The chances are good that at least one patient you saw today could have been provided a better environment to foster your patient-physician relationship. A 2020 Gallup poll revealed that an estimated 5.6% of US adults identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT).¹ Based on the estimated US population of 331.7 million individuals on December 3, 2020, this means that approximately 18.6 million identified as LGBT and could potentially require health care services.² These numbers highlight the increasing need within the medical community to provide quality and accessible care to the LGBT community, and dermatologists have a role to play. They treat conditions that are apparent to the patient and others around them, attracting those that may not be motivated to see different physicians. They can not only help with skin diseases that affect all patients but also can train other physicians to screen for some dermatologic diseases that may have a higher prevalence within the LGBT community. Dermatologists have a unique opportunity to help patients better reflect themselves through both surgical and nonsurgical modalities.

Demographics and Definitions

To discuss this topic effectively, it is important to define LGBT terms (Table).³ As a disclaimer, language is fluid. Despite a word or term currently being used and accepted, it quickly can become obsolete. A clinician can always do research, follow the lead of the patient, and respectfully ask questions if there is ever confusion surrounding terminology. Patients do not expect every physician they encounter to be an expert in this subject. What is most important is that patients are approached with an open mind and humility with the goal of providing optimal care.

Although the federal government now uses the term sexual and gender minorities (SGM), the more specific terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender usually are preferred.^3,4 Other letters are at times added to the acronym LGBT, including Q for questioning or queer, I for intersex, and A for asexual; all of these letters are under the larger SGM umbrella. Because LGBT is the most commonly used acronym in the daily vernacular, it will be the default for this article.

A term describing sexual orientation does not necessarily describe sexual practices. A woman who identifies as straight may have sex with both men and women, and a gay man may not have sex at all. To be more descriptive regarding sexual practices, one may use the terms men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women.³ Because of this nuance, it is important to elicit a sexual history when speaking to all patients in a forward nonjudgmental manner.

The term transgender is used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Two examples of transgender individuals would be transgender women who were assigned male at birth and transgender men who were assigned female at birth. The term transgender is used in opposition to the term cisgender, which is applied to a person whose gender and sex assigned at birth align.³ When a transgender patient presents to a physician, they may want to discuss methods of gender affirmation or transitioning. These terms encompass any action a person may take to align their body or gender expression with that of the gender they identify with. This could be in the form of gender-affirming hormone therapy (ie, estrogen or testosterone treatment) or gender-affirming surgery (ie, “top” and “bottom” surgeries, in which someone surgically treats their chest or genitals, respectively).³

Creating a Safe Space

The physician is responsible for providing a safe space for patients to disclose medically pertinent information. It is then the job of the dermatologist to be cognizant of health concerns that directly affect the LGBT population and to be prepared if one of these concerns should arise. A safe space consists of both the physical location in which the patient encounter will occur and the people that will be conducting and assisting in the patient encounter. Safe spaces provide a patient with reassurance that they will receive care in a judgement-free location. To create a safe space, both the physical and interpersonal aspects must be addressed to provide an environment that strengthens the patient-physician alliance.

Dermatology residents often spend more time with patients than their attending physicians, providing them the opportunity to foster robust relationships with those served. Although they may not be able to change the physical environment, residents can advocate for patients in their departments and show solidarity in subtle ways. One way to show support for the LGBT community is to publicly display a symbol of solidarity, which could be done by wearing a symbol of support on a white coat lapel. Although there are many designs and styles to choose from, one example is the American Medical Student Association pins that combine the caduceus (a common symbol for medicine) with a rainbow design.⁵ Whichever symbol is chosen, this small gesture allows patients to immediately know that their physician is an ally. Residents also can encourage their department to add a rainbow flag, a pink triangle, or another symbol somewhere prominent in the check-in area that conveys a message of support.⁶ Many institutions require residents to perform quality improvement projects. The resident can make a substantial difference in their patients’ experiences by revising their office’s intake forms as a quality improvement project, which can be done by including a section on assigned sex at birth separate from gender.⁷ When inquiring about gender, in addition to “male” and “female,” a space can be left for people that do not identify with the traditional binary. When asking about sexual orientation, inclusive language options can be provided with additional space for self-identification. Finally, residents can incorporate pronouns below their name in their email signature to normalize this disclosure of information.⁸ These small changes can have a substantial impact on the health care experience of SGM patients.

The previously described changes can be implemented by residents to provide better care to SGM patients, a group usually considered to be more burdened by physical and psychological diseases.⁹ Furthermore, dermatologists can provide care for these patients in ways that other physicians cannot. There are special considerations for LGBT patients, as some dermatologic conditions may be more common in this patient population.

Prior studies have shown that men who have sex with men have a higher rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infections, and potentially nonmelanoma skin cancer.^10-14 Transgender women also have been found to have higher rates of HIV, in addition to a higher incidence of anal human papillomavirus.^15,16 Women who have sex with women have been shown to see physicians less frequently and to be less up to date on their pertinent cancer-related screenings.^10,17 Although these associations should not dictate the patient encounter, awareness of them will lead to better patient care. Such awareness also can provide further motivation for dermatologists to discuss safe sexual practices, potential initiation of pre-exposure prophylactic antiretroviral therapy, sun-protective practices, and the importance of following up with a primary physician for examinations and age-specific cancer screening.

Transgender patients may present with unique dermatologic concerns. For transgender male patients, testosterone therapy can cause acne breakouts and androgenetic alopecia. Usually considered worse during the start of treatment, hormone-related acne can be managed with topical retinoids, topical and oral antibiotics, and isotretinoin (if severe).^18,19 The iPLEDGE system necessary for prescribing isotretinoin to patients in the United States recently has changed its language to “patients who can get pregnant” and “patients who cannot get pregnant,” following urging by the medical community for inclusivity and progress.^20,21 This change creates an inclusive space where registration is no longer centered around gender and instead focuses on the presence of anatomy. Although androgenetic alopecia is a side effect of hormone therapy, it may not be unwanted.¹⁸ Discussion about patient desires is important. If the alopecia is unwanted, the Endocrine Society recommends treating cisgender and transgender patients the same in terms of treatment modalities.²²

Transgender female patients also can experience dermatologic manifestations of gender-affirming hormone therapy. Melasma may develop secondary to estrogen replacement and can be treated with topical bleaching creams, lasers, and phototherapy.²³ Hair removal may be pursued for patients with refractory unwanted body hair, with laser hair removal being the most commonly pursued treatment. Patients also may desire cosmetic procedures, such as botulinum toxin or fillers, to augment their physical appearance.²⁴ Providing these services to patients may allow them to better express themselves and live authentically.

Final Thoughts

There is no way to summarize the experience of everyone within a community. Each person has different thoughts, values, and goals. It also is impossible to encompass every topic that is important for SGM patients. The goal of this article is to empower clinicians to be comfortable discussing issues related to sexuality and gender while also offering resources to learn more, allowing optimal care to be provided to this population. Thus, this article is not comprehensive. There are articles to provide further resources and education, such as the continuing medical education series by Yeung et al^10,25 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, as well as organizations within medicine, such as the GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality (https://www.glma.org/), and in dermatology, such as GALDA, the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association (https://www.glderm.org/). By providing a safe space for our patients and learning about specific health-related risk factors, dermatologists can provide the best possible care to the LGBT community.

Acknowledgments—I thank Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), and Howa Yeung, MD, MSc (Atlanta, Georgia), for their guidance and mentorship in the creation of this article.

The chances are good that at least one patient you saw today could have been provided a better environment to foster your patient-physician relationship. A 2020 Gallup poll revealed that an estimated 5.6% of US adults identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT).¹ Based on the estimated US population of 331.7 million individuals on December 3, 2020, this means that approximately 18.6 million identified as LGBT and could potentially require health care services.² These numbers highlight the increasing need within the medical community to provide quality and accessible care to the LGBT community, and dermatologists have a role to play. They treat conditions that are apparent to the patient and others around them, attracting those that may not be motivated to see different physicians. They can not only help with skin diseases that affect all patients but also can train other physicians to screen for some dermatologic diseases that may have a higher prevalence within the LGBT community. Dermatologists have a unique opportunity to help patients better reflect themselves through both surgical and nonsurgical modalities.

Demographics and Definitions

To discuss this topic effectively, it is important to define LGBT terms (Table).³ As a disclaimer, language is fluid. Despite a word or term currently being used and accepted, it quickly can become obsolete. A clinician can always do research, follow the lead of the patient, and respectfully ask questions if there is ever confusion surrounding terminology. Patients do not expect every physician they encounter to be an expert in this subject. What is most important is that patients are approached with an open mind and humility with the goal of providing optimal care.

Although the federal government now uses the term sexual and gender minorities (SGM), the more specific terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender usually are preferred.^3,4 Other letters are at times added to the acronym LGBT, including Q for questioning or queer, I for intersex, and A for asexual; all of these letters are under the larger SGM umbrella. Because LGBT is the most commonly used acronym in the daily vernacular, it will be the default for this article.

A term describing sexual orientation does not necessarily describe sexual practices. A woman who identifies as straight may have sex with both men and women, and a gay man may not have sex at all. To be more descriptive regarding sexual practices, one may use the terms men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women.³ Because of this nuance, it is important to elicit a sexual history when speaking to all patients in a forward nonjudgmental manner.

The term transgender is used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Two examples of transgender individuals would be transgender women who were assigned male at birth and transgender men who were assigned female at birth. The term transgender is used in opposition to the term cisgender, which is applied to a person whose gender and sex assigned at birth align.³ When a transgender patient presents to a physician, they may want to discuss methods of gender affirmation or transitioning. These terms encompass any action a person may take to align their body or gender expression with that of the gender they identify with. This could be in the form of gender-affirming hormone therapy (ie, estrogen or testosterone treatment) or gender-affirming surgery (ie, “top” and “bottom” surgeries, in which someone surgically treats their chest or genitals, respectively).³

Creating a Safe Space

The physician is responsible for providing a safe space for patients to disclose medically pertinent information. It is then the job of the dermatologist to be cognizant of health concerns that directly affect the LGBT population and to be prepared if one of these concerns should arise. A safe space consists of both the physical location in which the patient encounter will occur and the people that will be conducting and assisting in the patient encounter. Safe spaces provide a patient with reassurance that they will receive care in a judgement-free location. To create a safe space, both the physical and interpersonal aspects must be addressed to provide an environment that strengthens the patient-physician alliance.

Dermatology residents often spend more time with patients than their attending physicians, providing them the opportunity to foster robust relationships with those served. Although they may not be able to change the physical environment, residents can advocate for patients in their departments and show solidarity in subtle ways. One way to show support for the LGBT community is to publicly display a symbol of solidarity, which could be done by wearing a symbol of support on a white coat lapel. Although there are many designs and styles to choose from, one example is the American Medical Student Association pins that combine the caduceus (a common symbol for medicine) with a rainbow design.⁵ Whichever symbol is chosen, this small gesture allows patients to immediately know that their physician is an ally. Residents also can encourage their department to add a rainbow flag, a pink triangle, or another symbol somewhere prominent in the check-in area that conveys a message of support.⁶ Many institutions require residents to perform quality improvement projects. The resident can make a substantial difference in their patients’ experiences by revising their office’s intake forms as a quality improvement project, which can be done by including a section on assigned sex at birth separate from gender.⁷ When inquiring about gender, in addition to “male” and “female,” a space can be left for people that do not identify with the traditional binary. When asking about sexual orientation, inclusive language options can be provided with additional space for self-identification. Finally, residents can incorporate pronouns below their name in their email signature to normalize this disclosure of information.⁸ These small changes can have a substantial impact on the health care experience of SGM patients.

The previously described changes can be implemented by residents to provide better care to SGM patients, a group usually considered to be more burdened by physical and psychological diseases.⁹ Furthermore, dermatologists can provide care for these patients in ways that other physicians cannot. There are special considerations for LGBT patients, as some dermatologic conditions may be more common in this patient population.

Prior studies have shown that men who have sex with men have a higher rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infections, and potentially nonmelanoma skin cancer.^10-14 Transgender women also have been found to have higher rates of HIV, in addition to a higher incidence of anal human papillomavirus.^15,16 Women who have sex with women have been shown to see physicians less frequently and to be less up to date on their pertinent cancer-related screenings.^10,17 Although these associations should not dictate the patient encounter, awareness of them will lead to better patient care. Such awareness also can provide further motivation for dermatologists to discuss safe sexual practices, potential initiation of pre-exposure prophylactic antiretroviral therapy, sun-protective practices, and the importance of following up with a primary physician for examinations and age-specific cancer screening.

Transgender patients may present with unique dermatologic concerns. For transgender male patients, testosterone therapy can cause acne breakouts and androgenetic alopecia. Usually considered worse during the start of treatment, hormone-related acne can be managed with topical retinoids, topical and oral antibiotics, and isotretinoin (if severe).^18,19 The iPLEDGE system necessary for prescribing isotretinoin to patients in the United States recently has changed its language to “patients who can get pregnant” and “patients who cannot get pregnant,” following urging by the medical community for inclusivity and progress.^20,21 This change creates an inclusive space where registration is no longer centered around gender and instead focuses on the presence of anatomy. Although androgenetic alopecia is a side effect of hormone therapy, it may not be unwanted.¹⁸ Discussion about patient desires is important. If the alopecia is unwanted, the Endocrine Society recommends treating cisgender and transgender patients the same in terms of treatment modalities.²²

Transgender female patients also can experience dermatologic manifestations of gender-affirming hormone therapy. Melasma may develop secondary to estrogen replacement and can be treated with topical bleaching creams, lasers, and phototherapy.²³ Hair removal may be pursued for patients with refractory unwanted body hair, with laser hair removal being the most commonly pursued treatment. Patients also may desire cosmetic procedures, such as botulinum toxin or fillers, to augment their physical appearance.²⁴ Providing these services to patients may allow them to better express themselves and live authentically.

Final Thoughts

There is no way to summarize the experience of everyone within a community. Each person has different thoughts, values, and goals. It also is impossible to encompass every topic that is important for SGM patients. The goal of this article is to empower clinicians to be comfortable discussing issues related to sexuality and gender while also offering resources to learn more, allowing optimal care to be provided to this population. Thus, this article is not comprehensive. There are articles to provide further resources and education, such as the continuing medical education series by Yeung et al^10,25 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, as well as organizations within medicine, such as the GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality (https://www.glma.org/), and in dermatology, such as GALDA, the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association (https://www.glderm.org/). By providing a safe space for our patients and learning about specific health-related risk factors, dermatologists can provide the best possible care to the LGBT community.

Acknowledgments—I thank Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), and Howa Yeung, MD, MSc (Atlanta, Georgia), for their guidance and mentorship in the creation of this article.

The chances are good that at least one patient you saw today could have been provided a better environment to foster your patient-physician relationship. A 2020 Gallup poll revealed that an estimated 5.6% of US adults identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT).¹ Based on the estimated US population of 331.7 million individuals on December 3, 2020, this means that approximately 18.6 million identified as LGBT and could potentially require health care services.² These numbers highlight the increasing need within the medical community to provide quality and accessible care to the LGBT community, and dermatologists have a role to play. They treat conditions that are apparent to the patient and others around them, attracting those that may not be motivated to see different physicians. They can not only help with skin diseases that affect all patients but also can train other physicians to screen for some dermatologic diseases that may have a higher prevalence within the LGBT community. Dermatologists have a unique opportunity to help patients better reflect themselves through both surgical and nonsurgical modalities.

Demographics and Definitions

To discuss this topic effectively, it is important to define LGBT terms (Table).³ As a disclaimer, language is fluid. Despite a word or term currently being used and accepted, it quickly can become obsolete. A clinician can always do research, follow the lead of the patient, and respectfully ask questions if there is ever confusion surrounding terminology. Patients do not expect every physician they encounter to be an expert in this subject. What is most important is that patients are approached with an open mind and humility with the goal of providing optimal care.

Although the federal government now uses the term sexual and gender minorities (SGM), the more specific terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender usually are preferred.^3,4 Other letters are at times added to the acronym LGBT, including Q for questioning or queer, I for intersex, and A for asexual; all of these letters are under the larger SGM umbrella. Because LGBT is the most commonly used acronym in the daily vernacular, it will be the default for this article.

A term describing sexual orientation does not necessarily describe sexual practices. A woman who identifies as straight may have sex with both men and women, and a gay man may not have sex at all. To be more descriptive regarding sexual practices, one may use the terms men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women.³ Because of this nuance, it is important to elicit a sexual history when speaking to all patients in a forward nonjudgmental manner.

The term transgender is used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Two examples of transgender individuals would be transgender women who were assigned male at birth and transgender men who were assigned female at birth. The term transgender is used in opposition to the term cisgender, which is applied to a person whose gender and sex assigned at birth align.³ When a transgender patient presents to a physician, they may want to discuss methods of gender affirmation or transitioning. These terms encompass any action a person may take to align their body or gender expression with that of the gender they identify with. This could be in the form of gender-affirming hormone therapy (ie, estrogen or testosterone treatment) or gender-affirming surgery (ie, “top” and “bottom” surgeries, in which someone surgically treats their chest or genitals, respectively).³

Creating a Safe Space

The physician is responsible for providing a safe space for patients to disclose medically pertinent information. It is then the job of the dermatologist to be cognizant of health concerns that directly affect the LGBT population and to be prepared if one of these concerns should arise. A safe space consists of both the physical location in which the patient encounter will occur and the people that will be conducting and assisting in the patient encounter. Safe spaces provide a patient with reassurance that they will receive care in a judgement-free location. To create a safe space, both the physical and interpersonal aspects must be addressed to provide an environment that strengthens the patient-physician alliance.

Dermatology residents often spend more time with patients than their attending physicians, providing them the opportunity to foster robust relationships with those served. Although they may not be able to change the physical environment, residents can advocate for patients in their departments and show solidarity in subtle ways. One way to show support for the LGBT community is to publicly display a symbol of solidarity, which could be done by wearing a symbol of support on a white coat lapel. Although there are many designs and styles to choose from, one example is the American Medical Student Association pins that combine the caduceus (a common symbol for medicine) with a rainbow design.⁵ Whichever symbol is chosen, this small gesture allows patients to immediately know that their physician is an ally. Residents also can encourage their department to add a rainbow flag, a pink triangle, or another symbol somewhere prominent in the check-in area that conveys a message of support.⁶ Many institutions require residents to perform quality improvement projects. The resident can make a substantial difference in their patients’ experiences by revising their office’s intake forms as a quality improvement project, which can be done by including a section on assigned sex at birth separate from gender.⁷ When inquiring about gender, in addition to “male” and “female,” a space can be left for people that do not identify with the traditional binary. When asking about sexual orientation, inclusive language options can be provided with additional space for self-identification. Finally, residents can incorporate pronouns below their name in their email signature to normalize this disclosure of information.⁸ These small changes can have a substantial impact on the health care experience of SGM patients.

The previously described changes can be implemented by residents to provide better care to SGM patients, a group usually considered to be more burdened by physical and psychological diseases.⁹ Furthermore, dermatologists can provide care for these patients in ways that other physicians cannot. There are special considerations for LGBT patients, as some dermatologic conditions may be more common in this patient population.

Prior studies have shown that men who have sex with men have a higher rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infections, and potentially nonmelanoma skin cancer.^10-14 Transgender women also have been found to have higher rates of HIV, in addition to a higher incidence of anal human papillomavirus.^15,16 Women who have sex with women have been shown to see physicians less frequently and to be less up to date on their pertinent cancer-related screenings.^10,17 Although these associations should not dictate the patient encounter, awareness of them will lead to better patient care. Such awareness also can provide further motivation for dermatologists to discuss safe sexual practices, potential initiation of pre-exposure prophylactic antiretroviral therapy, sun-protective practices, and the importance of following up with a primary physician for examinations and age-specific cancer screening.

Transgender patients may present with unique dermatologic concerns. For transgender male patients, testosterone therapy can cause acne breakouts and androgenetic alopecia. Usually considered worse during the start of treatment, hormone-related acne can be managed with topical retinoids, topical and oral antibiotics, and isotretinoin (if severe).^18,19 The iPLEDGE system necessary for prescribing isotretinoin to patients in the United States recently has changed its language to “patients who can get pregnant” and “patients who cannot get pregnant,” following urging by the medical community for inclusivity and progress.^20,21 This change creates an inclusive space where registration is no longer centered around gender and instead focuses on the presence of anatomy. Although androgenetic alopecia is a side effect of hormone therapy, it may not be unwanted.¹⁸ Discussion about patient desires is important. If the alopecia is unwanted, the Endocrine Society recommends treating cisgender and transgender patients the same in terms of treatment modalities.²²

Transgender female patients also can experience dermatologic manifestations of gender-affirming hormone therapy. Melasma may develop secondary to estrogen replacement and can be treated with topical bleaching creams, lasers, and phototherapy.²³ Hair removal may be pursued for patients with refractory unwanted body hair, with laser hair removal being the most commonly pursued treatment. Patients also may desire cosmetic procedures, such as botulinum toxin or fillers, to augment their physical appearance.²⁴ Providing these services to patients may allow them to better express themselves and live authentically.

Final Thoughts

There is no way to summarize the experience of everyone within a community. Each person has different thoughts, values, and goals. It also is impossible to encompass every topic that is important for SGM patients. The goal of this article is to empower clinicians to be comfortable discussing issues related to sexuality and gender while also offering resources to learn more, allowing optimal care to be provided to this population. Thus, this article is not comprehensive. There are articles to provide further resources and education, such as the continuing medical education series by Yeung et al^10,25 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, as well as organizations within medicine, such as the GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality (https://www.glma.org/), and in dermatology, such as GALDA, the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association (https://www.glderm.org/). By providing a safe space for our patients and learning about specific health-related risk factors, dermatologists can provide the best possible care to the LGBT community.

Acknowledgments—I thank Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), and Howa Yeung, MD, MSc (Atlanta, Georgia), for their guidance and mentorship in the creation of this article.

SAN DIEGO – At least 1,200 sex trafficking survivors per year in the United States would benefit from pro bono laser removal of branding tattoos during their recovery – although that number is likely far greater, according to the results of an online survey evaluating the need for and impact of tattoo removal in this population.

Sex trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to compel another person to engage in commercial sex acts, and traffickers often brand their victims with tattoos that convey ownership, including tattoos of names, symbols, and barcodes. According to data from Polaris, a nonprofit organization that works to combat and prevent sex and labor trafficking in the United States, 16,658 sex trafficking victims were identified in the country in 2020, but tens of thousands go unreported.

coldsnowstorm/E+/Getty Images

“Given the inherently covert nature of this crime, it is difficult to determine exact statistics,” Emily L. Guo, MD, a cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “We have been working with sex trafficking survivors local to our practice in Houston providing pro bono tattoo removal, and we’ve observed how impactful that is in their recovery. We wanted to see if there was a national need for support of these survivors, allowing them to reclaim their lives.”

In collaboration with Elizabeth Kream, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Paul M. Friedman, MD, director of the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center and the current ASLMS president, Dr. Guo conducted an online needs and impact survey regarding laser removal of branding tattoos. With assistance from the National Trafficking Sheltered Alliance, the researchers distributed the survey to U.S. organizations that support sex trafficking survivors. Representatives from 40 organizations responded to the survey. Most were based in the South (45%), followed by the West (20%) and Midwest (20%), and the Northeast (15%).

“On average, these programs support 81 survivors per year, which translates into 3,240 victims per year,” Dr. Guo said. Survey respondents estimated that 47% of sex trafficking survivors had branding tattoos. Of those, 67% were in a stable situation that would make it possible to undergo tattoo removal.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest, “pro bono removal of branding tattoos received a survivor impact recovery score of 9.2 by these respondents,” Dr. Guo said. “Breaking down these numbers, there are at least 1,200 survivors per year who would benefit from tattoo removal during recovery. Qualitative responses to our survey echoed the same messages: There is a great need and a large impact for pro bono tattoo removal.”

For example, one survey respondent wrote, “Thank you for being willing to remove tattoos, allowing them to feel as though they are no longer owned by their trafficker.” Another wrote, “Erasing or revising the mark of her trafficker is a critical part of every survivor’s recovery journey.”

Sometimes branding tattoos are placed in highly visible locations. One sex trafficking survivor presented to Dr. Guo with a large dark blue tattoo above an eyebrow. “She shared with me that because the tattoo was so highly visible, nobody would offer her a job,” Dr. Guo said. Another survivor had her trafficker’s initial tattooed on her left ring finger. Yet another had a large tattoo on her forearm branded with her trafficker’s name as well as the word cash, “indicating that she is source of money for him,” she said, noting that on average, one sex trafficking victim generates about $100,000 per year for their trafficker.

Although there has been work published on recognition of branding tattoos in the medical community, including the difficulty in differentiating branding tattoos from voluntary tattoos, Dr. Friedman said that there have not been any studies evaluating the need and impact of laser branding tattoo removal in the recovery of sex trafficking survivors. Findings from the current survey “illuminate that the removal of branding tattoos is highly impactful on recovery and may be preferred over tattoo cover-ups,” Dr. Friedman told this news organization.

SAN DIEGO – At least 1,200 sex trafficking survivors per year in the United States would benefit from pro bono laser removal of branding tattoos during their recovery – although that number is likely far greater, according to the results of an online survey evaluating the need for and impact of tattoo removal in this population.

Sex trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to compel another person to engage in commercial sex acts, and traffickers often brand their victims with tattoos that convey ownership, including tattoos of names, symbols, and barcodes. According to data from Polaris, a nonprofit organization that works to combat and prevent sex and labor trafficking in the United States, 16,658 sex trafficking victims were identified in the country in 2020, but tens of thousands go unreported.

coldsnowstorm/E+/Getty Images

“Given the inherently covert nature of this crime, it is difficult to determine exact statistics,” Emily L. Guo, MD, a cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “We have been working with sex trafficking survivors local to our practice in Houston providing pro bono tattoo removal, and we’ve observed how impactful that is in their recovery. We wanted to see if there was a national need for support of these survivors, allowing them to reclaim their lives.”

In collaboration with Elizabeth Kream, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Paul M. Friedman, MD, director of the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center and the current ASLMS president, Dr. Guo conducted an online needs and impact survey regarding laser removal of branding tattoos. With assistance from the National Trafficking Sheltered Alliance, the researchers distributed the survey to U.S. organizations that support sex trafficking survivors. Representatives from 40 organizations responded to the survey. Most were based in the South (45%), followed by the West (20%) and Midwest (20%), and the Northeast (15%).

“On average, these programs support 81 survivors per year, which translates into 3,240 victims per year,” Dr. Guo said. Survey respondents estimated that 47% of sex trafficking survivors had branding tattoos. Of those, 67% were in a stable situation that would make it possible to undergo tattoo removal.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest, “pro bono removal of branding tattoos received a survivor impact recovery score of 9.2 by these respondents,” Dr. Guo said. “Breaking down these numbers, there are at least 1,200 survivors per year who would benefit from tattoo removal during recovery. Qualitative responses to our survey echoed the same messages: There is a great need and a large impact for pro bono tattoo removal.”

For example, one survey respondent wrote, “Thank you for being willing to remove tattoos, allowing them to feel as though they are no longer owned by their trafficker.” Another wrote, “Erasing or revising the mark of her trafficker is a critical part of every survivor’s recovery journey.”

Sometimes branding tattoos are placed in highly visible locations. One sex trafficking survivor presented to Dr. Guo with a large dark blue tattoo above an eyebrow. “She shared with me that because the tattoo was so highly visible, nobody would offer her a job,” Dr. Guo said. Another survivor had her trafficker’s initial tattooed on her left ring finger. Yet another had a large tattoo on her forearm branded with her trafficker’s name as well as the word cash, “indicating that she is source of money for him,” she said, noting that on average, one sex trafficking victim generates about $100,000 per year for their trafficker.

Although there has been work published on recognition of branding tattoos in the medical community, including the difficulty in differentiating branding tattoos from voluntary tattoos, Dr. Friedman said that there have not been any studies evaluating the need and impact of laser branding tattoo removal in the recovery of sex trafficking survivors. Findings from the current survey “illuminate that the removal of branding tattoos is highly impactful on recovery and may be preferred over tattoo cover-ups,” Dr. Friedman told this news organization.

SAN DIEGO – At least 1,200 sex trafficking survivors per year in the United States would benefit from pro bono laser removal of branding tattoos during their recovery – although that number is likely far greater, according to the results of an online survey evaluating the need for and impact of tattoo removal in this population.

Sex trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to compel another person to engage in commercial sex acts, and traffickers often brand their victims with tattoos that convey ownership, including tattoos of names, symbols, and barcodes. According to data from Polaris, a nonprofit organization that works to combat and prevent sex and labor trafficking in the United States, 16,658 sex trafficking victims were identified in the country in 2020, but tens of thousands go unreported.

coldsnowstorm/E+/Getty Images

“Given the inherently covert nature of this crime, it is difficult to determine exact statistics,” Emily L. Guo, MD, a cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “We have been working with sex trafficking survivors local to our practice in Houston providing pro bono tattoo removal, and we’ve observed how impactful that is in their recovery. We wanted to see if there was a national need for support of these survivors, allowing them to reclaim their lives.”

In collaboration with Elizabeth Kream, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Paul M. Friedman, MD, director of the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center and the current ASLMS president, Dr. Guo conducted an online needs and impact survey regarding laser removal of branding tattoos. With assistance from the National Trafficking Sheltered Alliance, the researchers distributed the survey to U.S. organizations that support sex trafficking survivors. Representatives from 40 organizations responded to the survey. Most were based in the South (45%), followed by the West (20%) and Midwest (20%), and the Northeast (15%).

“On average, these programs support 81 survivors per year, which translates into 3,240 victims per year,” Dr. Guo said. Survey respondents estimated that 47% of sex trafficking survivors had branding tattoos. Of those, 67% were in a stable situation that would make it possible to undergo tattoo removal.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest, “pro bono removal of branding tattoos received a survivor impact recovery score of 9.2 by these respondents,” Dr. Guo said. “Breaking down these numbers, there are at least 1,200 survivors per year who would benefit from tattoo removal during recovery. Qualitative responses to our survey echoed the same messages: There is a great need and a large impact for pro bono tattoo removal.”

For example, one survey respondent wrote, “Thank you for being willing to remove tattoos, allowing them to feel as though they are no longer owned by their trafficker.” Another wrote, “Erasing or revising the mark of her trafficker is a critical part of every survivor’s recovery journey.”

Sometimes branding tattoos are placed in highly visible locations. One sex trafficking survivor presented to Dr. Guo with a large dark blue tattoo above an eyebrow. “She shared with me that because the tattoo was so highly visible, nobody would offer her a job,” Dr. Guo said. Another survivor had her trafficker’s initial tattooed on her left ring finger. Yet another had a large tattoo on her forearm branded with her trafficker’s name as well as the word cash, “indicating that she is source of money for him,” she said, noting that on average, one sex trafficking victim generates about $100,000 per year for their trafficker.

Although there has been work published on recognition of branding tattoos in the medical community, including the difficulty in differentiating branding tattoos from voluntary tattoos, Dr. Friedman said that there have not been any studies evaluating the need and impact of laser branding tattoo removal in the recovery of sex trafficking survivors. Findings from the current survey “illuminate that the removal of branding tattoos is highly impactful on recovery and may be preferred over tattoo cover-ups,” Dr. Friedman told this news organization.

Exposure to green space may boost cognitive function, new research suggests.

Results of a large prospective study show increasing exposure to residential green space was associated with significantly higher scores on cognitive function measures in middle-aged women, compared with women who had less exposure.

This association may be explained by a reduction in depression, researchers note. Scores for overall cognition and psychomotor speed/attention among women with high green-space exposure were equivalent to those of women an average of 1.2 years younger, they add.

“Despite the fact that the women in our study were relatively younger than those in previous studies, we were still able to detect protective associations between green space and cognition,” lead author Marcia Pescador Jimenez, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“This may signal the public health importance of green space and the important clinical implications at the population level,” she said.

Marcia Pescador Jimenez

Better psychomotor speed, attention

Recent studies on the benefits of green space have shown a link between higher exposure and reduced risks for schizophrenia and ischemic stroke. Other studies have explored the link between green space and dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Cognitive function in middle age is associated with subsequent dementia, so Dr. Jimenez said she and her colleagues wanted to analyze the effect of residential green space on cognitive function in middle-aged women.

The study included 13,594 women (median age, 61.2 years) who are participants in the ongoing Nurses’ Health Study II, one of the largest studies to examine risk factors for chronic illness in women.

To calculate the amount of green space, researchers used the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a satellite-based indicator of green vegetation around a residential address. The data were based on each participant’s 2013 residence.

After adjusting for age at assessment, race, and childhood, adulthood, and neighborhood socioeconomic status, green space was associated with higher scores on the global CogState composite (mean difference per interquartile range in green space, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, .02-.07) and psychomotor speed and attention (mean difference in score, 0.05 standard units; 95% CI, .02-.08) scales.

There was no association between green-space exposure and learning and working memory. Investigators also found no differences based on urbanicity, suggesting the benefits were similar for urban versus rural settings.
 

Specific to cognitive domains

“We were surprised to see that while our study found that higher levels of residential green space were associated with higher scores on processing speed and attention and on overall cognition, we also found that higher levels of residential green space were not associated with learning/working memory battery scores,” Dr. Jimenez said.

“This is actually in-line with previous research suggesting differing associations between green space and cognition based on the cognitive domain examined,” she added.

About 98% of participants were White, limiting the generalizability of the findings, the researchers note. There was also no information on proximity to or size of green space, or how much time individuals spent in the green space and what kinds of activities they engaged in.

Dr. Jimenez said projects examining the amount of time of green-space exposure are underway.

In addition, the researchers found lower rates of depression might contribute to the cognitive benefits associated with green-space exposure, explaining 3.95% (95% CI, .35%-7.55%) of the association between green space and psychomotor speed/attention and 6.3% (95% CI, .77%-11.81%) of the association between green space and overall cognition.

Reduced air pollution and increased physical activity, which are other factors often thought to contribute to the cognitive benefits of green space, were not significant in this study.
 

‘Interesting and novel’

Commenting on the findings, Payam Dadvand, MD, PhD, associate research professor, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, called the finding that depression may mediate green-space benefits “quite interesting and novel.”

“The results of this study, given its large sample size and its geographical coverage, adds to an emerging body of evidence on the beneficial association of exposure to green space on aging, and in particular, cognitive aging in older adults,” said Dr. Dadvand, who was not involved with the research.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jimenez and Dr. Dadvand have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to green space may boost cognitive function, new research suggests.

Results of a large prospective study show increasing exposure to residential green space was associated with significantly higher scores on cognitive function measures in middle-aged women, compared with women who had less exposure.

This association may be explained by a reduction in depression, researchers note. Scores for overall cognition and psychomotor speed/attention among women with high green-space exposure were equivalent to those of women an average of 1.2 years younger, they add.

“Despite the fact that the women in our study were relatively younger than those in previous studies, we were still able to detect protective associations between green space and cognition,” lead author Marcia Pescador Jimenez, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“This may signal the public health importance of green space and the important clinical implications at the population level,” she said.

Marcia Pescador Jimenez

Better psychomotor speed, attention

Recent studies on the benefits of green space have shown a link between higher exposure and reduced risks for schizophrenia and ischemic stroke. Other studies have explored the link between green space and dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Cognitive function in middle age is associated with subsequent dementia, so Dr. Jimenez said she and her colleagues wanted to analyze the effect of residential green space on cognitive function in middle-aged women.

The study included 13,594 women (median age, 61.2 years) who are participants in the ongoing Nurses’ Health Study II, one of the largest studies to examine risk factors for chronic illness in women.

To calculate the amount of green space, researchers used the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a satellite-based indicator of green vegetation around a residential address. The data were based on each participant’s 2013 residence.

After adjusting for age at assessment, race, and childhood, adulthood, and neighborhood socioeconomic status, green space was associated with higher scores on the global CogState composite (mean difference per interquartile range in green space, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, .02-.07) and psychomotor speed and attention (mean difference in score, 0.05 standard units; 95% CI, .02-.08) scales.

There was no association between green-space exposure and learning and working memory. Investigators also found no differences based on urbanicity, suggesting the benefits were similar for urban versus rural settings.
 

Specific to cognitive domains

“We were surprised to see that while our study found that higher levels of residential green space were associated with higher scores on processing speed and attention and on overall cognition, we also found that higher levels of residential green space were not associated with learning/working memory battery scores,” Dr. Jimenez said.

“This is actually in-line with previous research suggesting differing associations between green space and cognition based on the cognitive domain examined,” she added.

About 98% of participants were White, limiting the generalizability of the findings, the researchers note. There was also no information on proximity to or size of green space, or how much time individuals spent in the green space and what kinds of activities they engaged in.

Dr. Jimenez said projects examining the amount of time of green-space exposure are underway.

In addition, the researchers found lower rates of depression might contribute to the cognitive benefits associated with green-space exposure, explaining 3.95% (95% CI, .35%-7.55%) of the association between green space and psychomotor speed/attention and 6.3% (95% CI, .77%-11.81%) of the association between green space and overall cognition.

Reduced air pollution and increased physical activity, which are other factors often thought to contribute to the cognitive benefits of green space, were not significant in this study.
 

‘Interesting and novel’

Commenting on the findings, Payam Dadvand, MD, PhD, associate research professor, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, called the finding that depression may mediate green-space benefits “quite interesting and novel.”

“The results of this study, given its large sample size and its geographical coverage, adds to an emerging body of evidence on the beneficial association of exposure to green space on aging, and in particular, cognitive aging in older adults,” said Dr. Dadvand, who was not involved with the research.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jimenez and Dr. Dadvand have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to green space may boost cognitive function, new research suggests.

Results of a large prospective study show increasing exposure to residential green space was associated with significantly higher scores on cognitive function measures in middle-aged women, compared with women who had less exposure.

This association may be explained by a reduction in depression, researchers note. Scores for overall cognition and psychomotor speed/attention among women with high green-space exposure were equivalent to those of women an average of 1.2 years younger, they add.

“Despite the fact that the women in our study were relatively younger than those in previous studies, we were still able to detect protective associations between green space and cognition,” lead author Marcia Pescador Jimenez, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“This may signal the public health importance of green space and the important clinical implications at the population level,” she said.

Marcia Pescador Jimenez

Better psychomotor speed, attention

Recent studies on the benefits of green space have shown a link between higher exposure and reduced risks for schizophrenia and ischemic stroke. Other studies have explored the link between green space and dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Cognitive function in middle age is associated with subsequent dementia, so Dr. Jimenez said she and her colleagues wanted to analyze the effect of residential green space on cognitive function in middle-aged women.

The study included 13,594 women (median age, 61.2 years) who are participants in the ongoing Nurses’ Health Study II, one of the largest studies to examine risk factors for chronic illness in women.

To calculate the amount of green space, researchers used the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a satellite-based indicator of green vegetation around a residential address. The data were based on each participant’s 2013 residence.

After adjusting for age at assessment, race, and childhood, adulthood, and neighborhood socioeconomic status, green space was associated with higher scores on the global CogState composite (mean difference per interquartile range in green space, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, .02-.07) and psychomotor speed and attention (mean difference in score, 0.05 standard units; 95% CI, .02-.08) scales.

There was no association between green-space exposure and learning and working memory. Investigators also found no differences based on urbanicity, suggesting the benefits were similar for urban versus rural settings.
 

Specific to cognitive domains

“We were surprised to see that while our study found that higher levels of residential green space were associated with higher scores on processing speed and attention and on overall cognition, we also found that higher levels of residential green space were not associated with learning/working memory battery scores,” Dr. Jimenez said.

“This is actually in-line with previous research suggesting differing associations between green space and cognition based on the cognitive domain examined,” she added.

About 98% of participants were White, limiting the generalizability of the findings, the researchers note. There was also no information on proximity to or size of green space, or how much time individuals spent in the green space and what kinds of activities they engaged in.

Dr. Jimenez said projects examining the amount of time of green-space exposure are underway.

In addition, the researchers found lower rates of depression might contribute to the cognitive benefits associated with green-space exposure, explaining 3.95% (95% CI, .35%-7.55%) of the association between green space and psychomotor speed/attention and 6.3% (95% CI, .77%-11.81%) of the association between green space and overall cognition.

Reduced air pollution and increased physical activity, which are other factors often thought to contribute to the cognitive benefits of green space, were not significant in this study.
 

‘Interesting and novel’

Commenting on the findings, Payam Dadvand, MD, PhD, associate research professor, Barcelona Institute for Global Health, called the finding that depression may mediate green-space benefits “quite interesting and novel.”

“The results of this study, given its large sample size and its geographical coverage, adds to an emerging body of evidence on the beneficial association of exposure to green space on aging, and in particular, cognitive aging in older adults,” said Dr. Dadvand, who was not involved with the research.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jimenez and Dr. Dadvand have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Lasers can be used to safely and effectively remove permanent eyebrow and eyelid tattoos in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I–V, results from a single-center retrospective study showed.

There is a market for these types of cosmetic tattoos today, “and a need for removal,” David Orbuch, MD, MBA, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Dr. Orbuch, a fellow at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York, and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the charts of 57 adults who underwent laser tattoo removal of eyebrow and eyelid tattoos at the center from January 2018 to December 2021. Data recorded included demographics, site location, initial parameters, colors treated, and clinical safety and efficacy. The mean age of the patients was 46 years, 98.8% were female, 50.9% were Fitzpatrick skin type I-II, and the remainder were types III-V.

Among the most common sites treated were the bilateral eyebrows (35%). Other common sites were the upper eyelids (21.1%), the lower eyelids (10.5%), and both the upper and lower eyelids (12%). Each patient underwent an average of 2.5 treatments (range, 1-11). The most common lasers used were a 755-nm picosecond laser (79%), a high‐power 1,064-nm picosecond laser (12.3%), a high‐power 532-nm picosecond laser (3.5%), and a 10,600-nm carbon dioxide laser (1.7%). The most common tattoo colors were black (94.7%), the far most common, followed by red (3.5%), and yellow (1.7%).

For removal of black tattoos, the most common treatment parameters for the 755 picosecond laser were a 2.5-mm spot size and a fluence of 3.36 J/cm². For the 1,064-nm picosecond laser, the most common treatment parameters were a 2-mm spot size and a fluence of 4 J/cm².

For removal of red tattoos, the most common treatment parameters for the 532-nm picosecond laser were a 3.3-mm spot size and a fluence of 2 J/cm². For the 10,600-nm CO₂ laser, the most common treatment parameters were a spot size of 7 mm and a fluence of 28.2 J/cm².

As for removal of yellow tattoos, the most common treatment parameters with the 532-nm picosecond laser were a 3.3-mm spot size and a fluence of 0.5 J/cm².

There were no documented cases of scarring, eyelash/eyebrow loss, necrosis, burns, prolonged erythema, prolonged swelling, or prolonged dyspigmentation noted.

“With all of these treatments, you can get a great effect, but you have to do it safely,” Dr. Orbuch said. “With all of these wavelengths, the 1,064 nm especially, there can be serious eye damage if done improperly,” he added. “As such, placement of the metallic eye shields is important. If they’re not properly placed, they can fall out. Make sure you are comfortable using these shields before doing these treatments.”

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that cosmetic tattoos pose treatment challenges for several reasons. First, “there can be variability in the composition of the pigments since they are often tailored to fit the location and complexion of the patient,” she said. “Second, there can be placement of multiple layers of tattoo pigment to provide the final effect. Third, the pigment may contain two metal oxides (titanium dioxide and ferric oxide), which are often used to calibrate skin tone colors.”

Unfortunately, she noted, “these metal oxides are prone to reduction reactions with laser exposure, causing paradoxical darkening of tattoo pigment. In the past, these darker colors were treated with continued laser therapy and even fractional or fully ablative CO2/Er:YAG resurfacing.”

Dr. Sodha noted that prior studies have shown picosecond lasers to be effective cosmetic lasers, “and this study further supports this with a larger cohort of patients who were treated with the array of picosecond wavelengths (532, 755, and 1,064 nm) without long-term sequelae. Interestingly, there did not appear to be long-term sequelae with dyspigmentation or paradoxical darkening, with fewer than 2% necessitating treatment with a carbon dioxide laser.”

Neither Dr. Orbuch nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Lasers can be used to safely and effectively remove permanent eyebrow and eyelid tattoos in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I–V, results from a single-center retrospective study showed.

There is a market for these types of cosmetic tattoos today, “and a need for removal,” David Orbuch, MD, MBA, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Dr. Orbuch, a fellow at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York, and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the charts of 57 adults who underwent laser tattoo removal of eyebrow and eyelid tattoos at the center from January 2018 to December 2021. Data recorded included demographics, site location, initial parameters, colors treated, and clinical safety and efficacy. The mean age of the patients was 46 years, 98.8% were female, 50.9% were Fitzpatrick skin type I-II, and the remainder were types III-V.

Among the most common sites treated were the bilateral eyebrows (35%). Other common sites were the upper eyelids (21.1%), the lower eyelids (10.5%), and both the upper and lower eyelids (12%). Each patient underwent an average of 2.5 treatments (range, 1-11). The most common lasers used were a 755-nm picosecond laser (79%), a high‐power 1,064-nm picosecond laser (12.3%), a high‐power 532-nm picosecond laser (3.5%), and a 10,600-nm carbon dioxide laser (1.7%). The most common tattoo colors were black (94.7%), the far most common, followed by red (3.5%), and yellow (1.7%).

For removal of black tattoos, the most common treatment parameters for the 755 picosecond laser were a 2.5-mm spot size and a fluence of 3.36 J/cm². For the 1,064-nm picosecond laser, the most common treatment parameters were a 2-mm spot size and a fluence of 4 J/cm².

For removal of red tattoos, the most common treatment parameters for the 532-nm picosecond laser were a 3.3-mm spot size and a fluence of 2 J/cm². For the 10,600-nm CO₂ laser, the most common treatment parameters were a spot size of 7 mm and a fluence of 28.2 J/cm².

As for removal of yellow tattoos, the most common treatment parameters with the 532-nm picosecond laser were a 3.3-mm spot size and a fluence of 0.5 J/cm².

There were no documented cases of scarring, eyelash/eyebrow loss, necrosis, burns, prolonged erythema, prolonged swelling, or prolonged dyspigmentation noted.

“With all of these treatments, you can get a great effect, but you have to do it safely,” Dr. Orbuch said. “With all of these wavelengths, the 1,064 nm especially, there can be serious eye damage if done improperly,” he added. “As such, placement of the metallic eye shields is important. If they’re not properly placed, they can fall out. Make sure you are comfortable using these shields before doing these treatments.”

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that cosmetic tattoos pose treatment challenges for several reasons. First, “there can be variability in the composition of the pigments since they are often tailored to fit the location and complexion of the patient,” she said. “Second, there can be placement of multiple layers of tattoo pigment to provide the final effect. Third, the pigment may contain two metal oxides (titanium dioxide and ferric oxide), which are often used to calibrate skin tone colors.”

Unfortunately, she noted, “these metal oxides are prone to reduction reactions with laser exposure, causing paradoxical darkening of tattoo pigment. In the past, these darker colors were treated with continued laser therapy and even fractional or fully ablative CO2/Er:YAG resurfacing.”

Dr. Sodha noted that prior studies have shown picosecond lasers to be effective cosmetic lasers, “and this study further supports this with a larger cohort of patients who were treated with the array of picosecond wavelengths (532, 755, and 1,064 nm) without long-term sequelae. Interestingly, there did not appear to be long-term sequelae with dyspigmentation or paradoxical darkening, with fewer than 2% necessitating treatment with a carbon dioxide laser.”

Neither Dr. Orbuch nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Lasers can be used to safely and effectively remove permanent eyebrow and eyelid tattoos in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I–V, results from a single-center retrospective study showed.

There is a market for these types of cosmetic tattoos today, “and a need for removal,” David Orbuch, MD, MBA, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Dr. Orbuch, a fellow at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York, and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the charts of 57 adults who underwent laser tattoo removal of eyebrow and eyelid tattoos at the center from January 2018 to December 2021. Data recorded included demographics, site location, initial parameters, colors treated, and clinical safety and efficacy. The mean age of the patients was 46 years, 98.8% were female, 50.9% were Fitzpatrick skin type I-II, and the remainder were types III-V.

Among the most common sites treated were the bilateral eyebrows (35%). Other common sites were the upper eyelids (21.1%), the lower eyelids (10.5%), and both the upper and lower eyelids (12%). Each patient underwent an average of 2.5 treatments (range, 1-11). The most common lasers used were a 755-nm picosecond laser (79%), a high‐power 1,064-nm picosecond laser (12.3%), a high‐power 532-nm picosecond laser (3.5%), and a 10,600-nm carbon dioxide laser (1.7%). The most common tattoo colors were black (94.7%), the far most common, followed by red (3.5%), and yellow (1.7%).

For removal of black tattoos, the most common treatment parameters for the 755 picosecond laser were a 2.5-mm spot size and a fluence of 3.36 J/cm². For the 1,064-nm picosecond laser, the most common treatment parameters were a 2-mm spot size and a fluence of 4 J/cm².

For removal of red tattoos, the most common treatment parameters for the 532-nm picosecond laser were a 3.3-mm spot size and a fluence of 2 J/cm². For the 10,600-nm CO₂ laser, the most common treatment parameters were a spot size of 7 mm and a fluence of 28.2 J/cm².

As for removal of yellow tattoos, the most common treatment parameters with the 532-nm picosecond laser were a 3.3-mm spot size and a fluence of 0.5 J/cm².

There were no documented cases of scarring, eyelash/eyebrow loss, necrosis, burns, prolonged erythema, prolonged swelling, or prolonged dyspigmentation noted.

“With all of these treatments, you can get a great effect, but you have to do it safely,” Dr. Orbuch said. “With all of these wavelengths, the 1,064 nm especially, there can be serious eye damage if done improperly,” he added. “As such, placement of the metallic eye shields is important. If they’re not properly placed, they can fall out. Make sure you are comfortable using these shields before doing these treatments.”

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that cosmetic tattoos pose treatment challenges for several reasons. First, “there can be variability in the composition of the pigments since they are often tailored to fit the location and complexion of the patient,” she said. “Second, there can be placement of multiple layers of tattoo pigment to provide the final effect. Third, the pigment may contain two metal oxides (titanium dioxide and ferric oxide), which are often used to calibrate skin tone colors.”

Unfortunately, she noted, “these metal oxides are prone to reduction reactions with laser exposure, causing paradoxical darkening of tattoo pigment. In the past, these darker colors were treated with continued laser therapy and even fractional or fully ablative CO2/Er:YAG resurfacing.”

Dr. Sodha noted that prior studies have shown picosecond lasers to be effective cosmetic lasers, “and this study further supports this with a larger cohort of patients who were treated with the array of picosecond wavelengths (532, 755, and 1,064 nm) without long-term sequelae. Interestingly, there did not appear to be long-term sequelae with dyspigmentation or paradoxical darkening, with fewer than 2% necessitating treatment with a carbon dioxide laser.”

Neither Dr. Orbuch nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures.

Transvaginal mesh was found to be safe and effective for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when compared with native tissue repair (NTR) in a 3-year trial.

Researchers, led by Bruce S. Kahn, MD, with the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Scripps Clinic in San Diego evaluated the two surgical treatment methods and published their findings in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

At completion of the 3-year follow-up in 2016, there were 401 participants in the transvaginal mesh group and 171 in the NTR group.

The prospective, nonrandomized, parallel-cohort, 27-site trial used a primary composite endpoint of anatomical success; subjective success (vaginal bulging); retreatment measures; and serious device-related or serious procedure-related adverse events.

The secondary endpoint was a composite outcome similar to the primary composite outcome but with anatomical success more stringently defined as POP quantification (POP-Q) point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.

The secondary outcome was added to this trial because investigators had criticized the primary endpoint, set by the Food and Drug Administration, because it included anatomic outcome measures that were the same for inclusion criteria (POP-Q point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.)

The secondary-outcome composite also included quality-of-life measures, mesh exposure, and mesh- and procedure-related complications.
 

Outcomes similar for both groups

The primary outcome demonstrated transvaginal mesh was not superior to native tissue repair (P =.056).

In the secondary outcome, superiority of transvaginal mesh over native tissue repair was shown (P =.009), with a propensity score–adjusted difference of 10.6% (90% confidence interval, 3.3%-17.9%) in favor of transvaginal mesh.

The authors noted that subjective success regarding vaginal bulging, which is important in patient satisfaction, was high and not statistically different between the two groups.

Additionally, transvaginal mesh repair was as safe as NTR regarding serious device-related and/or serious procedure-related side effects.

For the primary safety endpoint, 3.1% in the mesh group and 2.7% in the native tissue repair group experienced serious adverse events, demonstrating that mesh was noninferior to NTR.
 

Research results have been mixed

Unanswered questions surround surgical options for POP, which, the authors wrote, “affects 3%-6% of women based on symptoms and up to 50% of women based on vaginal examination.”

The FDA in 2011 issued 522 postmarket surveillance study orders for companies that market transvaginal mesh for POP.

Research results have varied and contentious debate has continued in the field. Some studies have shown that mesh has better subjective and objective outcomes than NTR in the anterior compartment. Others have found more complications with transvaginal mesh, such as mesh exposure and painful intercourse.

Complicating comparisons, early versions of the mesh used were larger and denser than today’s versions.

In this postmarket study, patients received either the Uphold LITE brand of transvaginal mesh or native tissue repair for surgical treatment of POP.
 

Expert: This study unlikely to change minds

In an accompanying editorial, John O.L. DeLancey, MD, professor of gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that so far there’s been a lack of randomized trials that could answer whether mesh surgeries result in fewer symptoms or result in sufficient improvements in anatomy to justify their additional risk.

This study may not help with the decision. Dr. DeLancey wrote: “Will this study change the minds of either side of this debate? Probably not. The two sides are deeply entrenched in their positions.”

Two considerations are important in thinking about the issue, he said. Surgical outcomes for POP are “not as good as we would hope.” Also, many women have had serious complications with mesh operations.

He wrote: “Mesh litigation has resulted in more $8 billion in settlements, which is many times the $1 billion annual national cost of providing care for prolapse. Those of us who practice in referral centers have seen women with devastating problems, even though they probably represent a small fraction of cases.”

Dr. DeLancey highlighted some limitations of the study by Dr. Kahn and colleagues, especially regarding differences in the groups studied and the design of the study.

“For example,” he explained, “65% of individuals in the mesh-repair group had a prior hysterectomy as opposed to 30% in the native tissue repair group. In addition, some of the operations in the native tissue group are not typical choices; for example, hysteropexy was used for some patients and had a 47% failure rate.”

He said the all-or-nothing approach to surgical solutions may be clouding the debate – in other words mesh or no mesh for women as a group.

“Rather than asking whether mesh is better than no mesh, knowing which women (if any) stand to benefit from mesh is the critical question. We need to understand, for each woman, what structural failures exist so that we can target our interventions to correct them,” he wrote.

This study was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kahn disclosed research support from Solaire, payments from AbbVie and Douchenay as a speaker, payments from Caldera and Cytuity (Boston Scientific) as a medical consultant, and payment from Johnson & Johnson as an expert witness. One coauthor disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Medtronic and Boston Scientific (both unrestricted educational grants for cadaveric lab). Another is chief medical officer at Axonics. One study coauthor receives research funding from Axonics and is a consultant for Group Dynamics, Medpace, and FirstThought. One coauthor received research support, is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and is an expert witness for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. DeLancey declared no relevant financial relationships.

Transvaginal mesh was found to be safe and effective for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when compared with native tissue repair (NTR) in a 3-year trial.

Researchers, led by Bruce S. Kahn, MD, with the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Scripps Clinic in San Diego evaluated the two surgical treatment methods and published their findings in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

At completion of the 3-year follow-up in 2016, there were 401 participants in the transvaginal mesh group and 171 in the NTR group.

The prospective, nonrandomized, parallel-cohort, 27-site trial used a primary composite endpoint of anatomical success; subjective success (vaginal bulging); retreatment measures; and serious device-related or serious procedure-related adverse events.

The secondary endpoint was a composite outcome similar to the primary composite outcome but with anatomical success more stringently defined as POP quantification (POP-Q) point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.

The secondary outcome was added to this trial because investigators had criticized the primary endpoint, set by the Food and Drug Administration, because it included anatomic outcome measures that were the same for inclusion criteria (POP-Q point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.)

The secondary-outcome composite also included quality-of-life measures, mesh exposure, and mesh- and procedure-related complications.
 

Outcomes similar for both groups

The primary outcome demonstrated transvaginal mesh was not superior to native tissue repair (P =.056).

In the secondary outcome, superiority of transvaginal mesh over native tissue repair was shown (P =.009), with a propensity score–adjusted difference of 10.6% (90% confidence interval, 3.3%-17.9%) in favor of transvaginal mesh.

The authors noted that subjective success regarding vaginal bulging, which is important in patient satisfaction, was high and not statistically different between the two groups.

Additionally, transvaginal mesh repair was as safe as NTR regarding serious device-related and/or serious procedure-related side effects.

For the primary safety endpoint, 3.1% in the mesh group and 2.7% in the native tissue repair group experienced serious adverse events, demonstrating that mesh was noninferior to NTR.
 

Research results have been mixed

Unanswered questions surround surgical options for POP, which, the authors wrote, “affects 3%-6% of women based on symptoms and up to 50% of women based on vaginal examination.”

The FDA in 2011 issued 522 postmarket surveillance study orders for companies that market transvaginal mesh for POP.

Research results have varied and contentious debate has continued in the field. Some studies have shown that mesh has better subjective and objective outcomes than NTR in the anterior compartment. Others have found more complications with transvaginal mesh, such as mesh exposure and painful intercourse.

Complicating comparisons, early versions of the mesh used were larger and denser than today’s versions.

In this postmarket study, patients received either the Uphold LITE brand of transvaginal mesh or native tissue repair for surgical treatment of POP.
 

Expert: This study unlikely to change minds

In an accompanying editorial, John O.L. DeLancey, MD, professor of gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that so far there’s been a lack of randomized trials that could answer whether mesh surgeries result in fewer symptoms or result in sufficient improvements in anatomy to justify their additional risk.

This study may not help with the decision. Dr. DeLancey wrote: “Will this study change the minds of either side of this debate? Probably not. The two sides are deeply entrenched in their positions.”

Two considerations are important in thinking about the issue, he said. Surgical outcomes for POP are “not as good as we would hope.” Also, many women have had serious complications with mesh operations.

He wrote: “Mesh litigation has resulted in more $8 billion in settlements, which is many times the $1 billion annual national cost of providing care for prolapse. Those of us who practice in referral centers have seen women with devastating problems, even though they probably represent a small fraction of cases.”

Dr. DeLancey highlighted some limitations of the study by Dr. Kahn and colleagues, especially regarding differences in the groups studied and the design of the study.

“For example,” he explained, “65% of individuals in the mesh-repair group had a prior hysterectomy as opposed to 30% in the native tissue repair group. In addition, some of the operations in the native tissue group are not typical choices; for example, hysteropexy was used for some patients and had a 47% failure rate.”

He said the all-or-nothing approach to surgical solutions may be clouding the debate – in other words mesh or no mesh for women as a group.

“Rather than asking whether mesh is better than no mesh, knowing which women (if any) stand to benefit from mesh is the critical question. We need to understand, for each woman, what structural failures exist so that we can target our interventions to correct them,” he wrote.

This study was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kahn disclosed research support from Solaire, payments from AbbVie and Douchenay as a speaker, payments from Caldera and Cytuity (Boston Scientific) as a medical consultant, and payment from Johnson & Johnson as an expert witness. One coauthor disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Medtronic and Boston Scientific (both unrestricted educational grants for cadaveric lab). Another is chief medical officer at Axonics. One study coauthor receives research funding from Axonics and is a consultant for Group Dynamics, Medpace, and FirstThought. One coauthor received research support, is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and is an expert witness for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. DeLancey declared no relevant financial relationships.

Transvaginal mesh was found to be safe and effective for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when compared with native tissue repair (NTR) in a 3-year trial.

Researchers, led by Bruce S. Kahn, MD, with the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Scripps Clinic in San Diego evaluated the two surgical treatment methods and published their findings in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

At completion of the 3-year follow-up in 2016, there were 401 participants in the transvaginal mesh group and 171 in the NTR group.

The prospective, nonrandomized, parallel-cohort, 27-site trial used a primary composite endpoint of anatomical success; subjective success (vaginal bulging); retreatment measures; and serious device-related or serious procedure-related adverse events.

The secondary endpoint was a composite outcome similar to the primary composite outcome but with anatomical success more stringently defined as POP quantification (POP-Q) point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.

The secondary outcome was added to this trial because investigators had criticized the primary endpoint, set by the Food and Drug Administration, because it included anatomic outcome measures that were the same for inclusion criteria (POP-Q point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.)

The secondary-outcome composite also included quality-of-life measures, mesh exposure, and mesh- and procedure-related complications.
 

Outcomes similar for both groups

The primary outcome demonstrated transvaginal mesh was not superior to native tissue repair (P =.056).

In the secondary outcome, superiority of transvaginal mesh over native tissue repair was shown (P =.009), with a propensity score–adjusted difference of 10.6% (90% confidence interval, 3.3%-17.9%) in favor of transvaginal mesh.

The authors noted that subjective success regarding vaginal bulging, which is important in patient satisfaction, was high and not statistically different between the two groups.

Additionally, transvaginal mesh repair was as safe as NTR regarding serious device-related and/or serious procedure-related side effects.

For the primary safety endpoint, 3.1% in the mesh group and 2.7% in the native tissue repair group experienced serious adverse events, demonstrating that mesh was noninferior to NTR.
 

Research results have been mixed

Unanswered questions surround surgical options for POP, which, the authors wrote, “affects 3%-6% of women based on symptoms and up to 50% of women based on vaginal examination.”

The FDA in 2011 issued 522 postmarket surveillance study orders for companies that market transvaginal mesh for POP.

Research results have varied and contentious debate has continued in the field. Some studies have shown that mesh has better subjective and objective outcomes than NTR in the anterior compartment. Others have found more complications with transvaginal mesh, such as mesh exposure and painful intercourse.

Complicating comparisons, early versions of the mesh used were larger and denser than today’s versions.

In this postmarket study, patients received either the Uphold LITE brand of transvaginal mesh or native tissue repair for surgical treatment of POP.
 

Expert: This study unlikely to change minds

In an accompanying editorial, John O.L. DeLancey, MD, professor of gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that so far there’s been a lack of randomized trials that could answer whether mesh surgeries result in fewer symptoms or result in sufficient improvements in anatomy to justify their additional risk.

This study may not help with the decision. Dr. DeLancey wrote: “Will this study change the minds of either side of this debate? Probably not. The two sides are deeply entrenched in their positions.”

Two considerations are important in thinking about the issue, he said. Surgical outcomes for POP are “not as good as we would hope.” Also, many women have had serious complications with mesh operations.

He wrote: “Mesh litigation has resulted in more $8 billion in settlements, which is many times the $1 billion annual national cost of providing care for prolapse. Those of us who practice in referral centers have seen women with devastating problems, even though they probably represent a small fraction of cases.”

Dr. DeLancey highlighted some limitations of the study by Dr. Kahn and colleagues, especially regarding differences in the groups studied and the design of the study.

“For example,” he explained, “65% of individuals in the mesh-repair group had a prior hysterectomy as opposed to 30% in the native tissue repair group. In addition, some of the operations in the native tissue group are not typical choices; for example, hysteropexy was used for some patients and had a 47% failure rate.”

He said the all-or-nothing approach to surgical solutions may be clouding the debate – in other words mesh or no mesh for women as a group.

“Rather than asking whether mesh is better than no mesh, knowing which women (if any) stand to benefit from mesh is the critical question. We need to understand, for each woman, what structural failures exist so that we can target our interventions to correct them,” he wrote.

This study was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kahn disclosed research support from Solaire, payments from AbbVie and Douchenay as a speaker, payments from Caldera and Cytuity (Boston Scientific) as a medical consultant, and payment from Johnson & Johnson as an expert witness. One coauthor disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Medtronic and Boston Scientific (both unrestricted educational grants for cadaveric lab). Another is chief medical officer at Axonics. One study coauthor receives research funding from Axonics and is a consultant for Group Dynamics, Medpace, and FirstThought. One coauthor received research support, is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and is an expert witness for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. DeLancey declared no relevant financial relationships.

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A team of experts is recommending that doctors forgo describing early, low-grade prostate tumors as “cancers” as a way to ease anxiety among patients and their families and reduce unnecessary treatment.

Physicians often advise that men with low-risk prostate tumors wait to see if the disease worsens – an approach called “active surveillance” – rather than rushing to treat the condition. After all, low-grade tumors rarely cause harm, and therapies such as radiation and surgery can carry serious side effects, including impotence and urinary leakage.

Yet doctors still label these lesions “cancer,” and as a result, some experts say, many men in the United States opt for treatment they don’t need.

In a new paper likely to stoke debate, experts from a range of disciplines, as well as one patient, argue that overtreatment could be reduced by removing the word “cancer” from low-risk disease. Tumors that rate 6 on the Gleason score (GS) cannot invade other organs but nonetheless scare patients into undergoing risky treatments, they argue. Fewer than 1% of men with GS6 prostate tumors experience metastatic disease or die from cancer within 15 years of the initial diagnosis, they report.

“No matter how much time a physician may spend downplaying the significance of a GS6 diagnosis or emphasizing the phrase low-risk, the words ‘you have cancer’ have a potent psychological effect on most men and their families,” they wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dropping the C word for low-risk tumors, which make up about half of 268,000 prostate cancer diagnoses annually in the United States, is not a new idea. An independent panel convened by the National Institutes of Health proposed just that in 2011.

However, clinician support for the shift appears to be growing, said Scott Eggener, MD, a urologic oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Chicago, and a coauthor of the new article.

Dr. Eggener said active surveillance has been increasing dramatically in the United States, to about 60% of patients with GS6. “We feel like the landscape is right now to be talking about this issue,” Dr. Eggener told this news organization.

Reducing unnecessary treatment, he and his coauthors argue, could reduce the cost of health care — and boost the benefit of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer, which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the moment deems small.

In addition, patients with prostate cancer diagnoses encounter increased risk of depression and suicide, disqualification or higher rates for life insurance, and questions from family and friends if they choose active surveillance over treatment – all of which might be ameliorated by a change in terminology.

The word “cancer” has been dropped from bladder, cervical, and thyroid conditions and prostate abnormalities that used to be classified as Gleason 2 through 5, they noted.
 

Keeping the status quo

But some physicians say GS6 doesn’t need a name change.

From a scientific standpoint, GS6 disease has molecular hallmarks of cancer, according to Jonathan Epstein, MD, professor of pathology, urology, and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More important, Dr. Epstein told Medscape, the classification does not guarantee that more serious cancer is not present, only that it has not been found yet in tissue samples.

Dr. Eggener acknowledged that while GS6 does have molecular markers associated with cancer – a fact that’s “challenging to reconcile with” – giving it another name “would still require surveillance, and since the window of opportunity for curing localized [prostate cancer] is typically measured in years or decades, evidence of histologic progression to a higher-grade cancer would far precede the potential time of future metastasis in the majority of cases.”

Still, Dr. Epstein worries that dropping the cancer designation may lead some patients to forgo active surveillance, which involves repeated imaging and biopsies to check for worse disease. Without such monitoring, he said, “if they do have higher grade cancer that’s unsampled, it will pose a threat to their life.”

Gleason 6 tumors “may progress, some significantly, or be incompletely sampled at the time of diagnosis. Both clinicians and patients need to understand such risk,” Peter Carroll, MD, MPH, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who is critical of the proposed name change, told this news organization.

Regardless of what it’s called, Gleason 6 disease warrants close monitoring, said Joe Gallo, a 77-year-old Pennsylvania man whose high-risk cancer was detected during active surveillance. “If I had taken a laid-back, or less, approach” to monitoring, Mr. Gallo said, “necessary treatment may have been delayed and my condition may have become more serious.”

Some advocates say patients and their families need to be educated that cancer exists on a spectrum of severity.

Mark Lichty, 73, chairman of a support group called Active Surveillance Patients International, received a Gleason 6 diagnosis 17 years ago. He resisted treatment against medical advice, and the cancer never progressed.

Mr. Lichty said active surveillance has been more widely adopted in Sweden, where physicians assure patients that treatment is unnecessary and support systems exist. “Yes, a diagnosis of cancer is frightening,” he said in an interview. But “we can do a lot better in how we communicate the diagnosis.”

Dr. Eggener reported consulting or advisory roles with Sophiris Bio, Francis Medical, Insightec, Profound Medical, and Candel Therapeutics; speakers bureau at Janssen; and fees for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Janssen Biotech and Insightec; as well as an uncompensated relationship with Steba Biotech. The remaining coauthors reported several financial relationships, which are listed in the paper. Dr. Epstein and Dr. Carroll have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This is a transcript of a video that first appeared on Medscape.com. It has been edited for clarity.

On April 21, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a Health Alert Network advisory regarding a cluster of nine cases of acute hepatitis in children in Alabama over a 5-month period from October 2021 to February 2022 – a rate substantially higher than what would be expected, given the relative rarity of hepatitis in children.

Standard workup was negative for the common causative agents – hepatitis A, B, and C – and no toxic exposures were identified. But there was one common thread among all these kids: They all tested positive for adenovirus.

And that is really strange.

There are about 100 circulating adenoviruses in the world that we know of, and around 50 of them infect humans. If you are an adult, it’s a virtual certainty that you have been infected with an adenovirus in the past. Most strains cause symptoms we would describe as the common cold: runny nose, sore throat. Some strains cause conjunctivitis (pink eye). Some cause gastrointestinal illness – the stomach bugs that kids get.

It’s the banality of adenovirus that makes this hepatitis finding so surprising.

The United States is not alone in reporting this new hepatitis syndrome. As of April 21, 169 cases have been reported across the world, including 114 in the United Kingdom.

Of the 169 cases reported worldwide, 74 had evidence of adenovirus infection. On molecular testing, 18 of those were adenovirus 41.

What I wanted to do today was go through the various hypotheses for what could be going on with these hepatitis cases, one by one, and highlight the evidence supporting them. We won’t reach a conclusion, but hopefully by the end, the path forward will be more clear. OK, let’s get started.

Hypothesis 1: Nothing is happening.

It’s worth noting that “clusters” of disease occur all the time, even when no relevant epidemiologic process has occurred. If there is some baseline rate of hepatitis, every once in a while, through bad luck alone, you’d see a group of cases all at once. This is known as the clustering illusion. And I’m quite confident in saying that this is not the case here.

For one, this phenomenon is worldwide, as we know from the World Health Organization report. In fact, the CDC didn’t provide the most detailed data about the nine (now 12) cases in the United States. This study from Scotland is the first to give a detailed accounting of cases, reporting on 13 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown cause in kids at a single hospital from January to April. Typically, the hospital sees fewer than four cases of hepatitis per year. Five of these 13 kids tested positive for adenovirus. So let’s take the clustering illusion off the list.

Hypothesis 2: It’s adenovirus.

The major evidence supporting adenovirus as the causative agent here is that a lot of these kids had adenovirus, and adenovirus 41 – a gut-tropic strain – in particular. This is important, because stool testing might be necessary for diagnosis and lots of kids with this condition didn’t get that. In other words, we have hard evidence of adenovirus infection in about 40% of the cases so far, but the true number might be substantially higher.

That said, adenovirus is seasonal, and we are in adenovirus season. Granted, 40% seems quite a bit higher than the background infection rate, but we have to be careful not to assume that correlation means causation.

The evidence against adenovirus, even adenovirus 41, is that this acute hepatitis syndrome is new, and adenovirus 41 is not. To be fair, we know adenoviruses can cause acute hepatitis, but the vast majority of reports are in immunocompromised individuals – organ transplant recipients and those with HIV. I was able to find just a handful of cases of immunocompetent kids developing hepatitis from adenovirus prior to this current outbreak.

The current outbreak would exceed the published literature by nearly two orders of magnitude. It feels like something else has to be going on.

Hypothesis 3: It’s coronavirus.

SARS-CoV-2 is a strange virus, both in its acute presentation and its long-term outcomes. It was clear early in the pandemic that some children infected by the coronavirus would develop MIS-C – multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. MIS-C is associated with hepatitis in about 10% of children, according to this New England Journal of Medicine

But the presentation of these kids is quite different from MIS-C; fever is rare, for example. The WHO reports that of the 169 identified cases so far, 20 had active COVID infection. The Scotland cohort suggests that a similar proportion had past COVID infections. In other times, we might consider this a smoking gun, but at this point a history of COVID is not remarkable – after the Omicron wave, it’s about as common to have a history of COVID as it is not to have a history of COVID.

A brief aside here. This is not because of coronavirus vaccination. Of the more than 100 cases reported in the United Kingdom, none of these kids were vaccinated. So let’s put aside the possibility that this is a vaccine effect – there’s no real evidence to support that.

Which brings us to …

Hypothesis 4: It’s coronavirus and adenovirus.

This is sort of intriguing and can work a few different ways, via a direct and indirect path.

In the direct path, we posit that COVID infection does something to kids’ immune systems – something we don’t yet understand that limits their ability to fight off adenovirus. There is some support for this idea. This study in Immunity found that COVID infection can functionally impair dendritic cells and T-cells, including natural killer cells. These cells are important components of our innate antiviral immunity.

There’s an indirect path as well. COVID has led to lockdowns, distancing, masking – stuff that prevents kids from being exposed to germs from other kids. Could a lack of exposure to adenovirus or other viruses because of distancing increase the risk for severe disease when restrictions are lifted? Also possible – the severity of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections this year is substantially higher than what we’ve seen in the past, for example.

And finally, hypothesis 5: This is something new.

We can’t ignore the possibility that this is simply a new disease-causing agent. Toxicology studies so far have been negative, and we wouldn’t expect hepatitis from a chemical toxin to appear in multiple countries around the world; this is almost certainly a biological phenomenon. It is possible that this is a new strain of adenovirus 41, or that adenovirus is a red herring altogether. Remember, we knew about “non-A/non-B viral hepatitis” for more than 2 decades before hepatitis C was discovered.

The pace of science is faster now, fortunately, and information is coming out quickly. As we learn more, we’ll share it with you.

Dr. Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. Dr. Wilson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

This is a transcript of a video that first appeared on Medscape.com. It has been edited for clarity.

On April 21, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a Health Alert Network advisory regarding a cluster of nine cases of acute hepatitis in children in Alabama over a 5-month period from October 2021 to February 2022 – a rate substantially higher than what would be expected, given the relative rarity of hepatitis in children.

Standard workup was negative for the common causative agents – hepatitis A, B, and C – and no toxic exposures were identified. But there was one common thread among all these kids: They all tested positive for adenovirus.

And that is really strange.

There are about 100 circulating adenoviruses in the world that we know of, and around 50 of them infect humans. If you are an adult, it’s a virtual certainty that you have been infected with an adenovirus in the past. Most strains cause symptoms we would describe as the common cold: runny nose, sore throat. Some strains cause conjunctivitis (pink eye). Some cause gastrointestinal illness – the stomach bugs that kids get.

It’s the banality of adenovirus that makes this hepatitis finding so surprising.

The United States is not alone in reporting this new hepatitis syndrome. As of April 21, 169 cases have been reported across the world, including 114 in the United Kingdom.

Of the 169 cases reported worldwide, 74 had evidence of adenovirus infection. On molecular testing, 18 of those were adenovirus 41.

What I wanted to do today was go through the various hypotheses for what could be going on with these hepatitis cases, one by one, and highlight the evidence supporting them. We won’t reach a conclusion, but hopefully by the end, the path forward will be more clear. OK, let’s get started.

Hypothesis 1: Nothing is happening.

It’s worth noting that “clusters” of disease occur all the time, even when no relevant epidemiologic process has occurred. If there is some baseline rate of hepatitis, every once in a while, through bad luck alone, you’d see a group of cases all at once. This is known as the clustering illusion. And I’m quite confident in saying that this is not the case here.

For one, this phenomenon is worldwide, as we know from the World Health Organization report. In fact, the CDC didn’t provide the most detailed data about the nine (now 12) cases in the United States. This study from Scotland is the first to give a detailed accounting of cases, reporting on 13 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown cause in kids at a single hospital from January to April. Typically, the hospital sees fewer than four cases of hepatitis per year. Five of these 13 kids tested positive for adenovirus. So let’s take the clustering illusion off the list.

Hypothesis 2: It’s adenovirus.

The major evidence supporting adenovirus as the causative agent here is that a lot of these kids had adenovirus, and adenovirus 41 – a gut-tropic strain – in particular. This is important, because stool testing might be necessary for diagnosis and lots of kids with this condition didn’t get that. In other words, we have hard evidence of adenovirus infection in about 40% of the cases so far, but the true number might be substantially higher.

That said, adenovirus is seasonal, and we are in adenovirus season. Granted, 40% seems quite a bit higher than the background infection rate, but we have to be careful not to assume that correlation means causation.

The evidence against adenovirus, even adenovirus 41, is that this acute hepatitis syndrome is new, and adenovirus 41 is not. To be fair, we know adenoviruses can cause acute hepatitis, but the vast majority of reports are in immunocompromised individuals – organ transplant recipients and those with HIV. I was able to find just a handful of cases of immunocompetent kids developing hepatitis from adenovirus prior to this current outbreak.

The current outbreak would exceed the published literature by nearly two orders of magnitude. It feels like something else has to be going on.

Hypothesis 3: It’s coronavirus.

SARS-CoV-2 is a strange virus, both in its acute presentation and its long-term outcomes. It was clear early in the pandemic that some children infected by the coronavirus would develop MIS-C – multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. MIS-C is associated with hepatitis in about 10% of children, according to this New England Journal of Medicine

But the presentation of these kids is quite different from MIS-C; fever is rare, for example. The WHO reports that of the 169 identified cases so far, 20 had active COVID infection. The Scotland cohort suggests that a similar proportion had past COVID infections. In other times, we might consider this a smoking gun, but at this point a history of COVID is not remarkable – after the Omicron wave, it’s about as common to have a history of COVID as it is not to have a history of COVID.

A brief aside here. This is not because of coronavirus vaccination. Of the more than 100 cases reported in the United Kingdom, none of these kids were vaccinated. So let’s put aside the possibility that this is a vaccine effect – there’s no real evidence to support that.

Which brings us to …

Hypothesis 4: It’s coronavirus and adenovirus.

This is sort of intriguing and can work a few different ways, via a direct and indirect path.

In the direct path, we posit that COVID infection does something to kids’ immune systems – something we don’t yet understand that limits their ability to fight off adenovirus. There is some support for this idea. This study in Immunity found that COVID infection can functionally impair dendritic cells and T-cells, including natural killer cells. These cells are important components of our innate antiviral immunity.

There’s an indirect path as well. COVID has led to lockdowns, distancing, masking – stuff that prevents kids from being exposed to germs from other kids. Could a lack of exposure to adenovirus or other viruses because of distancing increase the risk for severe disease when restrictions are lifted? Also possible – the severity of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections this year is substantially higher than what we’ve seen in the past, for example.

And finally, hypothesis 5: This is something new.

We can’t ignore the possibility that this is simply a new disease-causing agent. Toxicology studies so far have been negative, and we wouldn’t expect hepatitis from a chemical toxin to appear in multiple countries around the world; this is almost certainly a biological phenomenon. It is possible that this is a new strain of adenovirus 41, or that adenovirus is a red herring altogether. Remember, we knew about “non-A/non-B viral hepatitis” for more than 2 decades before hepatitis C was discovered.

The pace of science is faster now, fortunately, and information is coming out quickly. As we learn more, we’ll share it with you.

Dr. Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. Dr. Wilson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

This is a transcript of a video that first appeared on Medscape.com. It has been edited for clarity.

On April 21, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a Health Alert Network advisory regarding a cluster of nine cases of acute hepatitis in children in Alabama over a 5-month period from October 2021 to February 2022 – a rate substantially higher than what would be expected, given the relative rarity of hepatitis in children.

Standard workup was negative for the common causative agents – hepatitis A, B, and C – and no toxic exposures were identified. But there was one common thread among all these kids: They all tested positive for adenovirus.

And that is really strange.

There are about 100 circulating adenoviruses in the world that we know of, and around 50 of them infect humans. If you are an adult, it’s a virtual certainty that you have been infected with an adenovirus in the past. Most strains cause symptoms we would describe as the common cold: runny nose, sore throat. Some strains cause conjunctivitis (pink eye). Some cause gastrointestinal illness – the stomach bugs that kids get.

It’s the banality of adenovirus that makes this hepatitis finding so surprising.

The United States is not alone in reporting this new hepatitis syndrome. As of April 21, 169 cases have been reported across the world, including 114 in the United Kingdom.

Of the 169 cases reported worldwide, 74 had evidence of adenovirus infection. On molecular testing, 18 of those were adenovirus 41.

What I wanted to do today was go through the various hypotheses for what could be going on with these hepatitis cases, one by one, and highlight the evidence supporting them. We won’t reach a conclusion, but hopefully by the end, the path forward will be more clear. OK, let’s get started.

Hypothesis 1: Nothing is happening.

It’s worth noting that “clusters” of disease occur all the time, even when no relevant epidemiologic process has occurred. If there is some baseline rate of hepatitis, every once in a while, through bad luck alone, you’d see a group of cases all at once. This is known as the clustering illusion. And I’m quite confident in saying that this is not the case here.

For one, this phenomenon is worldwide, as we know from the World Health Organization report. In fact, the CDC didn’t provide the most detailed data about the nine (now 12) cases in the United States. This study from Scotland is the first to give a detailed accounting of cases, reporting on 13 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown cause in kids at a single hospital from January to April. Typically, the hospital sees fewer than four cases of hepatitis per year. Five of these 13 kids tested positive for adenovirus. So let’s take the clustering illusion off the list.

Hypothesis 2: It’s adenovirus.

The major evidence supporting adenovirus as the causative agent here is that a lot of these kids had adenovirus, and adenovirus 41 – a gut-tropic strain – in particular. This is important, because stool testing might be necessary for diagnosis and lots of kids with this condition didn’t get that. In other words, we have hard evidence of adenovirus infection in about 40% of the cases so far, but the true number might be substantially higher.

That said, adenovirus is seasonal, and we are in adenovirus season. Granted, 40% seems quite a bit higher than the background infection rate, but we have to be careful not to assume that correlation means causation.

The evidence against adenovirus, even adenovirus 41, is that this acute hepatitis syndrome is new, and adenovirus 41 is not. To be fair, we know adenoviruses can cause acute hepatitis, but the vast majority of reports are in immunocompromised individuals – organ transplant recipients and those with HIV. I was able to find just a handful of cases of immunocompetent kids developing hepatitis from adenovirus prior to this current outbreak.

The current outbreak would exceed the published literature by nearly two orders of magnitude. It feels like something else has to be going on.

Hypothesis 3: It’s coronavirus.

SARS-CoV-2 is a strange virus, both in its acute presentation and its long-term outcomes. It was clear early in the pandemic that some children infected by the coronavirus would develop MIS-C – multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. MIS-C is associated with hepatitis in about 10% of children, according to this New England Journal of Medicine

But the presentation of these kids is quite different from MIS-C; fever is rare, for example. The WHO reports that of the 169 identified cases so far, 20 had active COVID infection. The Scotland cohort suggests that a similar proportion had past COVID infections. In other times, we might consider this a smoking gun, but at this point a history of COVID is not remarkable – after the Omicron wave, it’s about as common to have a history of COVID as it is not to have a history of COVID.

A brief aside here. This is not because of coronavirus vaccination. Of the more than 100 cases reported in the United Kingdom, none of these kids were vaccinated. So let’s put aside the possibility that this is a vaccine effect – there’s no real evidence to support that.

Which brings us to …

Hypothesis 4: It’s coronavirus and adenovirus.

This is sort of intriguing and can work a few different ways, via a direct and indirect path.

In the direct path, we posit that COVID infection does something to kids’ immune systems – something we don’t yet understand that limits their ability to fight off adenovirus. There is some support for this idea. This study in Immunity found that COVID infection can functionally impair dendritic cells and T-cells, including natural killer cells. These cells are important components of our innate antiviral immunity.

There’s an indirect path as well. COVID has led to lockdowns, distancing, masking – stuff that prevents kids from being exposed to germs from other kids. Could a lack of exposure to adenovirus or other viruses because of distancing increase the risk for severe disease when restrictions are lifted? Also possible – the severity of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections this year is substantially higher than what we’ve seen in the past, for example.

And finally, hypothesis 5: This is something new.

We can’t ignore the possibility that this is simply a new disease-causing agent. Toxicology studies so far have been negative, and we wouldn’t expect hepatitis from a chemical toxin to appear in multiple countries around the world; this is almost certainly a biological phenomenon. It is possible that this is a new strain of adenovirus 41, or that adenovirus is a red herring altogether. Remember, we knew about “non-A/non-B viral hepatitis” for more than 2 decades before hepatitis C was discovered.

The pace of science is faster now, fortunately, and information is coming out quickly. As we learn more, we’ll share it with you.

Dr. Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. Dr. Wilson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

Lupus nephritis (LN) affects approximately 25%-60% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Currently, guideline-directed therapy recommends a combination of steroids plus either mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide. Despite treatment, about 10%-30% of LN patients will progress to end-stage kidney disease. 

Fortunately, over the past 2 years, the FDA approved two novel agents that expand treatment options for patients with active disease who have received standard-of-care therapy.  

In this ReCAP, Dr Joan Merrill, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, reports on the B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor belimumab, which was evaluated in the BLISS-LN trial, and the oral calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin, which was assessed in the AURORA trials.  

Dr Merrill discusses how these recently approved medications fit into the standard of care for LN patients. 

--

Joan Merrill, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Director of Clinical Projects, Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

Joan Merrill, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Biogen 

Received research grant from: Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline 

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AbbVie; Alexion; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Lilly; Merck; Provention; RemeGen; Sanofi; UCB; Zenas 

Received research grant from: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene; Pharmacyclics; TG Therapeutics 

Lupus nephritis (LN) affects approximately 25%-60% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Currently, guideline-directed therapy recommends a combination of steroids plus either mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide. Despite treatment, about 10%-30% of LN patients will progress to end-stage kidney disease. 

Fortunately, over the past 2 years, the FDA approved two novel agents that expand treatment options for patients with active disease who have received standard-of-care therapy.  

In this ReCAP, Dr Joan Merrill, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, reports on the B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor belimumab, which was evaluated in the BLISS-LN trial, and the oral calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin, which was assessed in the AURORA trials.  

Dr Merrill discusses how these recently approved medications fit into the standard of care for LN patients. 

--

Joan Merrill, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Director of Clinical Projects, Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

Joan Merrill, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Biogen 

Received research grant from: Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline 

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AbbVie; Alexion; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Lilly; Merck; Provention; RemeGen; Sanofi; UCB; Zenas 

Received research grant from: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene; Pharmacyclics; TG Therapeutics 

Lupus nephritis (LN) affects approximately 25%-60% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Currently, guideline-directed therapy recommends a combination of steroids plus either mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide. Despite treatment, about 10%-30% of LN patients will progress to end-stage kidney disease. 

Fortunately, over the past 2 years, the FDA approved two novel agents that expand treatment options for patients with active disease who have received standard-of-care therapy.  

In this ReCAP, Dr Joan Merrill, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, reports on the B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor belimumab, which was evaluated in the BLISS-LN trial, and the oral calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin, which was assessed in the AURORA trials.  

Dr Merrill discusses how these recently approved medications fit into the standard of care for LN patients. 

--

Joan Merrill, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Director of Clinical Projects, Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

Joan Merrill, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Biogen 

Received research grant from: Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline 

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AbbVie; Alexion; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Lilly; Merck; Provention; RemeGen; Sanofi; UCB; Zenas 

Received research grant from: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene; Pharmacyclics; TG Therapeutics 

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”