practice Points
- Consider biopsy of representative lesions in men older than 20 years with moderate to severe disease of the groin and/or buttocks prior to initiation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
- Consider more frequent clinical monitoring with a decrease in threshold to perform biopsy of any new or ulcerating lesions.
Starting April 5, patients can read your notes: 5 things to consider
Change in writing style is not mandated
The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”
This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.
Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.
The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.
“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.
Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.
“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.
According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”
Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.
However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
Some clinical notes can be withheld.
The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.
There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.
The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
Some patients are more likely readers.
Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.
“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.
A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.
Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
You are part of the avant garde.
The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.
“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.
In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.
It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
The start day will come, and you may not notice.
“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.
“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.
Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.
However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”
Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.
The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Change in writing style is not mandated
Change in writing style is not mandated
The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”
This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.
Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.
The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.
“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.
Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.
“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.
According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”
Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.
However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
Some clinical notes can be withheld.
The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.
There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.
The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
Some patients are more likely readers.
Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.
“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.
A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.
Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
You are part of the avant garde.
The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.
“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.
In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.
It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
The start day will come, and you may not notice.
“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.
“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.
Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.
However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”
Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.
The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”
This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.
Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.
The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.
“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.
Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.
“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.
According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”
Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.
However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
Some clinical notes can be withheld.
The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.
There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.
The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
Some patients are more likely readers.
Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.
“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.
A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.
Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
You are part of the avant garde.
The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.
“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.
In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.
It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
The start day will come, and you may not notice.
“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.
“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.
Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.
However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”
Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.
The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Top JAMA editor on leave amid podcast investigation
The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.
“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.
More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.
During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
This story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WedMD.com.
The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.
“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.
More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.
During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
This story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WedMD.com.
The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.
“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.
More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.
During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
This story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WedMD.com.
New analysis eyes the surgical landscape for hidradenitis suppurativa
yet these options should be balanced against potentially higher morbidity of extensive procedures.
Those are among the key findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online in Dermatologic Surgery.
“There is a major need to better understand the best surgical approaches to HS,” one of the study authors, Christopher Sayed, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Previous studies have mostly reviewed outcomes for procedure types in individual cohorts, “but no recent reports have combined and analyzed data from recent studies.”
When Dr. Sayed and colleagues set out to summarize the literature on HS surgery regarding patient characteristics, surgical approaches, and study quality, as well as compare postsurgical recurrence rates, the most recent meta-analysis on postoperative recurrence rates of HS included studies published between 1990 and 2015. “In the past few years, surgical management of HS has become an increasingly popular area of study,” corresponding author Ashley Riddle, MD, MPH, who is currently an internal medicine resident at the Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, said in an interview. “We sought to provide an updated picture of the HS surgical landscape by analyzing studies published between 2004 to 2019. We also limited our analysis to studies with follow-up periods of greater than 1 year and included information on disease severity, adverse events, and patient satisfaction when available.”
Of 715 relevant studies identified in the medical literature, the researchers included 59 in the review and 33 in the meta-analysis. Of these 59 studies, 56 were case series, 2 were randomized, controlled trials, and one was a retrospective cohort study.
Of the 50 studies reporting gender and age at time of surgery, 61% of patients were female and their average age was 37 years. Of the 25 studies that reported Hurley scores, 73% had Hurley stage 3 HS. Of the 38 studies reporting the number of procedures per anatomic region, the most commonly operated on regions were the axilla (59%) and the inguinal region (20%).
The researchers found that 22 studies of wide excision had the lowest pooled recurrence rate at 8%, while local excision had the highest pooled recurrence rate at 34%. Meanwhile, among studies of wide/radical excision, flap repair had a pooled recurrence rate of 0%, while delayed primary closure had the highest pooled recurrence rate at 38%.
“Extensive excisions of HS seem to portend a lower risk of postoperative recurrence, but there are many approaches available that may be more appropriate for certain patients,” Dr. Riddle said. “The influence of patient factors such as comorbidities and disease severity on surgical outcomes is unclear and is a potential area of future study.”
Dr. Sayed, an author of the 2019 North American guidelines for the clinical management of HS, pointed out that most studies in the review and meta-analysis included patients who had diabetes, were on biologics or other therapy, were actively smoking, or had other comorbidities that sometimes influence surgeons to delay surgical treatment because they consider it elective. “Most studies indicated minimal or no risk of significant complications relating to these factors, so they should ideally not become obstacles for patients interested in surgical care,” he said.
Dr. Riddle said that she was surprised by how relatively few studies had been published on more conservative surgical approaches such as skin tissue–sparing excision with electrosurgical peeling, deroofing, local excision, and CO2 laser–based evaporation.
The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their work, including the high risk of bias for most included studies. “Almost all studies were retrospective with substantial methodological limitations, and there were no head-to-head comparisons of different surgical approaches,” Dr. Riddle said. “Patient comorbidities and postoperative complications were variably reported.”
Dr. Sayed disclosed that he is a speaker for AbbVie and Novartis; an investigator for AbbVie, Novartis, InflaRx, and UCB; and on the advisory board of AbbVie and InflaRx. The remaining authors reported having no financial disclosures.
yet these options should be balanced against potentially higher morbidity of extensive procedures.
Those are among the key findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online in Dermatologic Surgery.
“There is a major need to better understand the best surgical approaches to HS,” one of the study authors, Christopher Sayed, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Previous studies have mostly reviewed outcomes for procedure types in individual cohorts, “but no recent reports have combined and analyzed data from recent studies.”
When Dr. Sayed and colleagues set out to summarize the literature on HS surgery regarding patient characteristics, surgical approaches, and study quality, as well as compare postsurgical recurrence rates, the most recent meta-analysis on postoperative recurrence rates of HS included studies published between 1990 and 2015. “In the past few years, surgical management of HS has become an increasingly popular area of study,” corresponding author Ashley Riddle, MD, MPH, who is currently an internal medicine resident at the Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, said in an interview. “We sought to provide an updated picture of the HS surgical landscape by analyzing studies published between 2004 to 2019. We also limited our analysis to studies with follow-up periods of greater than 1 year and included information on disease severity, adverse events, and patient satisfaction when available.”
Of 715 relevant studies identified in the medical literature, the researchers included 59 in the review and 33 in the meta-analysis. Of these 59 studies, 56 were case series, 2 were randomized, controlled trials, and one was a retrospective cohort study.
Of the 50 studies reporting gender and age at time of surgery, 61% of patients were female and their average age was 37 years. Of the 25 studies that reported Hurley scores, 73% had Hurley stage 3 HS. Of the 38 studies reporting the number of procedures per anatomic region, the most commonly operated on regions were the axilla (59%) and the inguinal region (20%).
The researchers found that 22 studies of wide excision had the lowest pooled recurrence rate at 8%, while local excision had the highest pooled recurrence rate at 34%. Meanwhile, among studies of wide/radical excision, flap repair had a pooled recurrence rate of 0%, while delayed primary closure had the highest pooled recurrence rate at 38%.
“Extensive excisions of HS seem to portend a lower risk of postoperative recurrence, but there are many approaches available that may be more appropriate for certain patients,” Dr. Riddle said. “The influence of patient factors such as comorbidities and disease severity on surgical outcomes is unclear and is a potential area of future study.”
Dr. Sayed, an author of the 2019 North American guidelines for the clinical management of HS, pointed out that most studies in the review and meta-analysis included patients who had diabetes, were on biologics or other therapy, were actively smoking, or had other comorbidities that sometimes influence surgeons to delay surgical treatment because they consider it elective. “Most studies indicated minimal or no risk of significant complications relating to these factors, so they should ideally not become obstacles for patients interested in surgical care,” he said.
Dr. Riddle said that she was surprised by how relatively few studies had been published on more conservative surgical approaches such as skin tissue–sparing excision with electrosurgical peeling, deroofing, local excision, and CO2 laser–based evaporation.
The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their work, including the high risk of bias for most included studies. “Almost all studies were retrospective with substantial methodological limitations, and there were no head-to-head comparisons of different surgical approaches,” Dr. Riddle said. “Patient comorbidities and postoperative complications were variably reported.”
Dr. Sayed disclosed that he is a speaker for AbbVie and Novartis; an investigator for AbbVie, Novartis, InflaRx, and UCB; and on the advisory board of AbbVie and InflaRx. The remaining authors reported having no financial disclosures.
yet these options should be balanced against potentially higher morbidity of extensive procedures.
Those are among the key findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online in Dermatologic Surgery.
“There is a major need to better understand the best surgical approaches to HS,” one of the study authors, Christopher Sayed, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Previous studies have mostly reviewed outcomes for procedure types in individual cohorts, “but no recent reports have combined and analyzed data from recent studies.”
When Dr. Sayed and colleagues set out to summarize the literature on HS surgery regarding patient characteristics, surgical approaches, and study quality, as well as compare postsurgical recurrence rates, the most recent meta-analysis on postoperative recurrence rates of HS included studies published between 1990 and 2015. “In the past few years, surgical management of HS has become an increasingly popular area of study,” corresponding author Ashley Riddle, MD, MPH, who is currently an internal medicine resident at the Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, said in an interview. “We sought to provide an updated picture of the HS surgical landscape by analyzing studies published between 2004 to 2019. We also limited our analysis to studies with follow-up periods of greater than 1 year and included information on disease severity, adverse events, and patient satisfaction when available.”
Of 715 relevant studies identified in the medical literature, the researchers included 59 in the review and 33 in the meta-analysis. Of these 59 studies, 56 were case series, 2 were randomized, controlled trials, and one was a retrospective cohort study.
Of the 50 studies reporting gender and age at time of surgery, 61% of patients were female and their average age was 37 years. Of the 25 studies that reported Hurley scores, 73% had Hurley stage 3 HS. Of the 38 studies reporting the number of procedures per anatomic region, the most commonly operated on regions were the axilla (59%) and the inguinal region (20%).
The researchers found that 22 studies of wide excision had the lowest pooled recurrence rate at 8%, while local excision had the highest pooled recurrence rate at 34%. Meanwhile, among studies of wide/radical excision, flap repair had a pooled recurrence rate of 0%, while delayed primary closure had the highest pooled recurrence rate at 38%.
“Extensive excisions of HS seem to portend a lower risk of postoperative recurrence, but there are many approaches available that may be more appropriate for certain patients,” Dr. Riddle said. “The influence of patient factors such as comorbidities and disease severity on surgical outcomes is unclear and is a potential area of future study.”
Dr. Sayed, an author of the 2019 North American guidelines for the clinical management of HS, pointed out that most studies in the review and meta-analysis included patients who had diabetes, were on biologics or other therapy, were actively smoking, or had other comorbidities that sometimes influence surgeons to delay surgical treatment because they consider it elective. “Most studies indicated minimal or no risk of significant complications relating to these factors, so they should ideally not become obstacles for patients interested in surgical care,” he said.
Dr. Riddle said that she was surprised by how relatively few studies had been published on more conservative surgical approaches such as skin tissue–sparing excision with electrosurgical peeling, deroofing, local excision, and CO2 laser–based evaporation.
The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their work, including the high risk of bias for most included studies. “Almost all studies were retrospective with substantial methodological limitations, and there were no head-to-head comparisons of different surgical approaches,” Dr. Riddle said. “Patient comorbidities and postoperative complications were variably reported.”
Dr. Sayed disclosed that he is a speaker for AbbVie and Novartis; an investigator for AbbVie, Novartis, InflaRx, and UCB; and on the advisory board of AbbVie and InflaRx. The remaining authors reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY
Candida Esophagitis Associated With Adalimumab for Hidradenitis Suppurativa
To the Editor:
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.1 The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.
Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.3 Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.4 Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.5
A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.
Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.
Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.
Although the side effect of Candida esophagitis associated with adalimumab treatment in our patient may be logical given the medication’s mechanism of action and side-effect profile, this case warrants additional attention. An increase in fungal infections occurs from treatment with adalimumab because TNF-α is involved in many immune regulatory steps that counteract infection. Candida typically activates the innate immune system through macrophages via pathogen-associated molecular pattern stimulation, subsequently stimulating the release of inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α. The cellular immune system also is activated. Helper T cells (TH1) release TNF-α along with other proinflammatory cytokines to increase phagocytosis in polymorphonuclear cells and macrophages.6 Thus, inhibition of TNF-α compromises innate and cellular immunity, thereby increasing susceptibility to fungal organisms.
A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Candida, candidiasis, esophageal, adalimumab, anti-TNF, and TNF revealed no reports of esophageal candidiasis in patients receiving adalimumab or any of the TNF inhibitors. Candida laryngitis was reported in a patient receiving adalimumab for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.7 Other studies have demonstrated an incidence of mucocutaneous candidiasis, most notably oropharyngeal and vaginal candidiasis.8-10 One study found that anti-TNF medications were associated with an increased risk for candidiasis by a hazard ratio of 2.7 in patients with Crohn disease.8 Other studies have shown that the highest incidence of fungal infection is seen with the use of infliximab, while adalimumab is associated with lower rates of fungal infection.9,10 Although it is known that anti-TNF therapy predisposes patients to fungal infection, the dose of medication known to preclude the highest risk has not been studied. Furthermore, most studies assess rates of Candida infection in individuals receiving anti-TNF therapy in addition to several other immunosuppressant agents (ie, corticosteroids), which confounds the interpretation of results. Additional studies assessing rates of Candida and other opportunistic infections associated with use of adalimumab alone are needed to better guide clinical practices in dermatology.
Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.
- Kurayev A, Ashkar H, Saraiya A, et al. Hidradenitis suppurativa: review of the pathogenesis and treatment. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:1107-1022.
- Rambhatla PV, Lim HW, Hamzavi I. A systematic review of treatments for hidradenitis suppurativa. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:439-446.
- van der Zee HH, de Ruiter L, van den Broecke DG, et al. Elevated levels of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, interleukin (IL)-1beta and IL-10 in hidradenitis suppurativa skin: a rationale for targeting TNF-alpha and IL-1beta. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164:1292-1298.
- Shuja F, Chan CS, Rosen T. Biologic drugs for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa: an evidence-based review. Dermatol Clin. 2010;28:511-521, 523-514.
- Kutsch CL, Norris DA, Arend WP. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha induces interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist production by cultured human keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol. 1993;101:79-85.
- Senet JM. Risk factors and physiopathology of candidiasis. Rev Iberoam Micol. 1997;14:6-13.
- Kobak S, Yilmaz H, Guclu O, et al. Severe candida laryngitis in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab. Eur J Rheumatol. 2014;1:167-169.
- Marehbian J, Arrighi HM, Hass S, et al. Adverse events associated with common therapy regimens for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2524-2533.
- Tsiodras S, Samonis G, Boumpas DT, et al. Fungal infections complicating tumor necrosis factor alpha blockade therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:181-194.
- Aikawa NE, Rosa DT, Del Negro GM, et al. Systemic and localized infection by Candida species in patients with rheumatic diseases receiving anti-TNF therapy [in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Reumatol. doi:10.1016/j.rbr.2015.03.010
To the Editor:
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.1 The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.
Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.3 Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.4 Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.5
A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.
Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.
Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.
Although the side effect of Candida esophagitis associated with adalimumab treatment in our patient may be logical given the medication’s mechanism of action and side-effect profile, this case warrants additional attention. An increase in fungal infections occurs from treatment with adalimumab because TNF-α is involved in many immune regulatory steps that counteract infection. Candida typically activates the innate immune system through macrophages via pathogen-associated molecular pattern stimulation, subsequently stimulating the release of inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α. The cellular immune system also is activated. Helper T cells (TH1) release TNF-α along with other proinflammatory cytokines to increase phagocytosis in polymorphonuclear cells and macrophages.6 Thus, inhibition of TNF-α compromises innate and cellular immunity, thereby increasing susceptibility to fungal organisms.
A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Candida, candidiasis, esophageal, adalimumab, anti-TNF, and TNF revealed no reports of esophageal candidiasis in patients receiving adalimumab or any of the TNF inhibitors. Candida laryngitis was reported in a patient receiving adalimumab for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.7 Other studies have demonstrated an incidence of mucocutaneous candidiasis, most notably oropharyngeal and vaginal candidiasis.8-10 One study found that anti-TNF medications were associated with an increased risk for candidiasis by a hazard ratio of 2.7 in patients with Crohn disease.8 Other studies have shown that the highest incidence of fungal infection is seen with the use of infliximab, while adalimumab is associated with lower rates of fungal infection.9,10 Although it is known that anti-TNF therapy predisposes patients to fungal infection, the dose of medication known to preclude the highest risk has not been studied. Furthermore, most studies assess rates of Candida infection in individuals receiving anti-TNF therapy in addition to several other immunosuppressant agents (ie, corticosteroids), which confounds the interpretation of results. Additional studies assessing rates of Candida and other opportunistic infections associated with use of adalimumab alone are needed to better guide clinical practices in dermatology.
Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.
To the Editor:
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.1 The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.
Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.3 Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.4 Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.5
A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.
Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.
Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.
Although the side effect of Candida esophagitis associated with adalimumab treatment in our patient may be logical given the medication’s mechanism of action and side-effect profile, this case warrants additional attention. An increase in fungal infections occurs from treatment with adalimumab because TNF-α is involved in many immune regulatory steps that counteract infection. Candida typically activates the innate immune system through macrophages via pathogen-associated molecular pattern stimulation, subsequently stimulating the release of inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α. The cellular immune system also is activated. Helper T cells (TH1) release TNF-α along with other proinflammatory cytokines to increase phagocytosis in polymorphonuclear cells and macrophages.6 Thus, inhibition of TNF-α compromises innate and cellular immunity, thereby increasing susceptibility to fungal organisms.
A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Candida, candidiasis, esophageal, adalimumab, anti-TNF, and TNF revealed no reports of esophageal candidiasis in patients receiving adalimumab or any of the TNF inhibitors. Candida laryngitis was reported in a patient receiving adalimumab for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.7 Other studies have demonstrated an incidence of mucocutaneous candidiasis, most notably oropharyngeal and vaginal candidiasis.8-10 One study found that anti-TNF medications were associated with an increased risk for candidiasis by a hazard ratio of 2.7 in patients with Crohn disease.8 Other studies have shown that the highest incidence of fungal infection is seen with the use of infliximab, while adalimumab is associated with lower rates of fungal infection.9,10 Although it is known that anti-TNF therapy predisposes patients to fungal infection, the dose of medication known to preclude the highest risk has not been studied. Furthermore, most studies assess rates of Candida infection in individuals receiving anti-TNF therapy in addition to several other immunosuppressant agents (ie, corticosteroids), which confounds the interpretation of results. Additional studies assessing rates of Candida and other opportunistic infections associated with use of adalimumab alone are needed to better guide clinical practices in dermatology.
Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.
- Kurayev A, Ashkar H, Saraiya A, et al. Hidradenitis suppurativa: review of the pathogenesis and treatment. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:1107-1022.
- Rambhatla PV, Lim HW, Hamzavi I. A systematic review of treatments for hidradenitis suppurativa. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:439-446.
- van der Zee HH, de Ruiter L, van den Broecke DG, et al. Elevated levels of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, interleukin (IL)-1beta and IL-10 in hidradenitis suppurativa skin: a rationale for targeting TNF-alpha and IL-1beta. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164:1292-1298.
- Shuja F, Chan CS, Rosen T. Biologic drugs for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa: an evidence-based review. Dermatol Clin. 2010;28:511-521, 523-514.
- Kutsch CL, Norris DA, Arend WP. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha induces interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist production by cultured human keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol. 1993;101:79-85.
- Senet JM. Risk factors and physiopathology of candidiasis. Rev Iberoam Micol. 1997;14:6-13.
- Kobak S, Yilmaz H, Guclu O, et al. Severe candida laryngitis in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab. Eur J Rheumatol. 2014;1:167-169.
- Marehbian J, Arrighi HM, Hass S, et al. Adverse events associated with common therapy regimens for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2524-2533.
- Tsiodras S, Samonis G, Boumpas DT, et al. Fungal infections complicating tumor necrosis factor alpha blockade therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:181-194.
- Aikawa NE, Rosa DT, Del Negro GM, et al. Systemic and localized infection by Candida species in patients with rheumatic diseases receiving anti-TNF therapy [in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Reumatol. doi:10.1016/j.rbr.2015.03.010
- Kurayev A, Ashkar H, Saraiya A, et al. Hidradenitis suppurativa: review of the pathogenesis and treatment. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15:1107-1022.
- Rambhatla PV, Lim HW, Hamzavi I. A systematic review of treatments for hidradenitis suppurativa. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:439-446.
- van der Zee HH, de Ruiter L, van den Broecke DG, et al. Elevated levels of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, interleukin (IL)-1beta and IL-10 in hidradenitis suppurativa skin: a rationale for targeting TNF-alpha and IL-1beta. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164:1292-1298.
- Shuja F, Chan CS, Rosen T. Biologic drugs for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa: an evidence-based review. Dermatol Clin. 2010;28:511-521, 523-514.
- Kutsch CL, Norris DA, Arend WP. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha induces interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist production by cultured human keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol. 1993;101:79-85.
- Senet JM. Risk factors and physiopathology of candidiasis. Rev Iberoam Micol. 1997;14:6-13.
- Kobak S, Yilmaz H, Guclu O, et al. Severe candida laryngitis in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab. Eur J Rheumatol. 2014;1:167-169.
- Marehbian J, Arrighi HM, Hass S, et al. Adverse events associated with common therapy regimens for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2524-2533.
- Tsiodras S, Samonis G, Boumpas DT, et al. Fungal infections complicating tumor necrosis factor alpha blockade therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:181-194.
- Aikawa NE, Rosa DT, Del Negro GM, et al. Systemic and localized infection by Candida species in patients with rheumatic diseases receiving anti-TNF therapy [in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Reumatol. doi:10.1016/j.rbr.2015.03.010
Practice Points
- Adalimumab is an effective treatment for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa.
- There is risk for opportunistic infections with adalimumab, and patients should be monitored closely.
We’re all vaccinated: Can we go back to the office (unmasked) now?
Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!
It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.
I have been vaccinated and many of my patients have also been vaccinated. I began to wonder if it was safe to start seeing patients in person; could I see fully vaccinated patients, unmasked and without temperature checks and sanitizing? I started asking this question in February, and the response I got then was that it was too soon to tell; we did not have any data on whether vaccinated people could transmit the novel coronavirus. Two vaccinated people might be at risk of transmitting the virus and then infecting others, and the question of whether the vaccines would protect against illness caused by variants remained. Preliminary data out of Israel indicated that the vaccine did reduce transmission, but no one was saying that it was fine to see patients without masks, and video-conferencing remained the safest option.
On Monday, March 8, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released long-awaited interim public health guidelines for fully vaccinated people. The guidelines allowed for two vaccinated people to be in a room together unmasked, and for a fully-vaccinated person to be in a room unmasked with an unvaccinated person who did not have risk factors for becoming severely ill with COVID. Was this the green light that psychiatrists were waiting for? Was there new data about transmission, or was this part of the CDC’s effort to make vaccines more desirable?
Michael Chang, MD, is a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We spoke 2 days after the CDC interim guidelines were released. Dr. Chang was optimistic.
“, including data about variants and about transmission. At some point, however, the risk is low enough, and we should probably start thinking about going back to in-person visits,” Dr. Chang said. He said he personally would feel safe meeting unmasked with a vaccinated patient, but noted that his institution still requires doctors to wear masks. “Most vaccinations reduce transmission of illness,” Dr. Chang said, “but SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us in many ways.”
Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, distributes a newsletter, “Your Local Epidemiologist,” where she discusses data pertaining to the pandemic. In her newsletter dated March 14, 2021, Dr. Jetelina wrote, “There are now 7 sub-studies/press releases that confirm a 50-95% reduced transmission after vaccination. This is a big range, which is typical for such drastically different scientific studies. Variability is likely due to different sample sizes, locations, vaccines, genetics, cultures, etc. It will be a while until we know the ‘true’ percentage for each vaccine.”
Leslie Walker, MD, is a fully vaccinated psychiatrist in private practice in Shaker Heights, Ohio. She has recently started seeing fully vaccinated patients in person.
“So far it’s only 1 or 2 patients a day. I’m leaving it up to the patient. If they prefer masks, we stay masked. I may reverse course, depending on what information comes out.” She went on to note, “There are benefits to being able to see someone’s full facial expressions and whether they match someone’s words and body language, so the benefit of “unmasking” extends beyond comfort and convenience and must be balanced against the theoretical risk of COVID exposure in the room.”
While the CDC has now said it is safe to meet, the state health departments also have guidelines for medical practices, and everyone is still worried about vulnerable people in their households and potential spread to the community at large.
In Maryland, where I work, Aliya Jones, MD, MBA, is the head of the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) for the Maryland Department of Health. “It remains risky to not wear masks, however, the risk is low when both individuals are vaccinated,” Dr. Jones wrote. “BHA is not recommending that providers see clients without both parties wearing a mask. All of our general practice recommendations for infection control are unchanged. People should be screened before entering clinical practices and persons who are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not, should not be seen face-to-face, except in cases of an emergency, in which case additional precautions should be taken.”
So is it safe for a fully-vaccinated psychiatrist to have a session with a fully-vaccinated patient sitting 8 feet apart without masks? I’m left with the idea that it is for those two people, but when it comes to unvaccinated people in their households, we want more certainty than we currently have. The messaging remains unclear. The CDC’s interim guidelines offer hope for a future, but the science is still catching up, and to feel safe enough, we may want to wait a little longer for more definitive data – or herd immunity – before we reveal our smiles.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!
It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.
I have been vaccinated and many of my patients have also been vaccinated. I began to wonder if it was safe to start seeing patients in person; could I see fully vaccinated patients, unmasked and without temperature checks and sanitizing? I started asking this question in February, and the response I got then was that it was too soon to tell; we did not have any data on whether vaccinated people could transmit the novel coronavirus. Two vaccinated people might be at risk of transmitting the virus and then infecting others, and the question of whether the vaccines would protect against illness caused by variants remained. Preliminary data out of Israel indicated that the vaccine did reduce transmission, but no one was saying that it was fine to see patients without masks, and video-conferencing remained the safest option.
On Monday, March 8, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released long-awaited interim public health guidelines for fully vaccinated people. The guidelines allowed for two vaccinated people to be in a room together unmasked, and for a fully-vaccinated person to be in a room unmasked with an unvaccinated person who did not have risk factors for becoming severely ill with COVID. Was this the green light that psychiatrists were waiting for? Was there new data about transmission, or was this part of the CDC’s effort to make vaccines more desirable?
Michael Chang, MD, is a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We spoke 2 days after the CDC interim guidelines were released. Dr. Chang was optimistic.
“, including data about variants and about transmission. At some point, however, the risk is low enough, and we should probably start thinking about going back to in-person visits,” Dr. Chang said. He said he personally would feel safe meeting unmasked with a vaccinated patient, but noted that his institution still requires doctors to wear masks. “Most vaccinations reduce transmission of illness,” Dr. Chang said, “but SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us in many ways.”
Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, distributes a newsletter, “Your Local Epidemiologist,” where she discusses data pertaining to the pandemic. In her newsletter dated March 14, 2021, Dr. Jetelina wrote, “There are now 7 sub-studies/press releases that confirm a 50-95% reduced transmission after vaccination. This is a big range, which is typical for such drastically different scientific studies. Variability is likely due to different sample sizes, locations, vaccines, genetics, cultures, etc. It will be a while until we know the ‘true’ percentage for each vaccine.”
Leslie Walker, MD, is a fully vaccinated psychiatrist in private practice in Shaker Heights, Ohio. She has recently started seeing fully vaccinated patients in person.
“So far it’s only 1 or 2 patients a day. I’m leaving it up to the patient. If they prefer masks, we stay masked. I may reverse course, depending on what information comes out.” She went on to note, “There are benefits to being able to see someone’s full facial expressions and whether they match someone’s words and body language, so the benefit of “unmasking” extends beyond comfort and convenience and must be balanced against the theoretical risk of COVID exposure in the room.”
While the CDC has now said it is safe to meet, the state health departments also have guidelines for medical practices, and everyone is still worried about vulnerable people in their households and potential spread to the community at large.
In Maryland, where I work, Aliya Jones, MD, MBA, is the head of the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) for the Maryland Department of Health. “It remains risky to not wear masks, however, the risk is low when both individuals are vaccinated,” Dr. Jones wrote. “BHA is not recommending that providers see clients without both parties wearing a mask. All of our general practice recommendations for infection control are unchanged. People should be screened before entering clinical practices and persons who are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not, should not be seen face-to-face, except in cases of an emergency, in which case additional precautions should be taken.”
So is it safe for a fully-vaccinated psychiatrist to have a session with a fully-vaccinated patient sitting 8 feet apart without masks? I’m left with the idea that it is for those two people, but when it comes to unvaccinated people in their households, we want more certainty than we currently have. The messaging remains unclear. The CDC’s interim guidelines offer hope for a future, but the science is still catching up, and to feel safe enough, we may want to wait a little longer for more definitive data – or herd immunity – before we reveal our smiles.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!
It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.
I have been vaccinated and many of my patients have also been vaccinated. I began to wonder if it was safe to start seeing patients in person; could I see fully vaccinated patients, unmasked and without temperature checks and sanitizing? I started asking this question in February, and the response I got then was that it was too soon to tell; we did not have any data on whether vaccinated people could transmit the novel coronavirus. Two vaccinated people might be at risk of transmitting the virus and then infecting others, and the question of whether the vaccines would protect against illness caused by variants remained. Preliminary data out of Israel indicated that the vaccine did reduce transmission, but no one was saying that it was fine to see patients without masks, and video-conferencing remained the safest option.
On Monday, March 8, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released long-awaited interim public health guidelines for fully vaccinated people. The guidelines allowed for two vaccinated people to be in a room together unmasked, and for a fully-vaccinated person to be in a room unmasked with an unvaccinated person who did not have risk factors for becoming severely ill with COVID. Was this the green light that psychiatrists were waiting for? Was there new data about transmission, or was this part of the CDC’s effort to make vaccines more desirable?
Michael Chang, MD, is a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We spoke 2 days after the CDC interim guidelines were released. Dr. Chang was optimistic.
“, including data about variants and about transmission. At some point, however, the risk is low enough, and we should probably start thinking about going back to in-person visits,” Dr. Chang said. He said he personally would feel safe meeting unmasked with a vaccinated patient, but noted that his institution still requires doctors to wear masks. “Most vaccinations reduce transmission of illness,” Dr. Chang said, “but SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us in many ways.”
Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, distributes a newsletter, “Your Local Epidemiologist,” where she discusses data pertaining to the pandemic. In her newsletter dated March 14, 2021, Dr. Jetelina wrote, “There are now 7 sub-studies/press releases that confirm a 50-95% reduced transmission after vaccination. This is a big range, which is typical for such drastically different scientific studies. Variability is likely due to different sample sizes, locations, vaccines, genetics, cultures, etc. It will be a while until we know the ‘true’ percentage for each vaccine.”
Leslie Walker, MD, is a fully vaccinated psychiatrist in private practice in Shaker Heights, Ohio. She has recently started seeing fully vaccinated patients in person.
“So far it’s only 1 or 2 patients a day. I’m leaving it up to the patient. If they prefer masks, we stay masked. I may reverse course, depending on what information comes out.” She went on to note, “There are benefits to being able to see someone’s full facial expressions and whether they match someone’s words and body language, so the benefit of “unmasking” extends beyond comfort and convenience and must be balanced against the theoretical risk of COVID exposure in the room.”
While the CDC has now said it is safe to meet, the state health departments also have guidelines for medical practices, and everyone is still worried about vulnerable people in their households and potential spread to the community at large.
In Maryland, where I work, Aliya Jones, MD, MBA, is the head of the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) for the Maryland Department of Health. “It remains risky to not wear masks, however, the risk is low when both individuals are vaccinated,” Dr. Jones wrote. “BHA is not recommending that providers see clients without both parties wearing a mask. All of our general practice recommendations for infection control are unchanged. People should be screened before entering clinical practices and persons who are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not, should not be seen face-to-face, except in cases of an emergency, in which case additional precautions should be taken.”
So is it safe for a fully-vaccinated psychiatrist to have a session with a fully-vaccinated patient sitting 8 feet apart without masks? I’m left with the idea that it is for those two people, but when it comes to unvaccinated people in their households, we want more certainty than we currently have. The messaging remains unclear. The CDC’s interim guidelines offer hope for a future, but the science is still catching up, and to feel safe enough, we may want to wait a little longer for more definitive data – or herd immunity – before we reveal our smiles.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
‘Major update’ of BP guidance for kidney disease; treat to 120 mm Hg
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
JAMA editor resigns over controversial podcast
JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.
“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.
Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.
Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.
“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”
Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.
“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”
JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.
“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.
Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.
Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.
“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”
Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.
“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”
JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.
“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.
Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.
Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.
“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”
Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.
“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”
JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .