Commentary

Cannavaping—the inhalation of a cannabis-containing aerosol, created by a battery-driven, heated atomizer in e-cigarettes or similar devices¹—is touted as a less expensive and safer alternative to smoking marijuana. It’s also gaining in popularity.² One study of Connecticut high school students found that 5.4% had used e-cigarettes to vaporize cannabis.³ But what do we know about this new way to get high?

We know that those who wish to cannavape can easily obtain e-cigarettes from gas stations and tobacco shops. They then have to obtain a cartridge, filled with either hash oil or tetrahydrocannabinol-infused wax, to attach to the e-cigarette. These cartridges are available for purchase in states that have legalized the sale of marijuana. They also find their way into states where the sale of marijuana is not legal, and are purchased illegally for the purpose of cannavaping.

And while cannavaping does appear to reduce the cost of smoking marijuana,⁴ it has not been widely researched, nor determined to be safe.⁵

In fact, although marijuana has several important therapeutic and medicinal purposes, cannavaping the substance can result in medical concerns.⁶ The vaping aerosols of some compounds can induce lung pathology and may be carcinogenic, since they often contain a number of dangerous toxins.⁴

Chronic marijuana use can increase the likelihood of motor vehicles accidents, cognitive impairment, psychoses, and demotivation.⁴ It may predispose certain individuals to use other drugs and tobacco products and could increase the consumption of marijuana.^4,5 Increased consumption could have a detrimental effect on intellect and behavior when used chronically—especially in youngsters, whose nervous systems are not yet fully matured.^7-9

Because cannavaping has potentially deleterious effects, more regulations on the manufacture, distribution, access, and use are indicated—at least until research sheds more light on issues surrounding this practice.

Steven Lippman, MD; Devina Singh, MD
Louisville, KY

Cannavaping—the inhalation of a cannabis-containing aerosol, created by a battery-driven, heated atomizer in e-cigarettes or similar devices¹—is touted as a less expensive and safer alternative to smoking marijuana. It’s also gaining in popularity.² One study of Connecticut high school students found that 5.4% had used e-cigarettes to vaporize cannabis.³ But what do we know about this new way to get high?

We know that those who wish to cannavape can easily obtain e-cigarettes from gas stations and tobacco shops. They then have to obtain a cartridge, filled with either hash oil or tetrahydrocannabinol-infused wax, to attach to the e-cigarette. These cartridges are available for purchase in states that have legalized the sale of marijuana. They also find their way into states where the sale of marijuana is not legal, and are purchased illegally for the purpose of cannavaping.

And while cannavaping does appear to reduce the cost of smoking marijuana,⁴ it has not been widely researched, nor determined to be safe.⁵

In fact, although marijuana has several important therapeutic and medicinal purposes, cannavaping the substance can result in medical concerns.⁶ The vaping aerosols of some compounds can induce lung pathology and may be carcinogenic, since they often contain a number of dangerous toxins.⁴

Chronic marijuana use can increase the likelihood of motor vehicles accidents, cognitive impairment, psychoses, and demotivation.⁴ It may predispose certain individuals to use other drugs and tobacco products and could increase the consumption of marijuana.^4,5 Increased consumption could have a detrimental effect on intellect and behavior when used chronically—especially in youngsters, whose nervous systems are not yet fully matured.^7-9

Because cannavaping has potentially deleterious effects, more regulations on the manufacture, distribution, access, and use are indicated—at least until research sheds more light on issues surrounding this practice.

Steven Lippman, MD; Devina Singh, MD
Louisville, KY

Cannavaping—the inhalation of a cannabis-containing aerosol, created by a battery-driven, heated atomizer in e-cigarettes or similar devices¹—is touted as a less expensive and safer alternative to smoking marijuana. It’s also gaining in popularity.² One study of Connecticut high school students found that 5.4% had used e-cigarettes to vaporize cannabis.³ But what do we know about this new way to get high?

We know that those who wish to cannavape can easily obtain e-cigarettes from gas stations and tobacco shops. They then have to obtain a cartridge, filled with either hash oil or tetrahydrocannabinol-infused wax, to attach to the e-cigarette. These cartridges are available for purchase in states that have legalized the sale of marijuana. They also find their way into states where the sale of marijuana is not legal, and are purchased illegally for the purpose of cannavaping.

And while cannavaping does appear to reduce the cost of smoking marijuana,⁴ it has not been widely researched, nor determined to be safe.⁵

In fact, although marijuana has several important therapeutic and medicinal purposes, cannavaping the substance can result in medical concerns.⁶ The vaping aerosols of some compounds can induce lung pathology and may be carcinogenic, since they often contain a number of dangerous toxins.⁴

Chronic marijuana use can increase the likelihood of motor vehicles accidents, cognitive impairment, psychoses, and demotivation.⁴ It may predispose certain individuals to use other drugs and tobacco products and could increase the consumption of marijuana.^4,5 Increased consumption could have a detrimental effect on intellect and behavior when used chronically—especially in youngsters, whose nervous systems are not yet fully matured.^7-9

Because cannavaping has potentially deleterious effects, more regulations on the manufacture, distribution, access, and use are indicated—at least until research sheds more light on issues surrounding this practice.

Steven Lippman, MD; Devina Singh, MD
Louisville, KY

Last month’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, which killed 59 people and wounded 500, was committed by a single individual who legally purchased an arsenal that allowed him to fire hundreds of high-caliber bullets within minutes into a large crowd. This is just the latest in a series of high-profile mass killings that appear to be increasing in frequency.¹

As terrifying as mass murders are, they account for only a small fraction of gun-related mortality. Everyday about 80 people in the United States are killed by a gun, usually by someone they know or by themselves (almost two-thirds of gun-related mortality involves suicide).² No other developed country even comes close to our rate of gun-related violence.²

What to do? Recall anti-smoking efforts. Gun violence is a public health issue that should be addressed with tried and proven public health methods. A couple of examples from history hold valuable lessons. While tobacco-related mortality and morbidity remain public health concerns, we have made marked improvements and saved many lives through a series of public health interventions including increasing the price of tobacco products, restricting advertising and sales to minors, and prohibiting smoking in public areas, to name a few.³

These interventions occurred because the public recognized the threat of tobacco and was willing to adopt them. This was not always the case. During the first half of my life, smoking in public, including indoors at public events and even on airplanes, was accepted, and the “rights of smokers” were respected. This now seems inconceivable. Public health interventions work, and public perceptions and attitudes can change.

If we gather data and fund research, we can make changes to reduce deaths while maintaining the right to own a firearm.

Consider inroads made in driver safety, too. We have also made marked improvements in motor vehicle crash-related deaths and injuries.⁴ For decades, we have recorded hundreds of data points on every car crash resulting in a death in a comprehensive database—the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). These data have been used by researchers to identify causes of crashes and crash-related deaths and have led to improvements in car design and road safety. Additional factors leading to improved road safety include restrictions on the age at which one can drive and on drinking alcohol and driving.

We can achieve similar improvements in gun-related mortality if we establish and maintain a comprehensive database, encourage and fund research, and are willing to adopt some commonsense product improvements and ownership restrictions that, nevertheless, preserve the right for most to responsibly own a firearm.

Don’t you think it’s time?

Last month’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, which killed 59 people and wounded 500, was committed by a single individual who legally purchased an arsenal that allowed him to fire hundreds of high-caliber bullets within minutes into a large crowd. This is just the latest in a series of high-profile mass killings that appear to be increasing in frequency.¹

As terrifying as mass murders are, they account for only a small fraction of gun-related mortality. Everyday about 80 people in the United States are killed by a gun, usually by someone they know or by themselves (almost two-thirds of gun-related mortality involves suicide).² No other developed country even comes close to our rate of gun-related violence.²

What to do? Recall anti-smoking efforts. Gun violence is a public health issue that should be addressed with tried and proven public health methods. A couple of examples from history hold valuable lessons. While tobacco-related mortality and morbidity remain public health concerns, we have made marked improvements and saved many lives through a series of public health interventions including increasing the price of tobacco products, restricting advertising and sales to minors, and prohibiting smoking in public areas, to name a few.³

These interventions occurred because the public recognized the threat of tobacco and was willing to adopt them. This was not always the case. During the first half of my life, smoking in public, including indoors at public events and even on airplanes, was accepted, and the “rights of smokers” were respected. This now seems inconceivable. Public health interventions work, and public perceptions and attitudes can change.

If we gather data and fund research, we can make changes to reduce deaths while maintaining the right to own a firearm.

Consider inroads made in driver safety, too. We have also made marked improvements in motor vehicle crash-related deaths and injuries.⁴ For decades, we have recorded hundreds of data points on every car crash resulting in a death in a comprehensive database—the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). These data have been used by researchers to identify causes of crashes and crash-related deaths and have led to improvements in car design and road safety. Additional factors leading to improved road safety include restrictions on the age at which one can drive and on drinking alcohol and driving.

We can achieve similar improvements in gun-related mortality if we establish and maintain a comprehensive database, encourage and fund research, and are willing to adopt some commonsense product improvements and ownership restrictions that, nevertheless, preserve the right for most to responsibly own a firearm.

Don’t you think it’s time?

Last month’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, which killed 59 people and wounded 500, was committed by a single individual who legally purchased an arsenal that allowed him to fire hundreds of high-caliber bullets within minutes into a large crowd. This is just the latest in a series of high-profile mass killings that appear to be increasing in frequency.¹

As terrifying as mass murders are, they account for only a small fraction of gun-related mortality. Everyday about 80 people in the United States are killed by a gun, usually by someone they know or by themselves (almost two-thirds of gun-related mortality involves suicide).² No other developed country even comes close to our rate of gun-related violence.²

What to do? Recall anti-smoking efforts. Gun violence is a public health issue that should be addressed with tried and proven public health methods. A couple of examples from history hold valuable lessons. While tobacco-related mortality and morbidity remain public health concerns, we have made marked improvements and saved many lives through a series of public health interventions including increasing the price of tobacco products, restricting advertising and sales to minors, and prohibiting smoking in public areas, to name a few.³

These interventions occurred because the public recognized the threat of tobacco and was willing to adopt them. This was not always the case. During the first half of my life, smoking in public, including indoors at public events and even on airplanes, was accepted, and the “rights of smokers” were respected. This now seems inconceivable. Public health interventions work, and public perceptions and attitudes can change.

If we gather data and fund research, we can make changes to reduce deaths while maintaining the right to own a firearm.

Consider inroads made in driver safety, too. We have also made marked improvements in motor vehicle crash-related deaths and injuries.⁴ For decades, we have recorded hundreds of data points on every car crash resulting in a death in a comprehensive database—the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). These data have been used by researchers to identify causes of crashes and crash-related deaths and have led to improvements in car design and road safety. Additional factors leading to improved road safety include restrictions on the age at which one can drive and on drinking alcohol and driving.

We can achieve similar improvements in gun-related mortality if we establish and maintain a comprehensive database, encourage and fund research, and are willing to adopt some commonsense product improvements and ownership restrictions that, nevertheless, preserve the right for most to responsibly own a firearm.

Don’t you think it’s time?

Once upon a time, and long ago, dermatology journals included “syphilology” in their names. The first dermatologic journal published in the United States was the American Journal of Syphilology and Dermatology.¹ In October 1882 the Journal of Cutaneous and Venereal Diseases appeared and subsequently renamed several times from 1882 to 1919: Journal of Cutaneous Diseases and Genitourinary Diseases and the Journal of Cutaneous Diseases, Including Syphilis. When the American Medical Association (AMA) assumed control, this publication obtained a new name: Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology; in January 1955 syphilology was deleted from the title. According to an editorial in that issue, the rationale for dropping the word syphilology was as follows: “The diagnosis and treatment of patients with syphilis is no longer an important part of dermatologic practice. . . . Few dermatologists now have patients with syphilis; in fact, there are decidedly fewer patients with syphilis, and so continuance of the old label, ‘Syphilology,’ on this publication seems no longer warranted.”¹ Needless to say, this decision ignored the obvious fact that the majority of dermatologists traditionally were well trained in and clinically practiced venereology, particularly the management of syphilis,^2,3 which makes sense, considering that many of the clinical manifestations of syphilis involve the skin, hair, and oral mucosa. My own mentor and former Baylor College of Medicine dermatology department chair, Dr. John Knox, authored 3 dozen major publications regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and immunology of syphilis. During his chairmanship, all residents were required to rotate in the Harris County sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic on a weekly basis.

I am confident that the decision to drop “syphilology” from the journal title also was based on the unduly optimistic assumption that syphilis would soon become a rare disease due to the availability of penicillin. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States has periodically announced strategic programs designed to eradicate syphilis!⁴ This rosy outlook reached a fever pitch in 2000 when the number of cases (5979) and the incidence (2.1 cases per 100,000 population) of primary and secondary syphilis reached an all-time low in the United States.⁵

Unfortunately, no one could accurately predict the future. Although the number of cases and incidence of early infectious syphilis have fluctuated widely since the 1940s, we currently are in a dire period of syphilis resurgence; the largest number of cases (27,814) and the highest incidence rate of primary and secondary syphilis (8.7 cases per 100,000 population) since 1994 were reported in 2016,⁶ which illustrates the inability of public health initiatives to eliminate syphilis, largely due to the inability of health authorities, health care providers, teachers, parents, clergy, and peer groups to alter sexual behaviors or modify other socioeconomic factors.⁷ Thus, syphilis lives on! Nobody could have predicted the easy availability of oral contraceptives and the ensuing sexual revolution of the 1960s or the advent of erectile dysfunction drugs decades later that led to increasing STDs among older patients.⁸ Nobody could have predicted the wholesale acceptance of casual sexual intercourse as popularized on television and in the movies or the pervasive use of sexual images in advertising. Nobody could have predicted the modern phenomena of “booty-call relationships,” “friends with benefits,” and “sexting,” or the nearly ubiquitous and increasingly legal use of noninjectable mind-altering drugs, all of which facilitate the perpetuation of STDs.^9-11 Finally, those who removed “syphilology” from that journal title certainly did not foresee the worldwide epidemic now known as human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, which has most assuredly helped keep syphilis a modern day menace.^12-14

How have dermatologists been impacted? Our journals and our teachers have deemphasized STDs, including syphilis, in modern times, yet we are faced with a disease carrying serious, if not often fatal, consequences that is simply refusing to disappear (contrary to wishful thinking). Dermatologists are, however, in a perfect epidemiological position to help in the war against Treponema pallidum, the bacterium that causes syphilis. We frequently see adolescent patients for warts and acne, and we often diagnose and help care for patients with human immunodeficiency virus. We obliterate actinic keratoses and perform cosmetic procedures on those who rely on erectile dysfunction drugs (or their partners do). Who better than a dermatologist to recognize in these high-risk constituencies, and others, that patchy hair loss may represent syphilitic alopecia and that extragenital chancres can mimic nonmelanoma skin cancer? Who better than the dermatologist to distinguish between oral mucous patches and orolabial herpes? Who better than the dermatologist to diagnose the annular syphilid of the face, or ostraceous, florid nodular, or ulceronecrotic lesions of lues maligna? Who better than the dermatologist to differentiate condylomata lata from external genital warts?

I would suggest that the responsible dermatologist become reacquainted with syphilis, in all its various manifestations. I would further suggest that our dermatology training centers spend more time diligently teaching residents about syphilis and other STDs. In conclusion, I fervently hope that organized dermatology will once again dutifully consider venereal disease to be a critical part of our specialty’s skill set.

Once upon a time, and long ago, dermatology journals included “syphilology” in their names. The first dermatologic journal published in the United States was the American Journal of Syphilology and Dermatology.¹ In October 1882 the Journal of Cutaneous and Venereal Diseases appeared and subsequently renamed several times from 1882 to 1919: Journal of Cutaneous Diseases and Genitourinary Diseases and the Journal of Cutaneous Diseases, Including Syphilis. When the American Medical Association (AMA) assumed control, this publication obtained a new name: Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology; in January 1955 syphilology was deleted from the title. According to an editorial in that issue, the rationale for dropping the word syphilology was as follows: “The diagnosis and treatment of patients with syphilis is no longer an important part of dermatologic practice. . . . Few dermatologists now have patients with syphilis; in fact, there are decidedly fewer patients with syphilis, and so continuance of the old label, ‘Syphilology,’ on this publication seems no longer warranted.”¹ Needless to say, this decision ignored the obvious fact that the majority of dermatologists traditionally were well trained in and clinically practiced venereology, particularly the management of syphilis,^2,3 which makes sense, considering that many of the clinical manifestations of syphilis involve the skin, hair, and oral mucosa. My own mentor and former Baylor College of Medicine dermatology department chair, Dr. John Knox, authored 3 dozen major publications regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and immunology of syphilis. During his chairmanship, all residents were required to rotate in the Harris County sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic on a weekly basis.

I am confident that the decision to drop “syphilology” from the journal title also was based on the unduly optimistic assumption that syphilis would soon become a rare disease due to the availability of penicillin. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States has periodically announced strategic programs designed to eradicate syphilis!⁴ This rosy outlook reached a fever pitch in 2000 when the number of cases (5979) and the incidence (2.1 cases per 100,000 population) of primary and secondary syphilis reached an all-time low in the United States.⁵

Unfortunately, no one could accurately predict the future. Although the number of cases and incidence of early infectious syphilis have fluctuated widely since the 1940s, we currently are in a dire period of syphilis resurgence; the largest number of cases (27,814) and the highest incidence rate of primary and secondary syphilis (8.7 cases per 100,000 population) since 1994 were reported in 2016,⁶ which illustrates the inability of public health initiatives to eliminate syphilis, largely due to the inability of health authorities, health care providers, teachers, parents, clergy, and peer groups to alter sexual behaviors or modify other socioeconomic factors.⁷ Thus, syphilis lives on! Nobody could have predicted the easy availability of oral contraceptives and the ensuing sexual revolution of the 1960s or the advent of erectile dysfunction drugs decades later that led to increasing STDs among older patients.⁸ Nobody could have predicted the wholesale acceptance of casual sexual intercourse as popularized on television and in the movies or the pervasive use of sexual images in advertising. Nobody could have predicted the modern phenomena of “booty-call relationships,” “friends with benefits,” and “sexting,” or the nearly ubiquitous and increasingly legal use of noninjectable mind-altering drugs, all of which facilitate the perpetuation of STDs.^9-11 Finally, those who removed “syphilology” from that journal title certainly did not foresee the worldwide epidemic now known as human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, which has most assuredly helped keep syphilis a modern day menace.^12-14

How have dermatologists been impacted? Our journals and our teachers have deemphasized STDs, including syphilis, in modern times, yet we are faced with a disease carrying serious, if not often fatal, consequences that is simply refusing to disappear (contrary to wishful thinking). Dermatologists are, however, in a perfect epidemiological position to help in the war against Treponema pallidum, the bacterium that causes syphilis. We frequently see adolescent patients for warts and acne, and we often diagnose and help care for patients with human immunodeficiency virus. We obliterate actinic keratoses and perform cosmetic procedures on those who rely on erectile dysfunction drugs (or their partners do). Who better than a dermatologist to recognize in these high-risk constituencies, and others, that patchy hair loss may represent syphilitic alopecia and that extragenital chancres can mimic nonmelanoma skin cancer? Who better than the dermatologist to distinguish between oral mucous patches and orolabial herpes? Who better than the dermatologist to diagnose the annular syphilid of the face, or ostraceous, florid nodular, or ulceronecrotic lesions of lues maligna? Who better than the dermatologist to differentiate condylomata lata from external genital warts?

I would suggest that the responsible dermatologist become reacquainted with syphilis, in all its various manifestations. I would further suggest that our dermatology training centers spend more time diligently teaching residents about syphilis and other STDs. In conclusion, I fervently hope that organized dermatology will once again dutifully consider venereal disease to be a critical part of our specialty’s skill set.

Once upon a time, and long ago, dermatology journals included “syphilology” in their names. The first dermatologic journal published in the United States was the American Journal of Syphilology and Dermatology.¹ In October 1882 the Journal of Cutaneous and Venereal Diseases appeared and subsequently renamed several times from 1882 to 1919: Journal of Cutaneous Diseases and Genitourinary Diseases and the Journal of Cutaneous Diseases, Including Syphilis. When the American Medical Association (AMA) assumed control, this publication obtained a new name: Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology; in January 1955 syphilology was deleted from the title. According to an editorial in that issue, the rationale for dropping the word syphilology was as follows: “The diagnosis and treatment of patients with syphilis is no longer an important part of dermatologic practice. . . . Few dermatologists now have patients with syphilis; in fact, there are decidedly fewer patients with syphilis, and so continuance of the old label, ‘Syphilology,’ on this publication seems no longer warranted.”¹ Needless to say, this decision ignored the obvious fact that the majority of dermatologists traditionally were well trained in and clinically practiced venereology, particularly the management of syphilis,^2,3 which makes sense, considering that many of the clinical manifestations of syphilis involve the skin, hair, and oral mucosa. My own mentor and former Baylor College of Medicine dermatology department chair, Dr. John Knox, authored 3 dozen major publications regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and immunology of syphilis. During his chairmanship, all residents were required to rotate in the Harris County sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic on a weekly basis.

I am confident that the decision to drop “syphilology” from the journal title also was based on the unduly optimistic assumption that syphilis would soon become a rare disease due to the availability of penicillin. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States has periodically announced strategic programs designed to eradicate syphilis!⁴ This rosy outlook reached a fever pitch in 2000 when the number of cases (5979) and the incidence (2.1 cases per 100,000 population) of primary and secondary syphilis reached an all-time low in the United States.⁵

Unfortunately, no one could accurately predict the future. Although the number of cases and incidence of early infectious syphilis have fluctuated widely since the 1940s, we currently are in a dire period of syphilis resurgence; the largest number of cases (27,814) and the highest incidence rate of primary and secondary syphilis (8.7 cases per 100,000 population) since 1994 were reported in 2016,⁶ which illustrates the inability of public health initiatives to eliminate syphilis, largely due to the inability of health authorities, health care providers, teachers, parents, clergy, and peer groups to alter sexual behaviors or modify other socioeconomic factors.⁷ Thus, syphilis lives on! Nobody could have predicted the easy availability of oral contraceptives and the ensuing sexual revolution of the 1960s or the advent of erectile dysfunction drugs decades later that led to increasing STDs among older patients.⁸ Nobody could have predicted the wholesale acceptance of casual sexual intercourse as popularized on television and in the movies or the pervasive use of sexual images in advertising. Nobody could have predicted the modern phenomena of “booty-call relationships,” “friends with benefits,” and “sexting,” or the nearly ubiquitous and increasingly legal use of noninjectable mind-altering drugs, all of which facilitate the perpetuation of STDs.^9-11 Finally, those who removed “syphilology” from that journal title certainly did not foresee the worldwide epidemic now known as human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, which has most assuredly helped keep syphilis a modern day menace.^12-14

How have dermatologists been impacted? Our journals and our teachers have deemphasized STDs, including syphilis, in modern times, yet we are faced with a disease carrying serious, if not often fatal, consequences that is simply refusing to disappear (contrary to wishful thinking). Dermatologists are, however, in a perfect epidemiological position to help in the war against Treponema pallidum, the bacterium that causes syphilis. We frequently see adolescent patients for warts and acne, and we often diagnose and help care for patients with human immunodeficiency virus. We obliterate actinic keratoses and perform cosmetic procedures on those who rely on erectile dysfunction drugs (or their partners do). Who better than a dermatologist to recognize in these high-risk constituencies, and others, that patchy hair loss may represent syphilitic alopecia and that extragenital chancres can mimic nonmelanoma skin cancer? Who better than the dermatologist to distinguish between oral mucous patches and orolabial herpes? Who better than the dermatologist to diagnose the annular syphilid of the face, or ostraceous, florid nodular, or ulceronecrotic lesions of lues maligna? Who better than the dermatologist to differentiate condylomata lata from external genital warts?

I would suggest that the responsible dermatologist become reacquainted with syphilis, in all its various manifestations. I would further suggest that our dermatology training centers spend more time diligently teaching residents about syphilis and other STDs. In conclusion, I fervently hope that organized dermatology will once again dutifully consider venereal disease to be a critical part of our specialty’s skill set.

Nearly half of American children have faced one adverse childhood experience (ACE), according to new analysis of the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health, and more than 20% have had two ACEs or more. This may include abuse or neglect, witnessing violence, parental substance abuse, mental illness, or incarceration. And from news headlines, we are all too aware of other traumas children face, such as natural disasters and mass violence.

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Street Workshop

Dr. Betancourt is the senior vice president for U.S. social impact at Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit media and educational organization behind Sesame Street, in New York.

Nearly half of American children have faced one adverse childhood experience (ACE), according to new analysis of the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health, and more than 20% have had two ACEs or more. This may include abuse or neglect, witnessing violence, parental substance abuse, mental illness, or incarceration. And from news headlines, we are all too aware of other traumas children face, such as natural disasters and mass violence.

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Street Workshop

Dr. Betancourt is the senior vice president for U.S. social impact at Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit media and educational organization behind Sesame Street, in New York.

Nearly half of American children have faced one adverse childhood experience (ACE), according to new analysis of the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health, and more than 20% have had two ACEs or more. This may include abuse or neglect, witnessing violence, parental substance abuse, mental illness, or incarceration. And from news headlines, we are all too aware of other traumas children face, such as natural disasters and mass violence.

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Workshop 2017

Sesame Street Workshop

Dr. Betancourt is the senior vice president for U.S. social impact at Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit media and educational organization behind Sesame Street, in New York.

The case history has been the cornerstone of clinical learning since the first record of medical encounters in ancient Egypt.¹ The methodical process of taking a patient history by Hippocratic physicians enabled an empirical approach to medicine centuries before the scientific revolution. From Freud in psychiatry to Giovanni Morgagni in pathology—case reports have been the time-honored and time-tested vehicle for teaching medicine.²

Most American physicians grew up reading the most famous modern series of histories, the “Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital,” published in that pinnacle of medical scholarship, The New England Journal of Medicine. Now, also from Boston, I’m proud to announce that Federal Practitioner has its own case series, The VA Boston Medical Forum (HIV-Positive Veteran With Progressive Visual Changes, page 18).

The VA Boston Medical Forum is a printed (and electronic, these days) version of the case conferences held at the flagship VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS), which has academic affiliations with the Boston Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Brian Hoffman, professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School, who previously served as the chief of internal medicine at the VABHS, founded the series, which has continued for more than 10 years.

The didactic driving force of this medical forum are the VABHS chief medical residents and their director of residency education. It is—as you will see in this issue—a case report taken from a weekly multidisciplinary conference. We feel the authors have captured much of the interactive ambience of those case conferences, including laboratory values, medical images, extensive references, and takeaway points, as though you were there at morning rounds.

Each case involves a VA patient and presents in traditional case history format a discussion of the diagnosis and treatment of a challenging patient. Just as they do at the actual case conferences, the chief medical residents moderate these discussions, which also feature expert opinions from nationally recognized leaders in their respective medical specialties.

From the many cases they present, the chief medical residents and their director of residency education will select cases that focus on clinical problems relevant to those caring for veterans, such as homelessness, comorbid substance use disorders, along with thought provoking and complex medical presentations that will test the clinical reasoning of the most experienced diagnostician.

Over many years as a medical educator, I have come to believe that whether it is ethics or surgery, we all learn best from an interesting case history and a good medical mystery. We hope to provide both in this conversational, question-and-answer format. Think back to your days on the wards: You can have all that intellectual stimulation without the night call and “pimping.” So from the comfort of your favorite reading spot, we invite you to sit back and enjoy. This is continuing medical education at its best, and I am proud to welcome our readers to the inaugural case of what we at Federal Practitioner hope will be an enduring feature. We thank the authors of the Boston Medical Forum for their dedication to enhancing VA academic medicine and, most important, helping us all to be smarter caregivers for our veterans.

The case history has been the cornerstone of clinical learning since the first record of medical encounters in ancient Egypt.¹ The methodical process of taking a patient history by Hippocratic physicians enabled an empirical approach to medicine centuries before the scientific revolution. From Freud in psychiatry to Giovanni Morgagni in pathology—case reports have been the time-honored and time-tested vehicle for teaching medicine.²

Most American physicians grew up reading the most famous modern series of histories, the “Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital,” published in that pinnacle of medical scholarship, The New England Journal of Medicine. Now, also from Boston, I’m proud to announce that Federal Practitioner has its own case series, The VA Boston Medical Forum (HIV-Positive Veteran With Progressive Visual Changes, page 18).

The VA Boston Medical Forum is a printed (and electronic, these days) version of the case conferences held at the flagship VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS), which has academic affiliations with the Boston Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Brian Hoffman, professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School, who previously served as the chief of internal medicine at the VABHS, founded the series, which has continued for more than 10 years.

The didactic driving force of this medical forum are the VABHS chief medical residents and their director of residency education. It is—as you will see in this issue—a case report taken from a weekly multidisciplinary conference. We feel the authors have captured much of the interactive ambience of those case conferences, including laboratory values, medical images, extensive references, and takeaway points, as though you were there at morning rounds.

Each case involves a VA patient and presents in traditional case history format a discussion of the diagnosis and treatment of a challenging patient. Just as they do at the actual case conferences, the chief medical residents moderate these discussions, which also feature expert opinions from nationally recognized leaders in their respective medical specialties.

From the many cases they present, the chief medical residents and their director of residency education will select cases that focus on clinical problems relevant to those caring for veterans, such as homelessness, comorbid substance use disorders, along with thought provoking and complex medical presentations that will test the clinical reasoning of the most experienced diagnostician.

Over many years as a medical educator, I have come to believe that whether it is ethics or surgery, we all learn best from an interesting case history and a good medical mystery. We hope to provide both in this conversational, question-and-answer format. Think back to your days on the wards: You can have all that intellectual stimulation without the night call and “pimping.” So from the comfort of your favorite reading spot, we invite you to sit back and enjoy. This is continuing medical education at its best, and I am proud to welcome our readers to the inaugural case of what we at Federal Practitioner hope will be an enduring feature. We thank the authors of the Boston Medical Forum for their dedication to enhancing VA academic medicine and, most important, helping us all to be smarter caregivers for our veterans.

The case history has been the cornerstone of clinical learning since the first record of medical encounters in ancient Egypt.¹ The methodical process of taking a patient history by Hippocratic physicians enabled an empirical approach to medicine centuries before the scientific revolution. From Freud in psychiatry to Giovanni Morgagni in pathology—case reports have been the time-honored and time-tested vehicle for teaching medicine.²

Most American physicians grew up reading the most famous modern series of histories, the “Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital,” published in that pinnacle of medical scholarship, The New England Journal of Medicine. Now, also from Boston, I’m proud to announce that Federal Practitioner has its own case series, The VA Boston Medical Forum (HIV-Positive Veteran With Progressive Visual Changes, page 18).

The VA Boston Medical Forum is a printed (and electronic, these days) version of the case conferences held at the flagship VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS), which has academic affiliations with the Boston Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Brian Hoffman, professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School, who previously served as the chief of internal medicine at the VABHS, founded the series, which has continued for more than 10 years.

The didactic driving force of this medical forum are the VABHS chief medical residents and their director of residency education. It is—as you will see in this issue—a case report taken from a weekly multidisciplinary conference. We feel the authors have captured much of the interactive ambience of those case conferences, including laboratory values, medical images, extensive references, and takeaway points, as though you were there at morning rounds.

Each case involves a VA patient and presents in traditional case history format a discussion of the diagnosis and treatment of a challenging patient. Just as they do at the actual case conferences, the chief medical residents moderate these discussions, which also feature expert opinions from nationally recognized leaders in their respective medical specialties.

From the many cases they present, the chief medical residents and their director of residency education will select cases that focus on clinical problems relevant to those caring for veterans, such as homelessness, comorbid substance use disorders, along with thought provoking and complex medical presentations that will test the clinical reasoning of the most experienced diagnostician.

Over many years as a medical educator, I have come to believe that whether it is ethics or surgery, we all learn best from an interesting case history and a good medical mystery. We hope to provide both in this conversational, question-and-answer format. Think back to your days on the wards: You can have all that intellectual stimulation without the night call and “pimping.” So from the comfort of your favorite reading spot, we invite you to sit back and enjoy. This is continuing medical education at its best, and I am proud to welcome our readers to the inaugural case of what we at Federal Practitioner hope will be an enduring feature. We thank the authors of the Boston Medical Forum for their dedication to enhancing VA academic medicine and, most important, helping us all to be smarter caregivers for our veterans.

The widespread use of fetal ultrasound has dramatically decreased the number of delivery room surprises. In this country, most infants with a cardiac anomaly detected in utero probably are delivered at tertiary medical centers, leapfrogging over the maternity units at their local community hospitals. But infants with critical cardiac conditions continue to arrive unheralded at every hospital, both large and small. And many of these babies are asymptomatic without tachypnea or cyanosis. A study reported in the October 2017 Pediatrics by Hu et al. suggests a strategy for detecting these little masters of disguise before their lesions get them into serious trouble (doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1154).

Pulse oximetry has been widely debated as a method for detecting congenital heart disease, because of course it misses the cases that are acyanotic. In a series of more than 150,000 asymptomatic neonates, these investigators combined cardiac auscultation with pulse oximetry and achieved a sensitivity of 96% in detecting critical congenital heart disease and 92% for major congenital heart disease. Their false-positive rate for both categories was just a bit over 1%.

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

The widespread use of fetal ultrasound has dramatically decreased the number of delivery room surprises. In this country, most infants with a cardiac anomaly detected in utero probably are delivered at tertiary medical centers, leapfrogging over the maternity units at their local community hospitals. But infants with critical cardiac conditions continue to arrive unheralded at every hospital, both large and small. And many of these babies are asymptomatic without tachypnea or cyanosis. A study reported in the October 2017 Pediatrics by Hu et al. suggests a strategy for detecting these little masters of disguise before their lesions get them into serious trouble (doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1154).

Pulse oximetry has been widely debated as a method for detecting congenital heart disease, because of course it misses the cases that are acyanotic. In a series of more than 150,000 asymptomatic neonates, these investigators combined cardiac auscultation with pulse oximetry and achieved a sensitivity of 96% in detecting critical congenital heart disease and 92% for major congenital heart disease. Their false-positive rate for both categories was just a bit over 1%.

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

The widespread use of fetal ultrasound has dramatically decreased the number of delivery room surprises. In this country, most infants with a cardiac anomaly detected in utero probably are delivered at tertiary medical centers, leapfrogging over the maternity units at their local community hospitals. But infants with critical cardiac conditions continue to arrive unheralded at every hospital, both large and small. And many of these babies are asymptomatic without tachypnea or cyanosis. A study reported in the October 2017 Pediatrics by Hu et al. suggests a strategy for detecting these little masters of disguise before their lesions get them into serious trouble (doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1154).

Pulse oximetry has been widely debated as a method for detecting congenital heart disease, because of course it misses the cases that are acyanotic. In a series of more than 150,000 asymptomatic neonates, these investigators combined cardiac auscultation with pulse oximetry and achieved a sensitivity of 96% in detecting critical congenital heart disease and 92% for major congenital heart disease. Their false-positive rate for both categories was just a bit over 1%.

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

For many years I have counseled medical students and residents that half of what I was taught in medical school has since been proven obsolete or frankly wrong. I counsel them that I have no reason to believe that I am any better than my professors were. So I wish them luck sorting out what is true. Earlier in my career, that warning was mild hyperbole, but not anymore.

Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are the most common reason for an office visit during the winter. Bronchiolitis is the most frequent diagnosis for a winter admission of an infant to a community hospital. Pediatricians have nuanced assessments and many options when treating these diseases. Best practices have changed frequently over the past 3 decades, mostly by eliminating previously espoused treatments as ineffective. In infants and young children, those obsolete treatments include decongestants and cough suppressants for young children with common colds, inhaled beta-agonists and steroids for infants with bronchiolitis, and antibiotics for simple otitis media in older children. In other words, most of what I was originally taught.

copyright iStock/Thinkstock

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

For many years I have counseled medical students and residents that half of what I was taught in medical school has since been proven obsolete or frankly wrong. I counsel them that I have no reason to believe that I am any better than my professors were. So I wish them luck sorting out what is true. Earlier in my career, that warning was mild hyperbole, but not anymore.

Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are the most common reason for an office visit during the winter. Bronchiolitis is the most frequent diagnosis for a winter admission of an infant to a community hospital. Pediatricians have nuanced assessments and many options when treating these diseases. Best practices have changed frequently over the past 3 decades, mostly by eliminating previously espoused treatments as ineffective. In infants and young children, those obsolete treatments include decongestants and cough suppressants for young children with common colds, inhaled beta-agonists and steroids for infants with bronchiolitis, and antibiotics for simple otitis media in older children. In other words, most of what I was originally taught.

copyright iStock/Thinkstock

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

For many years I have counseled medical students and residents that half of what I was taught in medical school has since been proven obsolete or frankly wrong. I counsel them that I have no reason to believe that I am any better than my professors were. So I wish them luck sorting out what is true. Earlier in my career, that warning was mild hyperbole, but not anymore.

Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are the most common reason for an office visit during the winter. Bronchiolitis is the most frequent diagnosis for a winter admission of an infant to a community hospital. Pediatricians have nuanced assessments and many options when treating these diseases. Best practices have changed frequently over the past 3 decades, mostly by eliminating previously espoused treatments as ineffective. In infants and young children, those obsolete treatments include decongestants and cough suppressants for young children with common colds, inhaled beta-agonists and steroids for infants with bronchiolitis, and antibiotics for simple otitis media in older children. In other words, most of what I was originally taught.

copyright iStock/Thinkstock

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

In 1967, pediatric patients were vaccinated routinely against eight diseases with 10 vaccines: smallpox; diphtheria; tetanus and pertussis; polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3; measles; rubella; and mumps. Then in 1989, vaccine discovery took a dramatic upward trend. For the physicians and scientists involved in vaccine discovery, the driving force may have been a passion for scientific discovery and a humanitarian motivation, but what drove this major change in pediatric infectious diseases was economics.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. He has received funding awarded to his institution for vaccine research from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].

In 1967, pediatric patients were vaccinated routinely against eight diseases with 10 vaccines: smallpox; diphtheria; tetanus and pertussis; polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3; measles; rubella; and mumps. Then in 1989, vaccine discovery took a dramatic upward trend. For the physicians and scientists involved in vaccine discovery, the driving force may have been a passion for scientific discovery and a humanitarian motivation, but what drove this major change in pediatric infectious diseases was economics.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. He has received funding awarded to his institution for vaccine research from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].

In 1967, pediatric patients were vaccinated routinely against eight diseases with 10 vaccines: smallpox; diphtheria; tetanus and pertussis; polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3; measles; rubella; and mumps. Then in 1989, vaccine discovery took a dramatic upward trend. For the physicians and scientists involved in vaccine discovery, the driving force may have been a passion for scientific discovery and a humanitarian motivation, but what drove this major change in pediatric infectious diseases was economics.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. He has received funding awarded to his institution for vaccine research from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].