BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Self-perceived loneliness during childhood is linked to a more than twofold increased risk for subsequent first-episode psychosis (FEP) — new findings that may point to a novel marker for the disorder.

The association between loneliness and FEP “appears to extend beyond the effects of objective social isolation,” said study presenter Covadonga M. Díaz-Caneja, MD, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, and “is particularly pronounced in females.”

“These findings suggest the potential of childhood loneliness as an early risk marker for psychosis that could help guide targeted interventions,” she added.

The results were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2024 Congress.
 

Isolation a Major Risk Factor

There are two components to isolation, both of which are “major risk factors” for morbidity, mortality, and the onset of mental disorders, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja.

The first is “objective social isolation,” which consists of a demonstrable lack of social connections, including social interactions, contacts, and relationships, while the other is a perceived sense of isolation, or “loneliness,” defined as a “subjective feeling of distress associated with a lack of meaningful relationships,” regardless of the amount of actual social contact an individual experiences.

Childhood loneliness occurs before age 12 and is becoming increasingly prevalent, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja. A recent survey shows that approximately one third of children report they often feel lonely.

Genetic and observational research has shown there is a bidirectional relationship between loneliness and psychosis and that patients with schizophrenia are more likely to report loneliness than is the general population.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that there is no previous research that has assessed the potential association between childhood loneliness and subsequent psychosis.

To investigate, the researchers conducted an observational, case-control study in seven university hospitals in Madrid. It included individuals aged 7-40 years, including FEP patients with a psychosis duration of less than 2 years, and healthy controls from the same geographic areas.

They assessed childhood objective social isolation using the Premorbid Adjustment Scale and examined childhood loneliness with the single item: “Have you ever felt lonely for more than 6 months before the age of 12?”

A range of measures and questionnaires were also administered to assess participants’ symptom scores, alongside the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).
 

Alone vs Lonely

Two hundred eighty-five patients with FEP participated in the study. They had a mean age of 24.5 years, and 32.6% were female. The study also included 261 healthy controls (average age, 25.9 years; 48.7% female).

After the researchers adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, loneliness during childhood was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.40-3.51), which increased (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.58-4.62) after further adjustment for objective social isolation.

Further analysis revealed that in those who did not have objective social isolation in childhood, loneliness was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.56-4.60).

However, the relationship between loneliness and FEP was not significant in participants who were objectively socially isolated during childhood (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.45).

Compared with males, females reporting loneliness had a markedly increased risk for FEP (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.23-10.05 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.63-2.19).

However, females had a reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (OR, 0.155; 95% CI, 0.048-0.506), indicating that loneliness influenced the type of diagnosis, she noted.

There was a significant positive relationship between loneliness in childhood and symptom scores in men, and a negative association with GAF scores in men.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that the study is preliminary and a “work in progress.” The investigators plan to increase the sample size and will conduct more complex analyses, she said.

“We also of course have to bear in mind that it is a cross-sectional study and that there may be some kind of recall biases [because] we are asking patients now about what happened in the past.”

She noted that it’s unclear whether the results can be extrapolated to individuals who are currently experiencing loneliness because “the determinants of loneliness 10 years ago or 15 years ago may be different.”
 

How, When to Intervene

Session chair Judit Lazáry, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Kútvölgyi Clinical Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, told this news organization that the association between loneliness and FEP was “not surprising.”

She explained there are a lot of data indicating that premorbid symptoms in childhood are “predictive signs for the later onset of psychosis,” and loneliness may be “a part of that.”

Individuals experiencing loneliness are more anxious and have difficulties in cultivating and maintaining relationships. In addition, they tend to socially isolate, she said.

The key question, said Dr. Lazáry, is: “How can we intervene to prevent the onset of psychosis? What is the point at which we can support the young person?”

This is challenging, she added, because while “you can detect that a kid is always alone, you cannot detect the feeling of loneliness,” and children can’t always easily express themselves.

Another potential confounder is that in adults with current psychosis, the self-perception that they were lonely during childhood may be a consequence of the disorder.

In addition, she said, individuals with psychosis often experience cognitive impairment, which could affect memory reliability.

Nevertheless, said Dr. Lazáry, the study’s findings suggest that a young person reporting loneliness in childhood may be “another symptom that we have to investigate.”

No funding was declared.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja declared a relationship with Angelini, Janssen, and Viatris and grant support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and the European Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Self-perceived loneliness during childhood is linked to a more than twofold increased risk for subsequent first-episode psychosis (FEP) — new findings that may point to a novel marker for the disorder.

The association between loneliness and FEP “appears to extend beyond the effects of objective social isolation,” said study presenter Covadonga M. Díaz-Caneja, MD, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, and “is particularly pronounced in females.”

“These findings suggest the potential of childhood loneliness as an early risk marker for psychosis that could help guide targeted interventions,” she added.

The results were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2024 Congress.
 

Isolation a Major Risk Factor

There are two components to isolation, both of which are “major risk factors” for morbidity, mortality, and the onset of mental disorders, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja.

The first is “objective social isolation,” which consists of a demonstrable lack of social connections, including social interactions, contacts, and relationships, while the other is a perceived sense of isolation, or “loneliness,” defined as a “subjective feeling of distress associated with a lack of meaningful relationships,” regardless of the amount of actual social contact an individual experiences.

Childhood loneliness occurs before age 12 and is becoming increasingly prevalent, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja. A recent survey shows that approximately one third of children report they often feel lonely.

Genetic and observational research has shown there is a bidirectional relationship between loneliness and psychosis and that patients with schizophrenia are more likely to report loneliness than is the general population.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that there is no previous research that has assessed the potential association between childhood loneliness and subsequent psychosis.

To investigate, the researchers conducted an observational, case-control study in seven university hospitals in Madrid. It included individuals aged 7-40 years, including FEP patients with a psychosis duration of less than 2 years, and healthy controls from the same geographic areas.

They assessed childhood objective social isolation using the Premorbid Adjustment Scale and examined childhood loneliness with the single item: “Have you ever felt lonely for more than 6 months before the age of 12?”

A range of measures and questionnaires were also administered to assess participants’ symptom scores, alongside the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).
 

Alone vs Lonely

Two hundred eighty-five patients with FEP participated in the study. They had a mean age of 24.5 years, and 32.6% were female. The study also included 261 healthy controls (average age, 25.9 years; 48.7% female).

After the researchers adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, loneliness during childhood was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.40-3.51), which increased (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.58-4.62) after further adjustment for objective social isolation.

Further analysis revealed that in those who did not have objective social isolation in childhood, loneliness was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.56-4.60).

However, the relationship between loneliness and FEP was not significant in participants who were objectively socially isolated during childhood (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.45).

Compared with males, females reporting loneliness had a markedly increased risk for FEP (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.23-10.05 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.63-2.19).

However, females had a reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (OR, 0.155; 95% CI, 0.048-0.506), indicating that loneliness influenced the type of diagnosis, she noted.

There was a significant positive relationship between loneliness in childhood and symptom scores in men, and a negative association with GAF scores in men.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that the study is preliminary and a “work in progress.” The investigators plan to increase the sample size and will conduct more complex analyses, she said.

“We also of course have to bear in mind that it is a cross-sectional study and that there may be some kind of recall biases [because] we are asking patients now about what happened in the past.”

She noted that it’s unclear whether the results can be extrapolated to individuals who are currently experiencing loneliness because “the determinants of loneliness 10 years ago or 15 years ago may be different.”
 

How, When to Intervene

Session chair Judit Lazáry, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Kútvölgyi Clinical Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, told this news organization that the association between loneliness and FEP was “not surprising.”

She explained there are a lot of data indicating that premorbid symptoms in childhood are “predictive signs for the later onset of psychosis,” and loneliness may be “a part of that.”

Individuals experiencing loneliness are more anxious and have difficulties in cultivating and maintaining relationships. In addition, they tend to socially isolate, she said.

The key question, said Dr. Lazáry, is: “How can we intervene to prevent the onset of psychosis? What is the point at which we can support the young person?”

This is challenging, she added, because while “you can detect that a kid is always alone, you cannot detect the feeling of loneliness,” and children can’t always easily express themselves.

Another potential confounder is that in adults with current psychosis, the self-perception that they were lonely during childhood may be a consequence of the disorder.

In addition, she said, individuals with psychosis often experience cognitive impairment, which could affect memory reliability.

Nevertheless, said Dr. Lazáry, the study’s findings suggest that a young person reporting loneliness in childhood may be “another symptom that we have to investigate.”

No funding was declared.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja declared a relationship with Angelini, Janssen, and Viatris and grant support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and the European Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Self-perceived loneliness during childhood is linked to a more than twofold increased risk for subsequent first-episode psychosis (FEP) — new findings that may point to a novel marker for the disorder.

The association between loneliness and FEP “appears to extend beyond the effects of objective social isolation,” said study presenter Covadonga M. Díaz-Caneja, MD, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, and “is particularly pronounced in females.”

“These findings suggest the potential of childhood loneliness as an early risk marker for psychosis that could help guide targeted interventions,” she added.

The results were presented at the European Psychiatric Association 2024 Congress.
 

Isolation a Major Risk Factor

There are two components to isolation, both of which are “major risk factors” for morbidity, mortality, and the onset of mental disorders, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja.

The first is “objective social isolation,” which consists of a demonstrable lack of social connections, including social interactions, contacts, and relationships, while the other is a perceived sense of isolation, or “loneliness,” defined as a “subjective feeling of distress associated with a lack of meaningful relationships,” regardless of the amount of actual social contact an individual experiences.

Childhood loneliness occurs before age 12 and is becoming increasingly prevalent, said Dr. Díaz-Caneja. A recent survey shows that approximately one third of children report they often feel lonely.

Genetic and observational research has shown there is a bidirectional relationship between loneliness and psychosis and that patients with schizophrenia are more likely to report loneliness than is the general population.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that there is no previous research that has assessed the potential association between childhood loneliness and subsequent psychosis.

To investigate, the researchers conducted an observational, case-control study in seven university hospitals in Madrid. It included individuals aged 7-40 years, including FEP patients with a psychosis duration of less than 2 years, and healthy controls from the same geographic areas.

They assessed childhood objective social isolation using the Premorbid Adjustment Scale and examined childhood loneliness with the single item: “Have you ever felt lonely for more than 6 months before the age of 12?”

A range of measures and questionnaires were also administered to assess participants’ symptom scores, alongside the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).
 

Alone vs Lonely

Two hundred eighty-five patients with FEP participated in the study. They had a mean age of 24.5 years, and 32.6% were female. The study also included 261 healthy controls (average age, 25.9 years; 48.7% female).

After the researchers adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, loneliness during childhood was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.40-3.51), which increased (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.58-4.62) after further adjustment for objective social isolation.

Further analysis revealed that in those who did not have objective social isolation in childhood, loneliness was associated with a significantly increased risk for FEP (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.56-4.60).

However, the relationship between loneliness and FEP was not significant in participants who were objectively socially isolated during childhood (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.45).

Compared with males, females reporting loneliness had a markedly increased risk for FEP (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.23-10.05 vs OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.63-2.19).

However, females had a reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (OR, 0.155; 95% CI, 0.048-0.506), indicating that loneliness influenced the type of diagnosis, she noted.

There was a significant positive relationship between loneliness in childhood and symptom scores in men, and a negative association with GAF scores in men.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja noted that the study is preliminary and a “work in progress.” The investigators plan to increase the sample size and will conduct more complex analyses, she said.

“We also of course have to bear in mind that it is a cross-sectional study and that there may be some kind of recall biases [because] we are asking patients now about what happened in the past.”

She noted that it’s unclear whether the results can be extrapolated to individuals who are currently experiencing loneliness because “the determinants of loneliness 10 years ago or 15 years ago may be different.”
 

How, When to Intervene

Session chair Judit Lazáry, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Kútvölgyi Clinical Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, told this news organization that the association between loneliness and FEP was “not surprising.”

She explained there are a lot of data indicating that premorbid symptoms in childhood are “predictive signs for the later onset of psychosis,” and loneliness may be “a part of that.”

Individuals experiencing loneliness are more anxious and have difficulties in cultivating and maintaining relationships. In addition, they tend to socially isolate, she said.

The key question, said Dr. Lazáry, is: “How can we intervene to prevent the onset of psychosis? What is the point at which we can support the young person?”

This is challenging, she added, because while “you can detect that a kid is always alone, you cannot detect the feeling of loneliness,” and children can’t always easily express themselves.

Another potential confounder is that in adults with current psychosis, the self-perception that they were lonely during childhood may be a consequence of the disorder.

In addition, she said, individuals with psychosis often experience cognitive impairment, which could affect memory reliability.

Nevertheless, said Dr. Lazáry, the study’s findings suggest that a young person reporting loneliness in childhood may be “another symptom that we have to investigate.”

No funding was declared.

Dr. Díaz-Caneja declared a relationship with Angelini, Janssen, and Viatris and grant support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and the European Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

TOPLINE:

The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.

METHODOLOGY:

• MDA5 antibody-positive DM is a rare DM subtype associated with ILD, which is categorized into rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD) and chronic ILD, with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
• In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
• The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
• ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
• The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
• Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.

METHODOLOGY:

• MDA5 antibody-positive DM is a rare DM subtype associated with ILD, which is categorized into rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD) and chronic ILD, with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
• In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
• The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
• ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
• The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
• Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.

METHODOLOGY:

• MDA5 antibody-positive DM is a rare DM subtype associated with ILD, which is categorized into rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD) and chronic ILD, with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
• In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
• The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
• ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
• The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
• Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers are safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in individuals with skin of color (SOC), with the largest amount of data supporting its use in Asians, and more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, according to a literature review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the efficacy and safety of cosmetic injectables in diverse skin types is important because individuals identifying as racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 18% of neuromodulator procedures and 22% of soft tissue augmentation procedures in 2020 in the United States.
• Researchers reviewed available literature on the usability and efficacy of neuromodulators and soft tissue augmentation in individuals with SOC because of the limited data available in these populations, particularly non-Asian, SOC populations.
• Overall, 88 studies in English were included, which were either dedicated to discussing safety and/or efficacy of injectables in SOC populations or enrolled more than 20% of participants from SOC populations.
• High-quality level I and II evidence was found in 50 studies, and 9940 patients were analyzed in this review.

TAKEAWAY:

• Studies considered high quality indicated that botulinum toxin is safe and effective for treating glabellar lines in Asians; tailored guidelines recommended specific strategies; and adverse events, such as eyelid issues, were more common in Asians.
• Hyaluronic acid fillers showed significant improvement in moderate to severe cases of nasolabial folds in Asians, and adverse effects like swelling and pain were mild to moderate — some cases of granuloma formation and vascular compromise have been reported.
• In Black individuals, botulinum toxin was well tolerated; hyaluronic acid fillers showed favorable safety, with mild to moderate adverse events; and measures like slower injections and subdermal techniques minimized risks.
• In Latinx populations, there was a lack of robust study data on safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin, whereas hyaluronic acid and poly-L-lactic acid fillers were well tolerated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neuromodulators and dermal fillers are useful and safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in SOC populations, with the greatest amount of data supporting its use in Asian populations,” although more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, the authors concluded. “During cosmetic consultations, physicians should consider the impact of different cultural beauty norms on the aesthetic goals of diverse patient populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study led by Shanice McKenzie, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the recent data and formal consensus guidelines on injectables in the review came from Asian countries, and there was “a relative paucity of research on Black and Latinx populations,” the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for various companies; the rest had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers are safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in individuals with skin of color (SOC), with the largest amount of data supporting its use in Asians, and more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, according to a literature review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the efficacy and safety of cosmetic injectables in diverse skin types is important because individuals identifying as racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 18% of neuromodulator procedures and 22% of soft tissue augmentation procedures in 2020 in the United States.
• Researchers reviewed available literature on the usability and efficacy of neuromodulators and soft tissue augmentation in individuals with SOC because of the limited data available in these populations, particularly non-Asian, SOC populations.
• Overall, 88 studies in English were included, which were either dedicated to discussing safety and/or efficacy of injectables in SOC populations or enrolled more than 20% of participants from SOC populations.
• High-quality level I and II evidence was found in 50 studies, and 9940 patients were analyzed in this review.

TAKEAWAY:

• Studies considered high quality indicated that botulinum toxin is safe and effective for treating glabellar lines in Asians; tailored guidelines recommended specific strategies; and adverse events, such as eyelid issues, were more common in Asians.
• Hyaluronic acid fillers showed significant improvement in moderate to severe cases of nasolabial folds in Asians, and adverse effects like swelling and pain were mild to moderate — some cases of granuloma formation and vascular compromise have been reported.
• In Black individuals, botulinum toxin was well tolerated; hyaluronic acid fillers showed favorable safety, with mild to moderate adverse events; and measures like slower injections and subdermal techniques minimized risks.
• In Latinx populations, there was a lack of robust study data on safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin, whereas hyaluronic acid and poly-L-lactic acid fillers were well tolerated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neuromodulators and dermal fillers are useful and safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in SOC populations, with the greatest amount of data supporting its use in Asian populations,” although more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, the authors concluded. “During cosmetic consultations, physicians should consider the impact of different cultural beauty norms on the aesthetic goals of diverse patient populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study led by Shanice McKenzie, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the recent data and formal consensus guidelines on injectables in the review came from Asian countries, and there was “a relative paucity of research on Black and Latinx populations,” the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for various companies; the rest had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers are safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in individuals with skin of color (SOC), with the largest amount of data supporting its use in Asians, and more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, according to a literature review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the efficacy and safety of cosmetic injectables in diverse skin types is important because individuals identifying as racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 18% of neuromodulator procedures and 22% of soft tissue augmentation procedures in 2020 in the United States.
• Researchers reviewed available literature on the usability and efficacy of neuromodulators and soft tissue augmentation in individuals with SOC because of the limited data available in these populations, particularly non-Asian, SOC populations.
• Overall, 88 studies in English were included, which were either dedicated to discussing safety and/or efficacy of injectables in SOC populations or enrolled more than 20% of participants from SOC populations.
• High-quality level I and II evidence was found in 50 studies, and 9940 patients were analyzed in this review.

TAKEAWAY:

• Studies considered high quality indicated that botulinum toxin is safe and effective for treating glabellar lines in Asians; tailored guidelines recommended specific strategies; and adverse events, such as eyelid issues, were more common in Asians.
• Hyaluronic acid fillers showed significant improvement in moderate to severe cases of nasolabial folds in Asians, and adverse effects like swelling and pain were mild to moderate — some cases of granuloma formation and vascular compromise have been reported.
• In Black individuals, botulinum toxin was well tolerated; hyaluronic acid fillers showed favorable safety, with mild to moderate adverse events; and measures like slower injections and subdermal techniques minimized risks.
• In Latinx populations, there was a lack of robust study data on safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin, whereas hyaluronic acid and poly-L-lactic acid fillers were well tolerated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neuromodulators and dermal fillers are useful and safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in SOC populations, with the greatest amount of data supporting its use in Asian populations,” although more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, the authors concluded. “During cosmetic consultations, physicians should consider the impact of different cultural beauty norms on the aesthetic goals of diverse patient populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study led by Shanice McKenzie, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the recent data and formal consensus guidelines on injectables in the review came from Asian countries, and there was “a relative paucity of research on Black and Latinx populations,” the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for various companies; the rest had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient care and patient satisfaction, a survey of dermatologists suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient outcomes and experiences, particularly for pediatric autoimmune conditions presenting with both cutaneous and systemic manifestations.
• The researchers surveyed 208 pediatric dermatologists working in combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics.
• A total of 13 member responses were recorded from three countries: 10 from the United States, two from Mexico, and one from Canada.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perceived benefits of combined clinics were improved patient care through coordinated treatment decisions and timely communication between providers.
• Patient satisfaction was favorable, and patients and families endorsed the combined clinic approach.
• Barriers to clinic establishment included differences in the pace between dermatology and rheumatology clinic flow, the need to generate more relative value units, resistance from colleagues, and limited time.
• Areas that needed improvement included more time for patient visits, dedicated research assistants, new patient referrals, additional patient rooms, resources for research, and patient care infrastructure.

IN PRACTICE:

The insights from this survey “will hopefully inspire further development of these combined clinics,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Olga S. Cherepakhin, BS, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the subjective nature, lack of some information, selection bias, and small number of respondents, and the survey reflected the perspective of the pediatric dermatologists only.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported full-time employment at Janssen R&D, and the other authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient care and patient satisfaction, a survey of dermatologists suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient outcomes and experiences, particularly for pediatric autoimmune conditions presenting with both cutaneous and systemic manifestations.
• The researchers surveyed 208 pediatric dermatologists working in combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics.
• A total of 13 member responses were recorded from three countries: 10 from the United States, two from Mexico, and one from Canada.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perceived benefits of combined clinics were improved patient care through coordinated treatment decisions and timely communication between providers.
• Patient satisfaction was favorable, and patients and families endorsed the combined clinic approach.
• Barriers to clinic establishment included differences in the pace between dermatology and rheumatology clinic flow, the need to generate more relative value units, resistance from colleagues, and limited time.
• Areas that needed improvement included more time for patient visits, dedicated research assistants, new patient referrals, additional patient rooms, resources for research, and patient care infrastructure.

IN PRACTICE:

The insights from this survey “will hopefully inspire further development of these combined clinics,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Olga S. Cherepakhin, BS, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the subjective nature, lack of some information, selection bias, and small number of respondents, and the survey reflected the perspective of the pediatric dermatologists only.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported full-time employment at Janssen R&D, and the other authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient care and patient satisfaction, a survey of dermatologists suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient outcomes and experiences, particularly for pediatric autoimmune conditions presenting with both cutaneous and systemic manifestations.
• The researchers surveyed 208 pediatric dermatologists working in combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics.
• A total of 13 member responses were recorded from three countries: 10 from the United States, two from Mexico, and one from Canada.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perceived benefits of combined clinics were improved patient care through coordinated treatment decisions and timely communication between providers.
• Patient satisfaction was favorable, and patients and families endorsed the combined clinic approach.
• Barriers to clinic establishment included differences in the pace between dermatology and rheumatology clinic flow, the need to generate more relative value units, resistance from colleagues, and limited time.
• Areas that needed improvement included more time for patient visits, dedicated research assistants, new patient referrals, additional patient rooms, resources for research, and patient care infrastructure.

IN PRACTICE:

The insights from this survey “will hopefully inspire further development of these combined clinics,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Olga S. Cherepakhin, BS, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the subjective nature, lack of some information, selection bias, and small number of respondents, and the survey reflected the perspective of the pediatric dermatologists only.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported full-time employment at Janssen R&D, and the other authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with low-risk prostate cancer who go on active surveillance rather than treatment are best followed-up for more than 15 years — and perhaps indefinitely — according one of the longest studies to date to look at the issue. 

Previous studies have shown that active surveillance continued for 15 years is appropriate to identify men who progress and need treatment, but now data out to 25 years “suggest that meticulous follow-up is needed over a longer time if the chance for cure is not to be missed,” said Emmeli Palmstedt, PhD, a research student in the Department of Urology at the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “These data are crucial, given the long current life expectancy” of men in otherwise good health. 

Dr. Palmstedt presented the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.

At many centers, active surveillance is a standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer based on a benefit-to-risk ratio that favors delayed intervention, according to Palmstedt. Several studies, including the Göteburg-1 active surveillance trial initiated at her institution, have supported follow-up for 15 years. A new set of data from Göteborg now extends to 25 years.
 

Long-Life Expectancy Justifies Extended Surveillance

The prospective Göteborg study began enrolling men with very low- or low-risk (78%) or intermediate-risk (22%) prostate cancer in 1995. In the active surveillance program, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured routinely with biopsies ordered for PSA levels ≥ 2.5 ng/mL. 

In an analysis published in 2016 when 202 (43%) of 474 patients managed with active surveillance had discontinued surveillance to start treatment, the median follow-up period was 8 years. The rate of mortality associated with prostate cancer at 15 years was estimated to be 0% for men in the very low-risk group, 4% for men in the low-risk group, and 10% for those with intermediate-risk tumors. The estimates for failure-free survival at 15 years were 88%, 77%, and 40% for the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk groups, respectively.

In the most recent follow-up, when the median age in the Göteburg-1 study was 80 years (the median age at diagnosis was 66 years), the median follow-up period was 15.1 years with a range of up to 28.1 years. In this analysis, which focused on patients with low-risk prostate cancer at baseline, discontinuations from active surveillance had climbed to 47%. Most of these men discontinued to initiate treatment, but 79 (16%) had failed acute surveillance, meaning their progression was not caught in time for curative-intent treatment, and 2% had died from prostate cancer.
 

Treatment-Free Survival Falls to 31% 

The rate of treatment-free survival, which was estimated to be 65% in the 15-year analysis published in 2016, had declined to 31%. The rate of failure-free survival was 59%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 92%, according to the researchers. 

While Dr. Palmstedt did not separate out her data for very low- and low-risk patients, she noted that deaths from prostate cancer among all low-risk patients climbed fourfold (8% vs 2%) since the 2016 figures were published. The proportion of men no longer failure-free climbed from 10% to more than 40%. 

“These are non-negligible numbers,” said Dr. Palmstedt, who added that overall survival fell from 69% at 15 years to 37% at 25 years.

Although some men between the 15-year and 25-year timepoints were switched to watchful waiting, these data have not yet been analyzed.

The low rate of deaths from prostate cancer over the extended period is reassuring, Dr. Palmstedt said, but the main message from the new study is that active surveillance permits curative-intent treatment to be offered even after late follow-up. She emphasized that patients without progression by 15 years cannot be considered “safe.”

Based on these data, “men with a long remaining life expectancy should be informed that active surveillance is still viable after 15 years,” Dr. Palmstedt said.
 

Active Surveillance Now More Common

Over the past decade, the proportion of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance has been rising steadily, according to Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH, professor of urology at the University of California, San Francisco. In a study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Cooperberg and his colleagues reported that rates of active surveillance rose from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, given the value of the approach for avoiding overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancers, even that increase is not enough, he said.

“The window of opportunity for cure is typically very wide,” Dr. Cooperberg said. Although many men “will never need treatment ... long-term surveillance is definitely important” for those that do, he said. The data from trials like Göteborg-1 support the principle that this strategy still preserves the option of treatment when it is needed. 

“Treatment for cure at age 70 is generally far preferable to treatment at 55, and surveillance should absolutely be preferred treatment for the vast majority of men with low-grade disease at diagnosis,” he explained.

Dr. Palmstedt reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cooperberg reported financial relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Exact Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Verana Health. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How long should a woman wait before becoming pregnant again? According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is advisable to wait at least 24 months between childbirth and a new pregnancy. But a study published in February of this year in The Lancet Regional Health — Americas, using data from more than 4.7 million live births in Brazil, suggests that this recommendation should be individualized, considering factors such as maternal obstetric history.

Researchers from the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, São José do Rio Preto Medical School, Federal University of Bahia, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the United Kingdom, used a birth cohort from the Center for Data Integration and Knowledge for Health, which combines data from the Ministry of Health’s Information System on Live Births (SINASC) and from a cohort of 100 million Brazilians. 

In total, the analysis included information on 3,804,152 women and 4,788,279 births. All participants had at least two consecutive live births.

Most interpregnancy intervals, ie, the difference between the previous childbirth and the subsequent conception, ranged from 23 to 58 months (39.1%). Extreme intervals of < 6 months and > 120 months occurred in 5.6% and 1.6% of cases, respectively.

Regarding adverse outcomes, the research indicated that, in the general population, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) babies were observed in 8.4% of subsequent births, while low birth weight (LBW) occurred in 5.9% and preterm birth in 7.5%.
 

Interpregnancy Interval and SGA Risk

The authors noted that the risk for subsequent adverse outcomes increased with extreme interpregnancy intervals, with SGA being the only exception. In this case, women who had an interval between the previous childbirth and the subsequent conception > 120 months had a lower risk for SGA.

According to João Guilherme Tedde, a medical student at UFGD and the first author of the study, similar patterns (extremely long interpregnancy intervals associated with a lower risk for subsequent SGA) have been described in the literature. In an interview with this news organization, he explained some hypotheses that could explain this phenomenon.

According to the researcher, the finding may reflect the distinct risk profile of mothers who wait a very long time to conceive again. “This group, composed of older women, likely has a higher prevalence of health problems, such as diabetes and obesity, which are known risk factors for having large-for-gestational-age (LGA) babies,” he said. He also highlighted the fact that the study showed that the risk for LGA also increased as the interval between pregnancies grew.

Another hypothesis suggested by the author is the possible occurrence of events between pregnancies, such as miscarriages or stillbirths. According to him, women who have experienced these events between two consecutive pregnancies may have falsely increased interpregnancy intervals, since miscarriages and stillbirths (which are considered conceptions) are not counted in SINASC.

“Thus, the lower occurrence of SGA in the group with very long intervals may reflect a competition of events between stillbirths or miscarriages and live SGAs,” he said.
 

Previous and Subsequent Adverse Events

The research also showed that the risks for subsequent SGA, LBW, and preterm birth were higher among women with a history of adverse events in previous pregnancies.

Furthermore, the authors noted that the previous occurrence of adverse outcomes seems to “have a more significant impact on the outcome of the current pregnancy than the interpregnancy interval.” 

“We found that, for women with the same interpregnancy interval (say < 6 months), but with different obstetric history (zero previous events vs one event), the absolute risk for subsequent adverse outcomes increased much more than when we change only the duration of the interval in a group with the same number of previous adverse events,” said Dr. Tedde.

There is still no convincing explanation for this fact, he said, since the cause-and-effect relationship between interpregnancy intervals and perinatal events is not clear. But the obstetrics literature generally shows that among the main risk factors for an adverse event is the previous occurrence of the same event. This effect could be related to living conditions and maternal habits, genetics, epigenetics, among others.

The researcher observed that this study is one of the largest in terms of sampling to investigate how maternal obstetric history can modulate the effect of interpregnancy interval on the risk for adverse outcomes in subsequent pregnancies.

The findings of the research published this year reinforce the importance of individualizing recommendations regarding interpregnancy intervals, considering factors such as maternal obstetric history. However, the author warns that it is still too early to point out the “best” interval for each situation.

“We need more studies that reproduce our findings and that expand the analyzed outcomes to also include those of interest to the mother, such as maternal mortality,” he concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How long should a woman wait before becoming pregnant again? According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is advisable to wait at least 24 months between childbirth and a new pregnancy. But a study published in February of this year in The Lancet Regional Health — Americas, using data from more than 4.7 million live births in Brazil, suggests that this recommendation should be individualized, considering factors such as maternal obstetric history.

Researchers from the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, São José do Rio Preto Medical School, Federal University of Bahia, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the United Kingdom, used a birth cohort from the Center for Data Integration and Knowledge for Health, which combines data from the Ministry of Health’s Information System on Live Births (SINASC) and from a cohort of 100 million Brazilians. 

In total, the analysis included information on 3,804,152 women and 4,788,279 births. All participants had at least two consecutive live births.

Most interpregnancy intervals, ie, the difference between the previous childbirth and the subsequent conception, ranged from 23 to 58 months (39.1%). Extreme intervals of < 6 months and > 120 months occurred in 5.6% and 1.6% of cases, respectively.

Regarding adverse outcomes, the research indicated that, in the general population, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) babies were observed in 8.4% of subsequent births, while low birth weight (LBW) occurred in 5.9% and preterm birth in 7.5%.
 

Interpregnancy Interval and SGA Risk

The authors noted that the risk for subsequent adverse outcomes increased with extreme interpregnancy intervals, with SGA being the only exception. In this case, women who had an interval between the previous childbirth and the subsequent conception > 120 months had a lower risk for SGA.

According to João Guilherme Tedde, a medical student at UFGD and the first author of the study, similar patterns (extremely long interpregnancy intervals associated with a lower risk for subsequent SGA) have been described in the literature. In an interview with this news organization, he explained some hypotheses that could explain this phenomenon.

According to the researcher, the finding may reflect the distinct risk profile of mothers who wait a very long time to conceive again. “This group, composed of older women, likely has a higher prevalence of health problems, such as diabetes and obesity, which are known risk factors for having large-for-gestational-age (LGA) babies,” he said. He also highlighted the fact that the study showed that the risk for LGA also increased as the interval between pregnancies grew.

Another hypothesis suggested by the author is the possible occurrence of events between pregnancies, such as miscarriages or stillbirths. According to him, women who have experienced these events between two consecutive pregnancies may have falsely increased interpregnancy intervals, since miscarriages and stillbirths (which are considered conceptions) are not counted in SINASC.

“Thus, the lower occurrence of SGA in the group with very long intervals may reflect a competition of events between stillbirths or miscarriages and live SGAs,” he said.
 

Previous and Subsequent Adverse Events

The research also showed that the risks for subsequent SGA, LBW, and preterm birth were higher among women with a history of adverse events in previous pregnancies.

Furthermore, the authors noted that the previous occurrence of adverse outcomes seems to “have a more significant impact on the outcome of the current pregnancy than the interpregnancy interval.” 

“We found that, for women with the same interpregnancy interval (say < 6 months), but with different obstetric history (zero previous events vs one event), the absolute risk for subsequent adverse outcomes increased much more than when we change only the duration of the interval in a group with the same number of previous adverse events,” said Dr. Tedde.

There is still no convincing explanation for this fact, he said, since the cause-and-effect relationship between interpregnancy intervals and perinatal events is not clear. But the obstetrics literature generally shows that among the main risk factors for an adverse event is the previous occurrence of the same event. This effect could be related to living conditions and maternal habits, genetics, epigenetics, among others.

The researcher observed that this study is one of the largest in terms of sampling to investigate how maternal obstetric history can modulate the effect of interpregnancy interval on the risk for adverse outcomes in subsequent pregnancies.

The findings of the research published this year reinforce the importance of individualizing recommendations regarding interpregnancy intervals, considering factors such as maternal obstetric history. However, the author warns that it is still too early to point out the “best” interval for each situation.

“We need more studies that reproduce our findings and that expand the analyzed outcomes to also include those of interest to the mother, such as maternal mortality,” he concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How long should a woman wait before becoming pregnant again? According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is advisable to wait at least 24 months between childbirth and a new pregnancy. But a study published in February of this year in The Lancet Regional Health — Americas, using data from more than 4.7 million live births in Brazil, suggests that this recommendation should be individualized, considering factors such as maternal obstetric history.

Researchers from the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, São José do Rio Preto Medical School, Federal University of Bahia, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the United Kingdom, used a birth cohort from the Center for Data Integration and Knowledge for Health, which combines data from the Ministry of Health’s Information System on Live Births (SINASC) and from a cohort of 100 million Brazilians. 

In total, the analysis included information on 3,804,152 women and 4,788,279 births. All participants had at least two consecutive live births.

Most interpregnancy intervals, ie, the difference between the previous childbirth and the subsequent conception, ranged from 23 to 58 months (39.1%). Extreme intervals of < 6 months and > 120 months occurred in 5.6% and 1.6% of cases, respectively.

Regarding adverse outcomes, the research indicated that, in the general population, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) babies were observed in 8.4% of subsequent births, while low birth weight (LBW) occurred in 5.9% and preterm birth in 7.5%.
 

Interpregnancy Interval and SGA Risk

The authors noted that the risk for subsequent adverse outcomes increased with extreme interpregnancy intervals, with SGA being the only exception. In this case, women who had an interval between the previous childbirth and the subsequent conception > 120 months had a lower risk for SGA.

According to João Guilherme Tedde, a medical student at UFGD and the first author of the study, similar patterns (extremely long interpregnancy intervals associated with a lower risk for subsequent SGA) have been described in the literature. In an interview with this news organization, he explained some hypotheses that could explain this phenomenon.

According to the researcher, the finding may reflect the distinct risk profile of mothers who wait a very long time to conceive again. “This group, composed of older women, likely has a higher prevalence of health problems, such as diabetes and obesity, which are known risk factors for having large-for-gestational-age (LGA) babies,” he said. He also highlighted the fact that the study showed that the risk for LGA also increased as the interval between pregnancies grew.

Another hypothesis suggested by the author is the possible occurrence of events between pregnancies, such as miscarriages or stillbirths. According to him, women who have experienced these events between two consecutive pregnancies may have falsely increased interpregnancy intervals, since miscarriages and stillbirths (which are considered conceptions) are not counted in SINASC.

“Thus, the lower occurrence of SGA in the group with very long intervals may reflect a competition of events between stillbirths or miscarriages and live SGAs,” he said.
 

Previous and Subsequent Adverse Events

The research also showed that the risks for subsequent SGA, LBW, and preterm birth were higher among women with a history of adverse events in previous pregnancies.

Furthermore, the authors noted that the previous occurrence of adverse outcomes seems to “have a more significant impact on the outcome of the current pregnancy than the interpregnancy interval.” 

“We found that, for women with the same interpregnancy interval (say < 6 months), but with different obstetric history (zero previous events vs one event), the absolute risk for subsequent adverse outcomes increased much more than when we change only the duration of the interval in a group with the same number of previous adverse events,” said Dr. Tedde.

There is still no convincing explanation for this fact, he said, since the cause-and-effect relationship between interpregnancy intervals and perinatal events is not clear. But the obstetrics literature generally shows that among the main risk factors for an adverse event is the previous occurrence of the same event. This effect could be related to living conditions and maternal habits, genetics, epigenetics, among others.

The researcher observed that this study is one of the largest in terms of sampling to investigate how maternal obstetric history can modulate the effect of interpregnancy interval on the risk for adverse outcomes in subsequent pregnancies.

The findings of the research published this year reinforce the importance of individualizing recommendations regarding interpregnancy intervals, considering factors such as maternal obstetric history. However, the author warns that it is still too early to point out the “best” interval for each situation.

“We need more studies that reproduce our findings and that expand the analyzed outcomes to also include those of interest to the mother, such as maternal mortality,” he concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAb) showed superior efficacy to botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) in reducing the migraine burden in patients with chronic migraine (CM).

Major finding: Anti-CGRP mAbs vs BoNT-A led to significant reductions in mean Headache Impact Test-6 and Allodynia Symptoms Checklist-12 scores at 6 months (mean change −11.1 vs −3.2 points, P < .0001; and −5.2 vs −0.5 points, P = .0056, respectively) and 12 months (mean change −11.4 vs −3.6 points, P = .0042; and −6.0 vs −0.9 points, P = .0011, respectively).

Study details: This exploratory analysis of the real-world effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAb vs BoNT-A included 126 patients with CM who were treated with anti-CGRP mAb (n = 36) or BoNT-A (n = 90).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. Some authors declared receiving funding, travel grants, honoraria, or personal fees for participation in advisory boards, speaker panels, and clinical investigation studies from various sources.

Source: Montisano DA, Giossi R, Canella M, et al. Reducing the impact of headache and allodynia score in chronic migraine: An exploratory analysis from the Real-world Effectiveness of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Compared to Onabotulinum Toxin A (RAMO) Study. Toxins. 2024;16(4):178. doi: 10.3390/toxins16040178 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAb) showed superior efficacy to botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) in reducing the migraine burden in patients with chronic migraine (CM).

Major finding: Anti-CGRP mAbs vs BoNT-A led to significant reductions in mean Headache Impact Test-6 and Allodynia Symptoms Checklist-12 scores at 6 months (mean change −11.1 vs −3.2 points, P < .0001; and −5.2 vs −0.5 points, P = .0056, respectively) and 12 months (mean change −11.4 vs −3.6 points, P = .0042; and −6.0 vs −0.9 points, P = .0011, respectively).

Study details: This exploratory analysis of the real-world effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAb vs BoNT-A included 126 patients with CM who were treated with anti-CGRP mAb (n = 36) or BoNT-A (n = 90).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. Some authors declared receiving funding, travel grants, honoraria, or personal fees for participation in advisory boards, speaker panels, and clinical investigation studies from various sources.

Source: Montisano DA, Giossi R, Canella M, et al. Reducing the impact of headache and allodynia score in chronic migraine: An exploratory analysis from the Real-world Effectiveness of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Compared to Onabotulinum Toxin A (RAMO) Study. Toxins. 2024;16(4):178. doi: 10.3390/toxins16040178 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAb) showed superior efficacy to botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) in reducing the migraine burden in patients with chronic migraine (CM).

Major finding: Anti-CGRP mAbs vs BoNT-A led to significant reductions in mean Headache Impact Test-6 and Allodynia Symptoms Checklist-12 scores at 6 months (mean change −11.1 vs −3.2 points, P < .0001; and −5.2 vs −0.5 points, P = .0056, respectively) and 12 months (mean change −11.4 vs −3.6 points, P = .0042; and −6.0 vs −0.9 points, P = .0011, respectively).

Study details: This exploratory analysis of the real-world effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAb vs BoNT-A included 126 patients with CM who were treated with anti-CGRP mAb (n = 36) or BoNT-A (n = 90).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. Some authors declared receiving funding, travel grants, honoraria, or personal fees for participation in advisory boards, speaker panels, and clinical investigation studies from various sources.

Source: Montisano DA, Giossi R, Canella M, et al. Reducing the impact of headache and allodynia score in chronic migraine: An exploratory analysis from the Real-world Effectiveness of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Compared to Onabotulinum Toxin A (RAMO) Study. Toxins. 2024;16(4):178. doi: 10.3390/toxins16040178 Source