Once upon a time, physicians wrote letters to peers and colleagues around the world, sharing their medical discoveries, theories, case reports, and questions; conferring on problems; and then waiting for return mail to bring a reply. And the science of medicine advanced at a glacial pace.

Today, communication in multiple mediums flows much faster, almost instantaneously, between many more physicians, regardless of distance, addressing a much greater complexity of medical topics and treatments. And one of the chief mediums for this rapid electronic conversation among doctors is Twitter, according to Charlie Wray, DO, MS, a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Wray, associate editor and digital media editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine, is one of the moderators of #JHMchat, a monthly get-together on Twitter for interested hospitalists to link up virtually; respond to questions posed by JHM editors and other moderators; exchange perspectives, experiences, and tips with their peers; and build professional relationships and personal friendships. Relationship building has become particularly important in the age of COVID-19, when opportunities to connect in person at events such as SHM’s annual conferences have been curtailed.

The online #JHMchat community began in 2015, shortly after Dr. Wray completed a hospitalist research fellowship at the University of Chicago. His fellowship mentor, Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, associate chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine, had noticed how other online medical communities were engaging in discussions around different topics.

“She thought it could be a great way for hospitalists to meet online and talk about the articles published in JHM,” Dr. Wray explained. “We were all getting into social media and learning how to moderate interactive discussions such as Twitter.”

The chat’s founders approached JHM’s then-editor Andrew Auerbach, MD, MHM, a hospitalist at UCSF, who agreed that it was a great idea. They asked Christopher Moriates, MD, author of a recently published paper on the advisability of nebulized bronchodilators for obstructive pulmonary symptoms and assistant dean for health care value at the University of Texas, Austin, to come on the chat and talk about his paper. Visiting Dr. Arora at the time, he joined her in her living room for the first chat on Oct. 12, 2015. Seventy-five participants posted 431 tweets, with a total of 2 million Twitter impressions, suggesting that they had tapped a latent need.

How the chat works

To participate in the JHM chats on Twitter, one needs to open an account on the platform (it’s free) and follow the Journal’s Twitter feed (@jhospmedicine). But that’s pretty much it, Dr. Wray said. The group convenes on a Monday evening each month for an hour, starting at 9 p.m. Eastern time. Upcoming chats and topics are announced on Twitter and at SHM’s website.

The chats have grown and evolved since 2015, shifting in focus given recent social upheavals over the pandemic and heated discussions about diversity, equity, and racial justice in medicine, he said. “When COVID hit, the journal’s editor – Dr. Samir Shah – recognized that we were in a unique moment with the pandemic. The journal took advantage of the opportunity to publish a lot more personal perspectives and viewpoints around COVID, along with a special issue devoted to social justice.”

Moderators for the chat typically choose three or four questions based on recently published articles or other relevant topics, such as racial inequities in health care or how to apply military principles to hospital medicine leadership. “We reach out to authors and tell them they can explain their articles to interested readers through the chat. I can’t think of a single one who said no. They see the opportunity to highlight their work and engage with readers who want to ask them questions,” Dr. Wray said.

The moderators’ questions are posed to stimulate participation, but another goal is to use that hour for networking. “It’s a powerful tool to allow SHM members to engage with each other,” he said. “Sometimes the chat has the feeling of trying to drink water from a fire hose – with the messages flashing past so quickly. But the key is not to try to respond to everything but rather to follow those threads that particularly interest you. We encourage you to engage, but it’s totally fine if you just sit back and observe. One thing we have done to make it a little more formal is to offer CME credits for participants.”

The chat welcomes hospitalists and nonhospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, academics, and nonacademics. “No matter how engaged you are with Twitter, if you have 10,000 followers or 10, we’ll amplify your voice,” he said. “We also have medical students participating and consider their perspectives valuable, too.”

Dr. Wray identified three main types of participants in the monthly chats. The first are regulars who come every month, rain or shine. Like the character Norm in the old television comedy “Cheers,” everybody knows their name. They become friends, sharing and reveling in each other’s accomplishments. “These are people who have multiple connections, personally and professionally, at a lot of different levels. I probably know a hundred or more people who I’ve primarily gotten to know online.”

A second and larger group might be drawn in because of an interest in a specific topic or article, but they’re also welcome to participate in the chat. And the third group may lurk in the background, following along but not commenting. The size of that third group is unknown, but metrics from SHM show a total of 796 participants posting 4,088 tweets during chats in 2020 (for an average of 132 participants and 681 tweets per chat). This adds up to a total of 34 million impressions across the platform for #JHMchat tweets for the year.
 

Creating community online

“Why do we do it? It’s difficult to read all of the relevant published articles and keep up to date,” said Dr. Arora, a medical educator whose job at Chicago Medicine is to improve the clinical learning environment for trainees and staff by aligning learning with the health system’s institutional quality, safety and value missions.

“Our idea was to bring together a kind of virtual journal club and have discussions around topics such as: how do you create a shared vision on rounds? How do you integrate that into clinical practice? How do we preserve work/life balance or address structural racism?” she said. Other topics have included work flow concerns, burnout, difficult conversations with patients, and career planning.

“The people we’re trying to reach are hospitalists – and they’re busy at the front lines of care. We also thought this was an interesting way to raise the journal’s profile and spark broader interest in the articles it publishes. But it’s really about creating community, with people who look forward to talking and connecting with each other each month through the chats,” Dr. Arora said. If they miss a chat, they feel they’ve missed important interactions.

“Many times when people log onto the chat, they give a status report on where they are at, such as ‘I’m home putting my kids to bed,’ or ‘I’m on call tonight,’ ” she added. “People are willing to engage with the medium because it’s easy to engage with. We can forget that physicians are like everyone else. They like to learn, but they want that learning to be fun.”

On Dec. 14, 2020, at 9 p.m. Eastern time, the first question for the monthly #JHMchat was posted: How will caring for COVID-19 patients this winter differ from caring for patients in the first wave? Given that another surge of hospitalized COVID patients is looming, participants posted that they feel familiar and more confident with effective clinical strategies for hospitalized COVID patients, having learned so much more about the virus. But they’re facing greater numbers of patients than in prior surges. “In March, we were in crisis, now we’re in complexity,” one noted.

Joining the moderators was the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN), a group formed earlier this year to help mobilize pediatric medical capacity for COVID patients during pandemic surges (see “POPCoRN network mobilizes pediatric capacity during pandemic,” The Hospitalist, April 30, 2020). One of its questions involved the redeployment of physicians in response to COVID demands and what, for example, pediatric hospitalists need as resources and tools when they are reassigned to adult patients or to new roles in unfamiliar settings. A variety of educational resources were cited from POPCoRN, SHM, and ImproveDX, among others.
 

Defining medical communication

Another chat moderator is Angela Castellanos, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Castellanos did a 1-year, full-time fellowship right after residency at the New England Journal of Medicine, participating hands-on as a member of the editorial team for the print and online editions of the venerable journal. She is now doing a digital media fellowship with JHM, a part-time commitment while holding down a full-time job as a hospitalist. She also puts together a Spanish language podcast covering primary care pediatric issues for parents and families.

“I’m interested in medical communication generally, as I try to figure out what that means,” she said. “I have continued to look for ways to be part of the social media community and to be more creative about it. The JHM fellowship came at a perfect time for me to learn to do more in digital media.”

COVID has created new opportunities for more immediate dialogue with colleagues – what are they seeing and what’s working in the absence of clinical trials, she explained. “That’s how we communicate, as a way to get information out fast, such as when hospitals began proning COVID patients to make it easier for them to breathe.”

Dr. Castellanos said she grew up with text messaging and social media and wants to continue to grow her skills in this area. “I think I developed some skills at NEJM, but the opportunity to see how they do things at another journal with a different mission was also valuable. I get to share the space with people in academic settings and leaders in my field. I tweet at them; they tweet at me. These two fellowships have given me unique insights and mentorships. I know I want to continue doing pediatric hospital medicine and to engage academically and learn how to do research.”

Twitter sometimes gets a bad reputation for hostile or incendiary posts, Dr. Wray noted. “If you look at social media writ large, it can sometimes seem like a dumpster fire.” But what has happened in the medical community and in most medical Twitter encounters is a more cordial approach to conversations. “People who work in medicine converse with each other, with room for respectful disagreements. We’re extra supportive of each other,” he said.

“I think if hospitalists are looking for a community of peers, to engage with them and network and to find colleagues in similar circumstances, the JHM chat is such a fantastic place,” Dr. Wray concluded. “Don’t just come once, come several times, meet people along the way. For me, one of the most beneficial ways to advance my career has been by connecting with people through the chat. It allows me to share my work and success with the hospitalist community, as well as highlighting my trainees’ and colleagues’ successes, and it has created opportunities I never would have expected for getting involved in other projects.”

Once upon a time, physicians wrote letters to peers and colleagues around the world, sharing their medical discoveries, theories, case reports, and questions; conferring on problems; and then waiting for return mail to bring a reply. And the science of medicine advanced at a glacial pace.

Today, communication in multiple mediums flows much faster, almost instantaneously, between many more physicians, regardless of distance, addressing a much greater complexity of medical topics and treatments. And one of the chief mediums for this rapid electronic conversation among doctors is Twitter, according to Charlie Wray, DO, MS, a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Wray, associate editor and digital media editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine, is one of the moderators of #JHMchat, a monthly get-together on Twitter for interested hospitalists to link up virtually; respond to questions posed by JHM editors and other moderators; exchange perspectives, experiences, and tips with their peers; and build professional relationships and personal friendships. Relationship building has become particularly important in the age of COVID-19, when opportunities to connect in person at events such as SHM’s annual conferences have been curtailed.

The online #JHMchat community began in 2015, shortly after Dr. Wray completed a hospitalist research fellowship at the University of Chicago. His fellowship mentor, Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, associate chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine, had noticed how other online medical communities were engaging in discussions around different topics.

“She thought it could be a great way for hospitalists to meet online and talk about the articles published in JHM,” Dr. Wray explained. “We were all getting into social media and learning how to moderate interactive discussions such as Twitter.”

The chat’s founders approached JHM’s then-editor Andrew Auerbach, MD, MHM, a hospitalist at UCSF, who agreed that it was a great idea. They asked Christopher Moriates, MD, author of a recently published paper on the advisability of nebulized bronchodilators for obstructive pulmonary symptoms and assistant dean for health care value at the University of Texas, Austin, to come on the chat and talk about his paper. Visiting Dr. Arora at the time, he joined her in her living room for the first chat on Oct. 12, 2015. Seventy-five participants posted 431 tweets, with a total of 2 million Twitter impressions, suggesting that they had tapped a latent need.

How the chat works

To participate in the JHM chats on Twitter, one needs to open an account on the platform (it’s free) and follow the Journal’s Twitter feed (@jhospmedicine). But that’s pretty much it, Dr. Wray said. The group convenes on a Monday evening each month for an hour, starting at 9 p.m. Eastern time. Upcoming chats and topics are announced on Twitter and at SHM’s website.

The chats have grown and evolved since 2015, shifting in focus given recent social upheavals over the pandemic and heated discussions about diversity, equity, and racial justice in medicine, he said. “When COVID hit, the journal’s editor – Dr. Samir Shah – recognized that we were in a unique moment with the pandemic. The journal took advantage of the opportunity to publish a lot more personal perspectives and viewpoints around COVID, along with a special issue devoted to social justice.”

Moderators for the chat typically choose three or four questions based on recently published articles or other relevant topics, such as racial inequities in health care or how to apply military principles to hospital medicine leadership. “We reach out to authors and tell them they can explain their articles to interested readers through the chat. I can’t think of a single one who said no. They see the opportunity to highlight their work and engage with readers who want to ask them questions,” Dr. Wray said.

The moderators’ questions are posed to stimulate participation, but another goal is to use that hour for networking. “It’s a powerful tool to allow SHM members to engage with each other,” he said. “Sometimes the chat has the feeling of trying to drink water from a fire hose – with the messages flashing past so quickly. But the key is not to try to respond to everything but rather to follow those threads that particularly interest you. We encourage you to engage, but it’s totally fine if you just sit back and observe. One thing we have done to make it a little more formal is to offer CME credits for participants.”

The chat welcomes hospitalists and nonhospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, academics, and nonacademics. “No matter how engaged you are with Twitter, if you have 10,000 followers or 10, we’ll amplify your voice,” he said. “We also have medical students participating and consider their perspectives valuable, too.”

Dr. Wray identified three main types of participants in the monthly chats. The first are regulars who come every month, rain or shine. Like the character Norm in the old television comedy “Cheers,” everybody knows their name. They become friends, sharing and reveling in each other’s accomplishments. “These are people who have multiple connections, personally and professionally, at a lot of different levels. I probably know a hundred or more people who I’ve primarily gotten to know online.”

A second and larger group might be drawn in because of an interest in a specific topic or article, but they’re also welcome to participate in the chat. And the third group may lurk in the background, following along but not commenting. The size of that third group is unknown, but metrics from SHM show a total of 796 participants posting 4,088 tweets during chats in 2020 (for an average of 132 participants and 681 tweets per chat). This adds up to a total of 34 million impressions across the platform for #JHMchat tweets for the year.
 

Creating community online

“Why do we do it? It’s difficult to read all of the relevant published articles and keep up to date,” said Dr. Arora, a medical educator whose job at Chicago Medicine is to improve the clinical learning environment for trainees and staff by aligning learning with the health system’s institutional quality, safety and value missions.

“Our idea was to bring together a kind of virtual journal club and have discussions around topics such as: how do you create a shared vision on rounds? How do you integrate that into clinical practice? How do we preserve work/life balance or address structural racism?” she said. Other topics have included work flow concerns, burnout, difficult conversations with patients, and career planning.

“The people we’re trying to reach are hospitalists – and they’re busy at the front lines of care. We also thought this was an interesting way to raise the journal’s profile and spark broader interest in the articles it publishes. But it’s really about creating community, with people who look forward to talking and connecting with each other each month through the chats,” Dr. Arora said. If they miss a chat, they feel they’ve missed important interactions.

“Many times when people log onto the chat, they give a status report on where they are at, such as ‘I’m home putting my kids to bed,’ or ‘I’m on call tonight,’ ” she added. “People are willing to engage with the medium because it’s easy to engage with. We can forget that physicians are like everyone else. They like to learn, but they want that learning to be fun.”

On Dec. 14, 2020, at 9 p.m. Eastern time, the first question for the monthly #JHMchat was posted: How will caring for COVID-19 patients this winter differ from caring for patients in the first wave? Given that another surge of hospitalized COVID patients is looming, participants posted that they feel familiar and more confident with effective clinical strategies for hospitalized COVID patients, having learned so much more about the virus. But they’re facing greater numbers of patients than in prior surges. “In March, we were in crisis, now we’re in complexity,” one noted.

Joining the moderators was the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN), a group formed earlier this year to help mobilize pediatric medical capacity for COVID patients during pandemic surges (see “POPCoRN network mobilizes pediatric capacity during pandemic,” The Hospitalist, April 30, 2020). One of its questions involved the redeployment of physicians in response to COVID demands and what, for example, pediatric hospitalists need as resources and tools when they are reassigned to adult patients or to new roles in unfamiliar settings. A variety of educational resources were cited from POPCoRN, SHM, and ImproveDX, among others.
 

Defining medical communication

Another chat moderator is Angela Castellanos, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Castellanos did a 1-year, full-time fellowship right after residency at the New England Journal of Medicine, participating hands-on as a member of the editorial team for the print and online editions of the venerable journal. She is now doing a digital media fellowship with JHM, a part-time commitment while holding down a full-time job as a hospitalist. She also puts together a Spanish language podcast covering primary care pediatric issues for parents and families.

“I’m interested in medical communication generally, as I try to figure out what that means,” she said. “I have continued to look for ways to be part of the social media community and to be more creative about it. The JHM fellowship came at a perfect time for me to learn to do more in digital media.”

COVID has created new opportunities for more immediate dialogue with colleagues – what are they seeing and what’s working in the absence of clinical trials, she explained. “That’s how we communicate, as a way to get information out fast, such as when hospitals began proning COVID patients to make it easier for them to breathe.”

Dr. Castellanos said she grew up with text messaging and social media and wants to continue to grow her skills in this area. “I think I developed some skills at NEJM, but the opportunity to see how they do things at another journal with a different mission was also valuable. I get to share the space with people in academic settings and leaders in my field. I tweet at them; they tweet at me. These two fellowships have given me unique insights and mentorships. I know I want to continue doing pediatric hospital medicine and to engage academically and learn how to do research.”

Twitter sometimes gets a bad reputation for hostile or incendiary posts, Dr. Wray noted. “If you look at social media writ large, it can sometimes seem like a dumpster fire.” But what has happened in the medical community and in most medical Twitter encounters is a more cordial approach to conversations. “People who work in medicine converse with each other, with room for respectful disagreements. We’re extra supportive of each other,” he said.

“I think if hospitalists are looking for a community of peers, to engage with them and network and to find colleagues in similar circumstances, the JHM chat is such a fantastic place,” Dr. Wray concluded. “Don’t just come once, come several times, meet people along the way. For me, one of the most beneficial ways to advance my career has been by connecting with people through the chat. It allows me to share my work and success with the hospitalist community, as well as highlighting my trainees’ and colleagues’ successes, and it has created opportunities I never would have expected for getting involved in other projects.”

Once upon a time, physicians wrote letters to peers and colleagues around the world, sharing their medical discoveries, theories, case reports, and questions; conferring on problems; and then waiting for return mail to bring a reply. And the science of medicine advanced at a glacial pace.

Today, communication in multiple mediums flows much faster, almost instantaneously, between many more physicians, regardless of distance, addressing a much greater complexity of medical topics and treatments. And one of the chief mediums for this rapid electronic conversation among doctors is Twitter, according to Charlie Wray, DO, MS, a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Wray, associate editor and digital media editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine, is one of the moderators of #JHMchat, a monthly get-together on Twitter for interested hospitalists to link up virtually; respond to questions posed by JHM editors and other moderators; exchange perspectives, experiences, and tips with their peers; and build professional relationships and personal friendships. Relationship building has become particularly important in the age of COVID-19, when opportunities to connect in person at events such as SHM’s annual conferences have been curtailed.

The online #JHMchat community began in 2015, shortly after Dr. Wray completed a hospitalist research fellowship at the University of Chicago. His fellowship mentor, Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, associate chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine, had noticed how other online medical communities were engaging in discussions around different topics.

“She thought it could be a great way for hospitalists to meet online and talk about the articles published in JHM,” Dr. Wray explained. “We were all getting into social media and learning how to moderate interactive discussions such as Twitter.”

The chat’s founders approached JHM’s then-editor Andrew Auerbach, MD, MHM, a hospitalist at UCSF, who agreed that it was a great idea. They asked Christopher Moriates, MD, author of a recently published paper on the advisability of nebulized bronchodilators for obstructive pulmonary symptoms and assistant dean for health care value at the University of Texas, Austin, to come on the chat and talk about his paper. Visiting Dr. Arora at the time, he joined her in her living room for the first chat on Oct. 12, 2015. Seventy-five participants posted 431 tweets, with a total of 2 million Twitter impressions, suggesting that they had tapped a latent need.

How the chat works

To participate in the JHM chats on Twitter, one needs to open an account on the platform (it’s free) and follow the Journal’s Twitter feed (@jhospmedicine). But that’s pretty much it, Dr. Wray said. The group convenes on a Monday evening each month for an hour, starting at 9 p.m. Eastern time. Upcoming chats and topics are announced on Twitter and at SHM’s website.

The chats have grown and evolved since 2015, shifting in focus given recent social upheavals over the pandemic and heated discussions about diversity, equity, and racial justice in medicine, he said. “When COVID hit, the journal’s editor – Dr. Samir Shah – recognized that we were in a unique moment with the pandemic. The journal took advantage of the opportunity to publish a lot more personal perspectives and viewpoints around COVID, along with a special issue devoted to social justice.”

Moderators for the chat typically choose three or four questions based on recently published articles or other relevant topics, such as racial inequities in health care or how to apply military principles to hospital medicine leadership. “We reach out to authors and tell them they can explain their articles to interested readers through the chat. I can’t think of a single one who said no. They see the opportunity to highlight their work and engage with readers who want to ask them questions,” Dr. Wray said.

The moderators’ questions are posed to stimulate participation, but another goal is to use that hour for networking. “It’s a powerful tool to allow SHM members to engage with each other,” he said. “Sometimes the chat has the feeling of trying to drink water from a fire hose – with the messages flashing past so quickly. But the key is not to try to respond to everything but rather to follow those threads that particularly interest you. We encourage you to engage, but it’s totally fine if you just sit back and observe. One thing we have done to make it a little more formal is to offer CME credits for participants.”

The chat welcomes hospitalists and nonhospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, academics, and nonacademics. “No matter how engaged you are with Twitter, if you have 10,000 followers or 10, we’ll amplify your voice,” he said. “We also have medical students participating and consider their perspectives valuable, too.”

Dr. Wray identified three main types of participants in the monthly chats. The first are regulars who come every month, rain or shine. Like the character Norm in the old television comedy “Cheers,” everybody knows their name. They become friends, sharing and reveling in each other’s accomplishments. “These are people who have multiple connections, personally and professionally, at a lot of different levels. I probably know a hundred or more people who I’ve primarily gotten to know online.”

A second and larger group might be drawn in because of an interest in a specific topic or article, but they’re also welcome to participate in the chat. And the third group may lurk in the background, following along but not commenting. The size of that third group is unknown, but metrics from SHM show a total of 796 participants posting 4,088 tweets during chats in 2020 (for an average of 132 participants and 681 tweets per chat). This adds up to a total of 34 million impressions across the platform for #JHMchat tweets for the year.
 

Creating community online

“Why do we do it? It’s difficult to read all of the relevant published articles and keep up to date,” said Dr. Arora, a medical educator whose job at Chicago Medicine is to improve the clinical learning environment for trainees and staff by aligning learning with the health system’s institutional quality, safety and value missions.

“Our idea was to bring together a kind of virtual journal club and have discussions around topics such as: how do you create a shared vision on rounds? How do you integrate that into clinical practice? How do we preserve work/life balance or address structural racism?” she said. Other topics have included work flow concerns, burnout, difficult conversations with patients, and career planning.

“The people we’re trying to reach are hospitalists – and they’re busy at the front lines of care. We also thought this was an interesting way to raise the journal’s profile and spark broader interest in the articles it publishes. But it’s really about creating community, with people who look forward to talking and connecting with each other each month through the chats,” Dr. Arora said. If they miss a chat, they feel they’ve missed important interactions.

“Many times when people log onto the chat, they give a status report on where they are at, such as ‘I’m home putting my kids to bed,’ or ‘I’m on call tonight,’ ” she added. “People are willing to engage with the medium because it’s easy to engage with. We can forget that physicians are like everyone else. They like to learn, but they want that learning to be fun.”

On Dec. 14, 2020, at 9 p.m. Eastern time, the first question for the monthly #JHMchat was posted: How will caring for COVID-19 patients this winter differ from caring for patients in the first wave? Given that another surge of hospitalized COVID patients is looming, participants posted that they feel familiar and more confident with effective clinical strategies for hospitalized COVID patients, having learned so much more about the virus. But they’re facing greater numbers of patients than in prior surges. “In March, we were in crisis, now we’re in complexity,” one noted.

Joining the moderators was the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN), a group formed earlier this year to help mobilize pediatric medical capacity for COVID patients during pandemic surges (see “POPCoRN network mobilizes pediatric capacity during pandemic,” The Hospitalist, April 30, 2020). One of its questions involved the redeployment of physicians in response to COVID demands and what, for example, pediatric hospitalists need as resources and tools when they are reassigned to adult patients or to new roles in unfamiliar settings. A variety of educational resources were cited from POPCoRN, SHM, and ImproveDX, among others.
 

Defining medical communication

Another chat moderator is Angela Castellanos, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Castellanos did a 1-year, full-time fellowship right after residency at the New England Journal of Medicine, participating hands-on as a member of the editorial team for the print and online editions of the venerable journal. She is now doing a digital media fellowship with JHM, a part-time commitment while holding down a full-time job as a hospitalist. She also puts together a Spanish language podcast covering primary care pediatric issues for parents and families.

“I’m interested in medical communication generally, as I try to figure out what that means,” she said. “I have continued to look for ways to be part of the social media community and to be more creative about it. The JHM fellowship came at a perfect time for me to learn to do more in digital media.”

COVID has created new opportunities for more immediate dialogue with colleagues – what are they seeing and what’s working in the absence of clinical trials, she explained. “That’s how we communicate, as a way to get information out fast, such as when hospitals began proning COVID patients to make it easier for them to breathe.”

Dr. Castellanos said she grew up with text messaging and social media and wants to continue to grow her skills in this area. “I think I developed some skills at NEJM, but the opportunity to see how they do things at another journal with a different mission was also valuable. I get to share the space with people in academic settings and leaders in my field. I tweet at them; they tweet at me. These two fellowships have given me unique insights and mentorships. I know I want to continue doing pediatric hospital medicine and to engage academically and learn how to do research.”

Twitter sometimes gets a bad reputation for hostile or incendiary posts, Dr. Wray noted. “If you look at social media writ large, it can sometimes seem like a dumpster fire.” But what has happened in the medical community and in most medical Twitter encounters is a more cordial approach to conversations. “People who work in medicine converse with each other, with room for respectful disagreements. We’re extra supportive of each other,” he said.

“I think if hospitalists are looking for a community of peers, to engage with them and network and to find colleagues in similar circumstances, the JHM chat is such a fantastic place,” Dr. Wray concluded. “Don’t just come once, come several times, meet people along the way. For me, one of the most beneficial ways to advance my career has been by connecting with people through the chat. It allows me to share my work and success with the hospitalist community, as well as highlighting my trainees’ and colleagues’ successes, and it has created opportunities I never would have expected for getting involved in other projects.”

Schizophrenia spectrum disorder is associated with a significantly increased risk of dying from COVID-19, new research shows.

After adjusting for demographic and medical risk factors, the investigators found that patients who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia were two to three times more likely to die of COVID-19 if they contracted the disease.

“This means that people with schizophrenia should be prioritized for vaccination, and efforts should be taken to reduce risk of infection [social distancing, masks, etc.], particularly in people with schizophrenia who live in congregate living situations [hospitals and group residences],” Donald Goff, MD, department of psychiatry, New York University Langone Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study was published online Jan. 27 in JAMA Psychiatry.

The study included 7,348 adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from the NYU Langone Health System; 75 (1.0%) had a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, 564 (7.7%) had a history of a mood disorder, and 360 (4.9%) had a history of an anxiety disorder.

Overall, 864 patients (11.8%) died or were discharged to hospice within 45 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

In the fully adjusted model, a premorbid diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, but not mood or anxiety disorder, was significantly associated with an increased risk of dying from COVID-19 within 45 days.

‘Alarming finding’

In an interview, Luming Li, MD, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Psychiatric Hospital, noted that, although the number patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in the sample is “fairly low,” she was not surprised by the increased risk for death from COVID-19.

“Schizophrenia falls into the serious mental illness category, and these patients are more often predisposed to homelessness, comorbid medical and substance use, living in congregate settings, lower socioeconomic status, etc,” Dr. Li noted.

Dr. Li’s advice for clinicians who treat patients who have schizophrenia during the COVID-19 pandemic is to minimize their risk in various care settings through the use of personal protective equipment and other infection prevention techniques.

“If a patient does contract COVID-19, make sure patient’s care is escalated appropriately, given the higher risk for mortality in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders,” she said.

Tom Pollak, PhD, MRCPsych, King’s College London, said that it has been known for some time that patients with serious mental illness have poorer physical health outcomes. More recently, it has been shown that those who have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders appear to be at greater risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“This study is the first to specifically highlight schizophrenia spectrum disorders as being particularly at risk. This is an alarming finding. These patients are already amongst the most vulnerable members of society and are probably underserved by most health care systems worldwide,” Dr. Pollak said in a statement.

“Although these findings need urgent replication in larger samples, there are clear reasons for policymakers to take notice now, including giving immediate consideration for prioritization of patients with serious mental illness in nationwide COVID-19 vaccination programs,” he added.

Matthew Hotopf, PhD, FRCPsych, FMedSci, also with King’s College London, said that the New York group has identified people with severe mental disorders as “a high-risk group, and this has immediate public health implications regarding vaccination – that’s the important message of the paper.

“Schizophrenia and other severe psychiatric disorders are risk factors for mortality in the general population before COVID. This is a group with a 10- to 20-year reduction in life expectancy – more than for many diseases we associated with early death,” said Dr. Hotopf.

“The reasons for this are multifactorial, including social deprivation, lifestyle factors (people with schizophrenia smoke more and have high rates of obesity), harms associated with some medications used to treat psychosis, and differential access to health care,” he noted.

“In COVID, we know that deprivation is associated with a much higher mortality, so we would therefore expect that people with severe mental illness will be particularly disadvantaged,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Goff has received research support and travel reimbursement from Avanir Pharmaceuticals and Takeda. Dr. Nemani, Dr. Li, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Hotopf disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Schizophrenia spectrum disorder is associated with a significantly increased risk of dying from COVID-19, new research shows.

After adjusting for demographic and medical risk factors, the investigators found that patients who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia were two to three times more likely to die of COVID-19 if they contracted the disease.

“This means that people with schizophrenia should be prioritized for vaccination, and efforts should be taken to reduce risk of infection [social distancing, masks, etc.], particularly in people with schizophrenia who live in congregate living situations [hospitals and group residences],” Donald Goff, MD, department of psychiatry, New York University Langone Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study was published online Jan. 27 in JAMA Psychiatry.

The study included 7,348 adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from the NYU Langone Health System; 75 (1.0%) had a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, 564 (7.7%) had a history of a mood disorder, and 360 (4.9%) had a history of an anxiety disorder.

Overall, 864 patients (11.8%) died or were discharged to hospice within 45 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

In the fully adjusted model, a premorbid diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, but not mood or anxiety disorder, was significantly associated with an increased risk of dying from COVID-19 within 45 days.

‘Alarming finding’

In an interview, Luming Li, MD, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Psychiatric Hospital, noted that, although the number patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in the sample is “fairly low,” she was not surprised by the increased risk for death from COVID-19.

“Schizophrenia falls into the serious mental illness category, and these patients are more often predisposed to homelessness, comorbid medical and substance use, living in congregate settings, lower socioeconomic status, etc,” Dr. Li noted.

Dr. Li’s advice for clinicians who treat patients who have schizophrenia during the COVID-19 pandemic is to minimize their risk in various care settings through the use of personal protective equipment and other infection prevention techniques.

“If a patient does contract COVID-19, make sure patient’s care is escalated appropriately, given the higher risk for mortality in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders,” she said.

Tom Pollak, PhD, MRCPsych, King’s College London, said that it has been known for some time that patients with serious mental illness have poorer physical health outcomes. More recently, it has been shown that those who have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders appear to be at greater risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“This study is the first to specifically highlight schizophrenia spectrum disorders as being particularly at risk. This is an alarming finding. These patients are already amongst the most vulnerable members of society and are probably underserved by most health care systems worldwide,” Dr. Pollak said in a statement.

“Although these findings need urgent replication in larger samples, there are clear reasons for policymakers to take notice now, including giving immediate consideration for prioritization of patients with serious mental illness in nationwide COVID-19 vaccination programs,” he added.

Matthew Hotopf, PhD, FRCPsych, FMedSci, also with King’s College London, said that the New York group has identified people with severe mental disorders as “a high-risk group, and this has immediate public health implications regarding vaccination – that’s the important message of the paper.

“Schizophrenia and other severe psychiatric disorders are risk factors for mortality in the general population before COVID. This is a group with a 10- to 20-year reduction in life expectancy – more than for many diseases we associated with early death,” said Dr. Hotopf.

“The reasons for this are multifactorial, including social deprivation, lifestyle factors (people with schizophrenia smoke more and have high rates of obesity), harms associated with some medications used to treat psychosis, and differential access to health care,” he noted.

“In COVID, we know that deprivation is associated with a much higher mortality, so we would therefore expect that people with severe mental illness will be particularly disadvantaged,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Goff has received research support and travel reimbursement from Avanir Pharmaceuticals and Takeda. Dr. Nemani, Dr. Li, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Hotopf disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Schizophrenia spectrum disorder is associated with a significantly increased risk of dying from COVID-19, new research shows.

After adjusting for demographic and medical risk factors, the investigators found that patients who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia were two to three times more likely to die of COVID-19 if they contracted the disease.

“This means that people with schizophrenia should be prioritized for vaccination, and efforts should be taken to reduce risk of infection [social distancing, masks, etc.], particularly in people with schizophrenia who live in congregate living situations [hospitals and group residences],” Donald Goff, MD, department of psychiatry, New York University Langone Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study was published online Jan. 27 in JAMA Psychiatry.

The study included 7,348 adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from the NYU Langone Health System; 75 (1.0%) had a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, 564 (7.7%) had a history of a mood disorder, and 360 (4.9%) had a history of an anxiety disorder.

Overall, 864 patients (11.8%) died or were discharged to hospice within 45 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

In the fully adjusted model, a premorbid diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, but not mood or anxiety disorder, was significantly associated with an increased risk of dying from COVID-19 within 45 days.

‘Alarming finding’

In an interview, Luming Li, MD, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Psychiatric Hospital, noted that, although the number patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in the sample is “fairly low,” she was not surprised by the increased risk for death from COVID-19.

“Schizophrenia falls into the serious mental illness category, and these patients are more often predisposed to homelessness, comorbid medical and substance use, living in congregate settings, lower socioeconomic status, etc,” Dr. Li noted.

Dr. Li’s advice for clinicians who treat patients who have schizophrenia during the COVID-19 pandemic is to minimize their risk in various care settings through the use of personal protective equipment and other infection prevention techniques.

“If a patient does contract COVID-19, make sure patient’s care is escalated appropriately, given the higher risk for mortality in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders,” she said.

Tom Pollak, PhD, MRCPsych, King’s College London, said that it has been known for some time that patients with serious mental illness have poorer physical health outcomes. More recently, it has been shown that those who have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders appear to be at greater risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“This study is the first to specifically highlight schizophrenia spectrum disorders as being particularly at risk. This is an alarming finding. These patients are already amongst the most vulnerable members of society and are probably underserved by most health care systems worldwide,” Dr. Pollak said in a statement.

“Although these findings need urgent replication in larger samples, there are clear reasons for policymakers to take notice now, including giving immediate consideration for prioritization of patients with serious mental illness in nationwide COVID-19 vaccination programs,” he added.

Matthew Hotopf, PhD, FRCPsych, FMedSci, also with King’s College London, said that the New York group has identified people with severe mental disorders as “a high-risk group, and this has immediate public health implications regarding vaccination – that’s the important message of the paper.

“Schizophrenia and other severe psychiatric disorders are risk factors for mortality in the general population before COVID. This is a group with a 10- to 20-year reduction in life expectancy – more than for many diseases we associated with early death,” said Dr. Hotopf.

“The reasons for this are multifactorial, including social deprivation, lifestyle factors (people with schizophrenia smoke more and have high rates of obesity), harms associated with some medications used to treat psychosis, and differential access to health care,” he noted.

“In COVID, we know that deprivation is associated with a much higher mortality, so we would therefore expect that people with severe mental illness will be particularly disadvantaged,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Goff has received research support and travel reimbursement from Avanir Pharmaceuticals and Takeda. Dr. Nemani, Dr. Li, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Hotopf disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Diagnosis: Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol Syndrome

Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol syndrome (BDCS) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis characterized by a triad of hypotrichosis, follicular atrophoderma, and multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). Since first being described in 1964,¹ there have been fewer than 200 reported cases of BDCS.² Although a causative gene has not yet been identified, the mutation has been mapped to an 11.4-Mb interval in the Xq25-27.1 region of the X chromosome.³

Classically, congenital hypotrichosis is the first observed symptom and can present shortly after birth.⁴ It typically is widespread, though sometimes it may be confined to the eyebrows, eyelashes, and scalp. Follicular atrophoderma, which occurs due to a laxation and deepening of the follicular ostia, is seen in 80% of cases and typically presents in early childhood as depressions lacking hair.² It commonly is found on the face, extensor surfaces of the elbows and knees, and dorsal aspects of the hands and feet. Physical examination of our patient revealed follicular atrophoderma on both the dorsal surfaces of the hands and the extensor surfaces of the elbows. Hair shaft anomalies including pili torti, pili bifurcati, and trichorrhexis nodosa are infrequently observed symptoms of BDCS.²

Basal cell carcinoma often manifests in the second or third decades of life, though there are reports of BCC developing in BDCS patients as young as 3 years. Basal cell carcinoma typically arises on sun-exposed areas, especially the face, neck, and chest. These lesions can be pigmented or nonpigmented and range from 2 to 20 mm in diameter.⁴ Our patient presented with a BCC on the forehead (Figure 1). Histopathologic evaluation showed a proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of BCC.

Milia, which are not considered part of the classic BDCS triad, are seen in 70% of cases.² They commonly are found on the face and often diminish with age. Milia may precede the formation of follicular atrophoderma and BCC. Hypohidrosis most commonly occurs on the forehead but can be widespread.² Other less commonly observed features include epidermal cysts, hyperpigmentation of the face, and trichoepitheliomas.⁴ The management of BDCS involves frequent clinical examinations, BCC treatment, genetic counseling, and photoprotection.^2,4

Nevoid BCC syndrome (NBCCS), also known as Gorlin-Goltz syndrome, is an autosomal-dominant disease characterized by multiple nevoid BCCs, macrocephaly with a large forehead, cleft lip or palate, jaw keratocysts, palmar and plantar pits, and calcification of the falx cerebri.⁵ Nevoid BCC syndrome is caused by a mutation in the PTCH1 gene in the hedgehog signaling pathway.⁶ The absence of common symptoms of NBCCS including macrocephaly, palmar or plantar pits, and cleft lip or palate, as well as negative genetic testing, suggested that our patient did not have NBCCS.

Rombo syndrome shares features with BDCS. Similar to BDCS, symptoms of Rombo syndrome include follicular atrophy, milialike papules, and BCC. Patients with Rombo syndrome typically present with atrophoderma vermiculatum on the cheeks and forehead in childhood.⁷ This atrophoderma presents with a pitted atrophic appearance in a reticular pattern on sun-exposed areas. Other distinguishing features from BDCS include cyanotic redness of sun-exposed skin and telangiectatic vessels.⁸

Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is another rare genodermatosis that is characterized by the presence of multiple infundibulocystic BCCs on the face and genitals. Infundibulocystic BCC is a well-differentiated subtype of BCC characterized by buds and cords of basaloid cells with scant stroma. Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion and has been linked to ^SUFU mutation in the sonic hedgehog pathway.⁹

Rothmund-Thomson syndrome is an autosomalrecessive disorder characterized by sparse hair, skeletal and dental abnormalities, and a high risk for developing keratinocyte carcinomas. It is differentiated from BDCS clinically by the presence of erythema, edema, and blistering, resulting in poikiloderma, plantar hyperkeratotic lesions, and bone defects.¹⁰

The Diagnosis: Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol Syndrome

Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol syndrome (BDCS) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis characterized by a triad of hypotrichosis, follicular atrophoderma, and multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). Since first being described in 1964,¹ there have been fewer than 200 reported cases of BDCS.² Although a causative gene has not yet been identified, the mutation has been mapped to an 11.4-Mb interval in the Xq25-27.1 region of the X chromosome.³

Classically, congenital hypotrichosis is the first observed symptom and can present shortly after birth.⁴ It typically is widespread, though sometimes it may be confined to the eyebrows, eyelashes, and scalp. Follicular atrophoderma, which occurs due to a laxation and deepening of the follicular ostia, is seen in 80% of cases and typically presents in early childhood as depressions lacking hair.² It commonly is found on the face, extensor surfaces of the elbows and knees, and dorsal aspects of the hands and feet. Physical examination of our patient revealed follicular atrophoderma on both the dorsal surfaces of the hands and the extensor surfaces of the elbows. Hair shaft anomalies including pili torti, pili bifurcati, and trichorrhexis nodosa are infrequently observed symptoms of BDCS.²

Basal cell carcinoma often manifests in the second or third decades of life, though there are reports of BCC developing in BDCS patients as young as 3 years. Basal cell carcinoma typically arises on sun-exposed areas, especially the face, neck, and chest. These lesions can be pigmented or nonpigmented and range from 2 to 20 mm in diameter.⁴ Our patient presented with a BCC on the forehead (Figure 1). Histopathologic evaluation showed a proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of BCC.

Milia, which are not considered part of the classic BDCS triad, are seen in 70% of cases.² They commonly are found on the face and often diminish with age. Milia may precede the formation of follicular atrophoderma and BCC. Hypohidrosis most commonly occurs on the forehead but can be widespread.² Other less commonly observed features include epidermal cysts, hyperpigmentation of the face, and trichoepitheliomas.⁴ The management of BDCS involves frequent clinical examinations, BCC treatment, genetic counseling, and photoprotection.^2,4

Nevoid BCC syndrome (NBCCS), also known as Gorlin-Goltz syndrome, is an autosomal-dominant disease characterized by multiple nevoid BCCs, macrocephaly with a large forehead, cleft lip or palate, jaw keratocysts, palmar and plantar pits, and calcification of the falx cerebri.⁵ Nevoid BCC syndrome is caused by a mutation in the PTCH1 gene in the hedgehog signaling pathway.⁶ The absence of common symptoms of NBCCS including macrocephaly, palmar or plantar pits, and cleft lip or palate, as well as negative genetic testing, suggested that our patient did not have NBCCS.

Rombo syndrome shares features with BDCS. Similar to BDCS, symptoms of Rombo syndrome include follicular atrophy, milialike papules, and BCC. Patients with Rombo syndrome typically present with atrophoderma vermiculatum on the cheeks and forehead in childhood.⁷ This atrophoderma presents with a pitted atrophic appearance in a reticular pattern on sun-exposed areas. Other distinguishing features from BDCS include cyanotic redness of sun-exposed skin and telangiectatic vessels.⁸

Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is another rare genodermatosis that is characterized by the presence of multiple infundibulocystic BCCs on the face and genitals. Infundibulocystic BCC is a well-differentiated subtype of BCC characterized by buds and cords of basaloid cells with scant stroma. Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion and has been linked to ^SUFU mutation in the sonic hedgehog pathway.⁹

Rothmund-Thomson syndrome is an autosomalrecessive disorder characterized by sparse hair, skeletal and dental abnormalities, and a high risk for developing keratinocyte carcinomas. It is differentiated from BDCS clinically by the presence of erythema, edema, and blistering, resulting in poikiloderma, plantar hyperkeratotic lesions, and bone defects.¹⁰

The Diagnosis: Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol Syndrome

Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol syndrome (BDCS) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis characterized by a triad of hypotrichosis, follicular atrophoderma, and multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). Since first being described in 1964,¹ there have been fewer than 200 reported cases of BDCS.² Although a causative gene has not yet been identified, the mutation has been mapped to an 11.4-Mb interval in the Xq25-27.1 region of the X chromosome.³

Classically, congenital hypotrichosis is the first observed symptom and can present shortly after birth.⁴ It typically is widespread, though sometimes it may be confined to the eyebrows, eyelashes, and scalp. Follicular atrophoderma, which occurs due to a laxation and deepening of the follicular ostia, is seen in 80% of cases and typically presents in early childhood as depressions lacking hair.² It commonly is found on the face, extensor surfaces of the elbows and knees, and dorsal aspects of the hands and feet. Physical examination of our patient revealed follicular atrophoderma on both the dorsal surfaces of the hands and the extensor surfaces of the elbows. Hair shaft anomalies including pili torti, pili bifurcati, and trichorrhexis nodosa are infrequently observed symptoms of BDCS.²

Basal cell carcinoma often manifests in the second or third decades of life, though there are reports of BCC developing in BDCS patients as young as 3 years. Basal cell carcinoma typically arises on sun-exposed areas, especially the face, neck, and chest. These lesions can be pigmented or nonpigmented and range from 2 to 20 mm in diameter.⁴ Our patient presented with a BCC on the forehead (Figure 1). Histopathologic evaluation showed a proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of BCC.

Milia, which are not considered part of the classic BDCS triad, are seen in 70% of cases.² They commonly are found on the face and often diminish with age. Milia may precede the formation of follicular atrophoderma and BCC. Hypohidrosis most commonly occurs on the forehead but can be widespread.² Other less commonly observed features include epidermal cysts, hyperpigmentation of the face, and trichoepitheliomas.⁴ The management of BDCS involves frequent clinical examinations, BCC treatment, genetic counseling, and photoprotection.^2,4

Nevoid BCC syndrome (NBCCS), also known as Gorlin-Goltz syndrome, is an autosomal-dominant disease characterized by multiple nevoid BCCs, macrocephaly with a large forehead, cleft lip or palate, jaw keratocysts, palmar and plantar pits, and calcification of the falx cerebri.⁵ Nevoid BCC syndrome is caused by a mutation in the PTCH1 gene in the hedgehog signaling pathway.⁶ The absence of common symptoms of NBCCS including macrocephaly, palmar or plantar pits, and cleft lip or palate, as well as negative genetic testing, suggested that our patient did not have NBCCS.

Rombo syndrome shares features with BDCS. Similar to BDCS, symptoms of Rombo syndrome include follicular atrophy, milialike papules, and BCC. Patients with Rombo syndrome typically present with atrophoderma vermiculatum on the cheeks and forehead in childhood.⁷ This atrophoderma presents with a pitted atrophic appearance in a reticular pattern on sun-exposed areas. Other distinguishing features from BDCS include cyanotic redness of sun-exposed skin and telangiectatic vessels.⁸

Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is another rare genodermatosis that is characterized by the presence of multiple infundibulocystic BCCs on the face and genitals. Infundibulocystic BCC is a well-differentiated subtype of BCC characterized by buds and cords of basaloid cells with scant stroma. Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion and has been linked to ^SUFU mutation in the sonic hedgehog pathway.⁹

Rothmund-Thomson syndrome is an autosomalrecessive disorder characterized by sparse hair, skeletal and dental abnormalities, and a high risk for developing keratinocyte carcinomas. It is differentiated from BDCS clinically by the presence of erythema, edema, and blistering, resulting in poikiloderma, plantar hyperkeratotic lesions, and bone defects.¹⁰

Soliton’s Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, which was cleared for tattoo removal in 2019, has received FDA clearance for short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

As described in a press release issued by Soliton, the RAP device emits rapid acoustic pulses (shock waves) that are transmitted through the skin at a rate of up to 100 pulses per second to rupture or “shear” the fibrotic septa. This causes the release of septa, which results in a smoothening of skin dimples. The procedure takes 40-60 minutes to perform.

“This is a novel, noninvasive treatment for cellulite that appears to be safe, with little pain and little downtime,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Further study and experience will determine the efficacy of this device and the optimization of its parameters going forward.”

In clinical trials that were part of the FDA’s 510(k) application process, patients underwent a single, noninvasive treatment that required no anesthesia and caused no unexpected or serious adverse events. The procedure also received strong patient satisfaction ratings, and clinical trial participants rated their average pain score as 2.4 out of 10.

Soliton plans to begin selling the device for both tattoo removal and cellulite treatment in the first half of 2021. “While the technology is broadly the same, the replaceable treatment cartridges [for tattoo removal and cellulite treatment] differ in significant ways,” Dr. Avram said.

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.

[email protected]

Soliton’s Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, which was cleared for tattoo removal in 2019, has received FDA clearance for short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

As described in a press release issued by Soliton, the RAP device emits rapid acoustic pulses (shock waves) that are transmitted through the skin at a rate of up to 100 pulses per second to rupture or “shear” the fibrotic septa. This causes the release of septa, which results in a smoothening of skin dimples. The procedure takes 40-60 minutes to perform.

“This is a novel, noninvasive treatment for cellulite that appears to be safe, with little pain and little downtime,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Further study and experience will determine the efficacy of this device and the optimization of its parameters going forward.”

In clinical trials that were part of the FDA’s 510(k) application process, patients underwent a single, noninvasive treatment that required no anesthesia and caused no unexpected or serious adverse events. The procedure also received strong patient satisfaction ratings, and clinical trial participants rated their average pain score as 2.4 out of 10.

Soliton plans to begin selling the device for both tattoo removal and cellulite treatment in the first half of 2021. “While the technology is broadly the same, the replaceable treatment cartridges [for tattoo removal and cellulite treatment] differ in significant ways,” Dr. Avram said.

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.

[email protected]

Soliton’s Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, which was cleared for tattoo removal in 2019, has received FDA clearance for short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

As described in a press release issued by Soliton, the RAP device emits rapid acoustic pulses (shock waves) that are transmitted through the skin at a rate of up to 100 pulses per second to rupture or “shear” the fibrotic septa. This causes the release of septa, which results in a smoothening of skin dimples. The procedure takes 40-60 minutes to perform.

“This is a novel, noninvasive treatment for cellulite that appears to be safe, with little pain and little downtime,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Further study and experience will determine the efficacy of this device and the optimization of its parameters going forward.”

In clinical trials that were part of the FDA’s 510(k) application process, patients underwent a single, noninvasive treatment that required no anesthesia and caused no unexpected or serious adverse events. The procedure also received strong patient satisfaction ratings, and clinical trial participants rated their average pain score as 2.4 out of 10.

Soliton plans to begin selling the device for both tattoo removal and cellulite treatment in the first half of 2021. “While the technology is broadly the same, the replaceable treatment cartridges [for tattoo removal and cellulite treatment] differ in significant ways,” Dr. Avram said.

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton. He also reported having ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.

[email protected]

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The relationship between obesity and overweight and breast cancer has some elements of mystery. But this is not one of them: in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), excess body weight does not negatively influence outcomes.

Multiple small studies have demonstrated this point, and now, for the first time, a large multicenter cohort analysis indicates the same.

Using medical records from 18 French comprehensive cancer centers, investigators reviewed body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) data for nearly 13,000 women. The median OS was 47.4 months, and the median follow-up was about the same length of time. The team reports that obesity and overweight “were clearly not associated with prognosis.”

However, underweight was independently associated with worse OS (median, 33 months; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.27), report Khalil Saleh, MD, of Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In short, obesity or overweight had no effect on the primary outcome of OS, but underweight did.

“Underweight should be the subject of clinical attention at the time of diagnosis of MBC, and specific management should be implemented,” said study author Elise Deluche, MD, of CHU de Limoges, in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in The Breast.

“It’s really wonderful to have such a large cohort to look at this question,” said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was asked for comment.

Is this another case of obesity paradox in cancer (as in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, where excess weight is tied to better cancer-specific survival)?

No, said Dr. Ligibel: “There’s no hint at all [in this study] that people with obesity and overweight did better. … They just didn’t have worse outcomes.”

The study authors point out that the opposite is true in early-stage breast cancer. In this patient population, excess weight is associated with worse outcomes.

For example, in a 2014 meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies in early-stage disease, obesity was associated with higher total mortality (relative risk, 1.41) and breast cancer–specific mortality (RR, 1.35) as compared to normal weight.

Why is there such a contrast between early- and late-stage disease?

“I don’t think we know exactly,” answered Dr. Ligibel. “It may be that, with breast cancer, as disease progresses, the pathways through which lifestyle may impact breast cancer may become less important.

“Obesity and overweight are associated with cancer risk in general,” said Dr. Ligibel, citing more than a dozen malignancies, including breast cancer.

But there is also an age element. Overweight or obesity is an independent predictor of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but in premenopausal women, it appears to be protective. “Historically, there has been a lower risk of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in women with obesity at younger ages that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Ligibel noted.

That age-based difference is a conundrum, said Dr. Ligibel: “People have been trying to figure that out for a long time.”

Dr. Ligibel summarized as follows:

“There is a clear relationship between obesity and the risk of developing breast cancer; there is a clear relationship in early breast cancer that obesity is related to an increased risk of occurrence and mortality. What we are seeing from this study is that, by the time you get to metastatic breast cancer, body weight does not seem to play as important a role.”
 

More study details

The findings come from the French National Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics–Metastatic Breast Cancer observational cohort, which includes 22,000-plus consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with metastatic disease between 2008 and 2016.

A total of 12,999 women for whom BMI data were available when they were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer were selected for analysis. They were divided into four groups, according to World Health Organization classification: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥30.0).

A total of 20% of women were obese, which is a much lower percentage than the 40%-50% that would be expected in a comparable American cohort, said Dr. Ligibel. Also, 5% of the French cohort was underweight.

Multivariate Cox analyses were carried out for OS and for first-line progression-free survival (PFS).

As noted above, underweight was independently associated with a worse OS. It was also tied to worse first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight or obesity had no effect.

“Patients with a low BMI had more visceral metastases and a greater number of metastatic sites,” pointed out study author Dr. Deluche. “We attribute the fat loss in patients with metastatic breast cancer to aggressive tumor behavior with a higher energy requirement.”

The study authors also observe that in early-stage breast cancer, underweight is not associated with overall or breast cancer–specific survival. “Underweight at metastatic diagnosis seems to have a different significance and impact,” they write. The French team also observes that, in other cancers, underweight is also an adverse prognostic factor and has been associated with a higher risk for death.

The study authors acknowledge that BMI has limitations as a measure of body type. “BMI alone cannot estimate a woman’s muscle mass and adiposity,” they observe. The suggestion is that, among women with a similar BMI, some might be muscular, whereas others might have more body fat.

Multiple study authors report financial ties to industry, including pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in breast cancer. The database used in the study receives financial support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Ligibel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The relationship between obesity and overweight and breast cancer has some elements of mystery. But this is not one of them: in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), excess body weight does not negatively influence outcomes.

Multiple small studies have demonstrated this point, and now, for the first time, a large multicenter cohort analysis indicates the same.

Using medical records from 18 French comprehensive cancer centers, investigators reviewed body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) data for nearly 13,000 women. The median OS was 47.4 months, and the median follow-up was about the same length of time. The team reports that obesity and overweight “were clearly not associated with prognosis.”

However, underweight was independently associated with worse OS (median, 33 months; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.27), report Khalil Saleh, MD, of Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In short, obesity or overweight had no effect on the primary outcome of OS, but underweight did.

“Underweight should be the subject of clinical attention at the time of diagnosis of MBC, and specific management should be implemented,” said study author Elise Deluche, MD, of CHU de Limoges, in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in The Breast.

“It’s really wonderful to have such a large cohort to look at this question,” said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was asked for comment.

Is this another case of obesity paradox in cancer (as in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, where excess weight is tied to better cancer-specific survival)?

No, said Dr. Ligibel: “There’s no hint at all [in this study] that people with obesity and overweight did better. … They just didn’t have worse outcomes.”

The study authors point out that the opposite is true in early-stage breast cancer. In this patient population, excess weight is associated with worse outcomes.

For example, in a 2014 meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies in early-stage disease, obesity was associated with higher total mortality (relative risk, 1.41) and breast cancer–specific mortality (RR, 1.35) as compared to normal weight.

Why is there such a contrast between early- and late-stage disease?

“I don’t think we know exactly,” answered Dr. Ligibel. “It may be that, with breast cancer, as disease progresses, the pathways through which lifestyle may impact breast cancer may become less important.

“Obesity and overweight are associated with cancer risk in general,” said Dr. Ligibel, citing more than a dozen malignancies, including breast cancer.

But there is also an age element. Overweight or obesity is an independent predictor of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but in premenopausal women, it appears to be protective. “Historically, there has been a lower risk of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in women with obesity at younger ages that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Ligibel noted.

That age-based difference is a conundrum, said Dr. Ligibel: “People have been trying to figure that out for a long time.”

Dr. Ligibel summarized as follows:

“There is a clear relationship between obesity and the risk of developing breast cancer; there is a clear relationship in early breast cancer that obesity is related to an increased risk of occurrence and mortality. What we are seeing from this study is that, by the time you get to metastatic breast cancer, body weight does not seem to play as important a role.”
 

More study details

The findings come from the French National Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics–Metastatic Breast Cancer observational cohort, which includes 22,000-plus consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with metastatic disease between 2008 and 2016.

A total of 12,999 women for whom BMI data were available when they were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer were selected for analysis. They were divided into four groups, according to World Health Organization classification: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥30.0).

A total of 20% of women were obese, which is a much lower percentage than the 40%-50% that would be expected in a comparable American cohort, said Dr. Ligibel. Also, 5% of the French cohort was underweight.

Multivariate Cox analyses were carried out for OS and for first-line progression-free survival (PFS).

As noted above, underweight was independently associated with a worse OS. It was also tied to worse first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight or obesity had no effect.

“Patients with a low BMI had more visceral metastases and a greater number of metastatic sites,” pointed out study author Dr. Deluche. “We attribute the fat loss in patients with metastatic breast cancer to aggressive tumor behavior with a higher energy requirement.”

The study authors also observe that in early-stage breast cancer, underweight is not associated with overall or breast cancer–specific survival. “Underweight at metastatic diagnosis seems to have a different significance and impact,” they write. The French team also observes that, in other cancers, underweight is also an adverse prognostic factor and has been associated with a higher risk for death.

The study authors acknowledge that BMI has limitations as a measure of body type. “BMI alone cannot estimate a woman’s muscle mass and adiposity,” they observe. The suggestion is that, among women with a similar BMI, some might be muscular, whereas others might have more body fat.

Multiple study authors report financial ties to industry, including pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in breast cancer. The database used in the study receives financial support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Ligibel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The relationship between obesity and overweight and breast cancer has some elements of mystery. But this is not one of them: in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), excess body weight does not negatively influence outcomes.

Multiple small studies have demonstrated this point, and now, for the first time, a large multicenter cohort analysis indicates the same.

Using medical records from 18 French comprehensive cancer centers, investigators reviewed body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) data for nearly 13,000 women. The median OS was 47.4 months, and the median follow-up was about the same length of time. The team reports that obesity and overweight “were clearly not associated with prognosis.”

However, underweight was independently associated with worse OS (median, 33 months; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.27), report Khalil Saleh, MD, of Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

In short, obesity or overweight had no effect on the primary outcome of OS, but underweight did.

“Underweight should be the subject of clinical attention at the time of diagnosis of MBC, and specific management should be implemented,” said study author Elise Deluche, MD, of CHU de Limoges, in an email to this news organization.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in The Breast.

“It’s really wonderful to have such a large cohort to look at this question,” said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was asked for comment.

Is this another case of obesity paradox in cancer (as in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, where excess weight is tied to better cancer-specific survival)?

No, said Dr. Ligibel: “There’s no hint at all [in this study] that people with obesity and overweight did better. … They just didn’t have worse outcomes.”

The study authors point out that the opposite is true in early-stage breast cancer. In this patient population, excess weight is associated with worse outcomes.

For example, in a 2014 meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies in early-stage disease, obesity was associated with higher total mortality (relative risk, 1.41) and breast cancer–specific mortality (RR, 1.35) as compared to normal weight.

Why is there such a contrast between early- and late-stage disease?

“I don’t think we know exactly,” answered Dr. Ligibel. “It may be that, with breast cancer, as disease progresses, the pathways through which lifestyle may impact breast cancer may become less important.

“Obesity and overweight are associated with cancer risk in general,” said Dr. Ligibel, citing more than a dozen malignancies, including breast cancer.

But there is also an age element. Overweight or obesity is an independent predictor of breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but in premenopausal women, it appears to be protective. “Historically, there has been a lower risk of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in women with obesity at younger ages that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Ligibel noted.

That age-based difference is a conundrum, said Dr. Ligibel: “People have been trying to figure that out for a long time.”

Dr. Ligibel summarized as follows:

“There is a clear relationship between obesity and the risk of developing breast cancer; there is a clear relationship in early breast cancer that obesity is related to an increased risk of occurrence and mortality. What we are seeing from this study is that, by the time you get to metastatic breast cancer, body weight does not seem to play as important a role.”
 

More study details

The findings come from the French National Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics–Metastatic Breast Cancer observational cohort, which includes 22,000-plus consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with metastatic disease between 2008 and 2016.

A total of 12,999 women for whom BMI data were available when they were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer were selected for analysis. They were divided into four groups, according to World Health Organization classification: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥30.0).

A total of 20% of women were obese, which is a much lower percentage than the 40%-50% that would be expected in a comparable American cohort, said Dr. Ligibel. Also, 5% of the French cohort was underweight.

Multivariate Cox analyses were carried out for OS and for first-line progression-free survival (PFS).

As noted above, underweight was independently associated with a worse OS. It was also tied to worse first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight or obesity had no effect.

“Patients with a low BMI had more visceral metastases and a greater number of metastatic sites,” pointed out study author Dr. Deluche. “We attribute the fat loss in patients with metastatic breast cancer to aggressive tumor behavior with a higher energy requirement.”

The study authors also observe that in early-stage breast cancer, underweight is not associated with overall or breast cancer–specific survival. “Underweight at metastatic diagnosis seems to have a different significance and impact,” they write. The French team also observes that, in other cancers, underweight is also an adverse prognostic factor and has been associated with a higher risk for death.

The study authors acknowledge that BMI has limitations as a measure of body type. “BMI alone cannot estimate a woman’s muscle mass and adiposity,” they observe. The suggestion is that, among women with a similar BMI, some might be muscular, whereas others might have more body fat.

Multiple study authors report financial ties to industry, including pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in breast cancer. The database used in the study receives financial support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Ligibel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dear colleagues,

I’m pleased to introduce the winter edition of The New Gastroenterologist – the first issue of 2021! The start of the new year has been very much anticipated because many hope that this year will bring some resolution to the challenges we faced in 2020.

With the pandemic came the widespread use of telemedicine, a feature of patient care that is likely here to stay. As physicians, it is imperative that we understand the legal implications of virtual medicine. Experienced medical malpractice lawyers Ashton Hyde and Grace Johnson (Younker Hyde Macfarlane) offer advice on this rapidly evolving realm of medicine.

Early career gastroenterologists often fall victim to self-doubt in a phenomenon referred to as impostor syndrome. Dr. Kimberly Brown (Wayne State University) discusses this important topic: what it is, how to recognize it, and how to mitigate it. One way to temper the effects of impostor syndrome is utilizing the art of coaching. Dr. Ami N. Shah (Rush) takes us through her journey and reviews the personal and professional benefits of implementing coaching in medicine.

Consults about feedings tubes can be daunting because experience with the placement and management of feeding tubes can be limited during training. This quarter’s “In Focus” article, written by Dr. John Fang and Dr. Gregory Toy (University of Utah) reviews the indications for placement, type of tubes available, and common complications and how to troubleshoot them. This is an absolute must-read for any new gastroenterologist.

How do you approach the patient who shows up for an open access endoscopy, but a quick chart review leads you to the realization that the procedure, is in fact, not indicated? There tends to be a lot of inertia which prevents cancellation of cases like this because the patient is already in the endoscopy suite, prepped, and has planned for this procedure in the preceding weeks or months. Dr. Laurel R. Fisher (University of Pennsylvania) unpacks the ethical considerations of this familiar scenario in this fantastic addition to our ethics case series.

In our postfellowship pathways section, Dr. Rena Yadlapati (University of California San Diego) and Dr. Kelli DeLay (University of Colorado) guide us through the path to becoming an esophagologist. In the DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article this quarter, Dr. Nadeem Baig (Allied Digestive Care) and Kevin Harlen (Capital Digestive Care) explain how clinical productivity is measured and how this translates into compensation in practice.

A silver lining of the pandemic is the way in which social media has been used to connect colleagues around the world in fostering medical education. Dr. Sultan Mahmood (State University of New York at Buffalo), Dr. Atoosa Rabiee (Washington DC VA Medical Center), Dr. Sunil Amin (University of Miami), Dr. Allon Kahn (Mayo Clinic Scottsdale), and Dr. Ijlal Akbar Ali (University of Oklahoma) discuss the inception of @GIJournal, a Twitter-based online journal club, and how it has gained popularity in recent months.

The AGA launched a new podcast, “Small Talk, Big Topics,” geared toward trainees and early career gastroenterologists, and through a brief question and answer session, we get to know the hosts: Dr. Matthew Whitson (Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell), Dr. Nina Nandy (Presbyterian Medical Group), and Dr. C.S. Tse (Brown University).

Lastly, I’d like to take a moment to recognize Lora McGlade, who has been instrumental in The New Gastroenterologist as the Medical Communications Editor for our publisher, Frontline. She assumed a new role at the end of last year, and I cannot thank her enough for her contributions in making this publication a success.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]) or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Dear colleagues,

I’m pleased to introduce the winter edition of The New Gastroenterologist – the first issue of 2021! The start of the new year has been very much anticipated because many hope that this year will bring some resolution to the challenges we faced in 2020.

With the pandemic came the widespread use of telemedicine, a feature of patient care that is likely here to stay. As physicians, it is imperative that we understand the legal implications of virtual medicine. Experienced medical malpractice lawyers Ashton Hyde and Grace Johnson (Younker Hyde Macfarlane) offer advice on this rapidly evolving realm of medicine.

Early career gastroenterologists often fall victim to self-doubt in a phenomenon referred to as impostor syndrome. Dr. Kimberly Brown (Wayne State University) discusses this important topic: what it is, how to recognize it, and how to mitigate it. One way to temper the effects of impostor syndrome is utilizing the art of coaching. Dr. Ami N. Shah (Rush) takes us through her journey and reviews the personal and professional benefits of implementing coaching in medicine.

Consults about feedings tubes can be daunting because experience with the placement and management of feeding tubes can be limited during training. This quarter’s “In Focus” article, written by Dr. John Fang and Dr. Gregory Toy (University of Utah) reviews the indications for placement, type of tubes available, and common complications and how to troubleshoot them. This is an absolute must-read for any new gastroenterologist.

How do you approach the patient who shows up for an open access endoscopy, but a quick chart review leads you to the realization that the procedure, is in fact, not indicated? There tends to be a lot of inertia which prevents cancellation of cases like this because the patient is already in the endoscopy suite, prepped, and has planned for this procedure in the preceding weeks or months. Dr. Laurel R. Fisher (University of Pennsylvania) unpacks the ethical considerations of this familiar scenario in this fantastic addition to our ethics case series.

In our postfellowship pathways section, Dr. Rena Yadlapati (University of California San Diego) and Dr. Kelli DeLay (University of Colorado) guide us through the path to becoming an esophagologist. In the DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article this quarter, Dr. Nadeem Baig (Allied Digestive Care) and Kevin Harlen (Capital Digestive Care) explain how clinical productivity is measured and how this translates into compensation in practice.

A silver lining of the pandemic is the way in which social media has been used to connect colleagues around the world in fostering medical education. Dr. Sultan Mahmood (State University of New York at Buffalo), Dr. Atoosa Rabiee (Washington DC VA Medical Center), Dr. Sunil Amin (University of Miami), Dr. Allon Kahn (Mayo Clinic Scottsdale), and Dr. Ijlal Akbar Ali (University of Oklahoma) discuss the inception of @GIJournal, a Twitter-based online journal club, and how it has gained popularity in recent months.

The AGA launched a new podcast, “Small Talk, Big Topics,” geared toward trainees and early career gastroenterologists, and through a brief question and answer session, we get to know the hosts: Dr. Matthew Whitson (Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell), Dr. Nina Nandy (Presbyterian Medical Group), and Dr. C.S. Tse (Brown University).

Lastly, I’d like to take a moment to recognize Lora McGlade, who has been instrumental in The New Gastroenterologist as the Medical Communications Editor for our publisher, Frontline. She assumed a new role at the end of last year, and I cannot thank her enough for her contributions in making this publication a success.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]) or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Dear colleagues,

I’m pleased to introduce the winter edition of The New Gastroenterologist – the first issue of 2021! The start of the new year has been very much anticipated because many hope that this year will bring some resolution to the challenges we faced in 2020.

With the pandemic came the widespread use of telemedicine, a feature of patient care that is likely here to stay. As physicians, it is imperative that we understand the legal implications of virtual medicine. Experienced medical malpractice lawyers Ashton Hyde and Grace Johnson (Younker Hyde Macfarlane) offer advice on this rapidly evolving realm of medicine.

Early career gastroenterologists often fall victim to self-doubt in a phenomenon referred to as impostor syndrome. Dr. Kimberly Brown (Wayne State University) discusses this important topic: what it is, how to recognize it, and how to mitigate it. One way to temper the effects of impostor syndrome is utilizing the art of coaching. Dr. Ami N. Shah (Rush) takes us through her journey and reviews the personal and professional benefits of implementing coaching in medicine.

Consults about feedings tubes can be daunting because experience with the placement and management of feeding tubes can be limited during training. This quarter’s “In Focus” article, written by Dr. John Fang and Dr. Gregory Toy (University of Utah) reviews the indications for placement, type of tubes available, and common complications and how to troubleshoot them. This is an absolute must-read for any new gastroenterologist.

How do you approach the patient who shows up for an open access endoscopy, but a quick chart review leads you to the realization that the procedure, is in fact, not indicated? There tends to be a lot of inertia which prevents cancellation of cases like this because the patient is already in the endoscopy suite, prepped, and has planned for this procedure in the preceding weeks or months. Dr. Laurel R. Fisher (University of Pennsylvania) unpacks the ethical considerations of this familiar scenario in this fantastic addition to our ethics case series.

In our postfellowship pathways section, Dr. Rena Yadlapati (University of California San Diego) and Dr. Kelli DeLay (University of Colorado) guide us through the path to becoming an esophagologist. In the DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article this quarter, Dr. Nadeem Baig (Allied Digestive Care) and Kevin Harlen (Capital Digestive Care) explain how clinical productivity is measured and how this translates into compensation in practice.

A silver lining of the pandemic is the way in which social media has been used to connect colleagues around the world in fostering medical education. Dr. Sultan Mahmood (State University of New York at Buffalo), Dr. Atoosa Rabiee (Washington DC VA Medical Center), Dr. Sunil Amin (University of Miami), Dr. Allon Kahn (Mayo Clinic Scottsdale), and Dr. Ijlal Akbar Ali (University of Oklahoma) discuss the inception of @GIJournal, a Twitter-based online journal club, and how it has gained popularity in recent months.

The AGA launched a new podcast, “Small Talk, Big Topics,” geared toward trainees and early career gastroenterologists, and through a brief question and answer session, we get to know the hosts: Dr. Matthew Whitson (Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell), Dr. Nina Nandy (Presbyterian Medical Group), and Dr. C.S. Tse (Brown University).

Lastly, I’d like to take a moment to recognize Lora McGlade, who has been instrumental in The New Gastroenterologist as the Medical Communications Editor for our publisher, Frontline. She assumed a new role at the end of last year, and I cannot thank her enough for her contributions in making this publication a success.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]) or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Key clinical point: Information of the flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCI) data during therapy combined with the hematological response can help physicians identify patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with a higher probability of maintaining a good quality of response to 5-azacitidine (AZA) therapy for a longer period of time.

Major finding: After a median of 6 cycles of AZA, an FCI improvement was found in 41% of patients, and this finding correlated with a better clinical response (P less than .001). FCI improvement correlated with hematological improvement (HI), and the probability of maintaining a clinical response at 12 cycles of AZA was twice as large (67%) for those who achieved an HI and an FCI improvement after 6 cycles of AZA compared with patients who only achieved an HI (33%).

Study details: The data come from a study of 81 patients diagnosed with MDS in 5 European centers.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Subirá D et al. Ann Hematol. 2021 Jan 9. doi: 10.1007/s00277-021-04411-4.

Key clinical point: Information of the flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCI) data during therapy combined with the hematological response can help physicians identify patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with a higher probability of maintaining a good quality of response to 5-azacitidine (AZA) therapy for a longer period of time.

Major finding: After a median of 6 cycles of AZA, an FCI improvement was found in 41% of patients, and this finding correlated with a better clinical response (P less than .001). FCI improvement correlated with hematological improvement (HI), and the probability of maintaining a clinical response at 12 cycles of AZA was twice as large (67%) for those who achieved an HI and an FCI improvement after 6 cycles of AZA compared with patients who only achieved an HI (33%).

Study details: The data come from a study of 81 patients diagnosed with MDS in 5 European centers.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Subirá D et al. Ann Hematol. 2021 Jan 9. doi: 10.1007/s00277-021-04411-4.

Key clinical point: Information of the flow cytometry immunophenotyping (FCI) data during therapy combined with the hematological response can help physicians identify patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with a higher probability of maintaining a good quality of response to 5-azacitidine (AZA) therapy for a longer period of time.

Major finding: After a median of 6 cycles of AZA, an FCI improvement was found in 41% of patients, and this finding correlated with a better clinical response (P less than .001). FCI improvement correlated with hematological improvement (HI), and the probability of maintaining a clinical response at 12 cycles of AZA was twice as large (67%) for those who achieved an HI and an FCI improvement after 6 cycles of AZA compared with patients who only achieved an HI (33%).

Study details: The data come from a study of 81 patients diagnosed with MDS in 5 European centers.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Subirá D et al. Ann Hematol. 2021 Jan 9. doi: 10.1007/s00277-021-04411-4.