User login
Cannabis use in pregnancy and lactation: A changing landscape
National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.1
Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.4
With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.5,6
A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.
Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.
There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.16
There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.
Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.
At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.
In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.
2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.
3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.
4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.
5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.
6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.
8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.
9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.
10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.
11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.
12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.
13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.
15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.
16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.
17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.
18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.
National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.1
Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.4
With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.5,6
A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.
Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.
There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.16
There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.
Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.
At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.
In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.
2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.
3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.
4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.
5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.
6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.
8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.
9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.
10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.
11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.
12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.
13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.
15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.
16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.
17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.
18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.
National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.1
Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.4
With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.5,6
A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.
Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.
There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.16
There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.
Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.
At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.
In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.
2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.
3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.
4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.
5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.
6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.
8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.
9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.
10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.
11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.
12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.
13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.
15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.
16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.
17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.
18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone
In 1982, I went to my first concert. It was Rush, on their “Signals” tour, and I loved it. In fact, I went back and saw them again about a year later. I bought a concert T-shirt at the first one. I still have it somewhere, though I am pretty sure it hasn’t fit me in years.
I loved their music before the concert, enjoyed it even more afterwards, and still do. Their albums are all on my computer and phone, and part of the daily soundtrack of my life when working at my desk, driving, and walking (I’m trying to fit back in the shirt).
On Jan. 7, 2020, Neil Peart, the trio’s remarkably gifted drummer, died of a neurologic disease.
According to the news, he had a glioblastoma multiforme, a tumor terrifying for its aggressiveness, difficulty of treatment, and lack of preventable risk factors.
The cost of neurologic disease is terrible. Glioblastoma multiforme, unfortunately, is far from rare, nor is it the only one. In recent times, entertainers afflicted with neurologic disease have included Neil Diamond, Linda Ronstadt, Peter Falk, Glen Campbell, Charlton Heston, Gene Siskel, Michael J. Fox, Stephen Hillenburg, Teri Garr, Annette Funicello, Robin Williams, Dudley Moore, and most recently Ozzy Osbourne.
That’s a pretty short list, too, far from all-encompassing. The majority of people with these disorders won’t be in the news. Their everyday struggles, stories, and losses are known only to family, friends, and the medical team doing its best to help.
Medical technology advances every year. In the 22 years since I began practicing, we’ve made remarkable strides in some areas – multiple sclerosis, for example. But our work in so many other areas is nowhere close. The increasing knowledge as to the mechanisms and causes of Alzheimer’s disease have, to date, failed to translate into treatment success.
That’s not to say we should give up. Far from it. Our species has gotten where we are by always wanting to get over the next hill. Initial failures will always outnumber successes. But when you’re a doctor dealing with the very real human cost of neurologic disease, that’s not much consolation. And it’s far less so for the patients and families affected who come to us for help.
We use terms like “burden” or “cost” to discuss the financial aspects of illness, but they often don’t seem adequate to describe the real effects. The emotional damages. The gifted musicians and loved family members lost. Family members struggling with the difficult role of being care givers.
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone, regardless of age, fame, or talent. I’ll stay here and do my best for all of them who come to me. I’m certainly not on the front line of research. That’s incredibly important, but I’ll leave it to others. My work is where the patients are every day.
Thank you for the music, Neil.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In 1982, I went to my first concert. It was Rush, on their “Signals” tour, and I loved it. In fact, I went back and saw them again about a year later. I bought a concert T-shirt at the first one. I still have it somewhere, though I am pretty sure it hasn’t fit me in years.
I loved their music before the concert, enjoyed it even more afterwards, and still do. Their albums are all on my computer and phone, and part of the daily soundtrack of my life when working at my desk, driving, and walking (I’m trying to fit back in the shirt).
On Jan. 7, 2020, Neil Peart, the trio’s remarkably gifted drummer, died of a neurologic disease.
According to the news, he had a glioblastoma multiforme, a tumor terrifying for its aggressiveness, difficulty of treatment, and lack of preventable risk factors.
The cost of neurologic disease is terrible. Glioblastoma multiforme, unfortunately, is far from rare, nor is it the only one. In recent times, entertainers afflicted with neurologic disease have included Neil Diamond, Linda Ronstadt, Peter Falk, Glen Campbell, Charlton Heston, Gene Siskel, Michael J. Fox, Stephen Hillenburg, Teri Garr, Annette Funicello, Robin Williams, Dudley Moore, and most recently Ozzy Osbourne.
That’s a pretty short list, too, far from all-encompassing. The majority of people with these disorders won’t be in the news. Their everyday struggles, stories, and losses are known only to family, friends, and the medical team doing its best to help.
Medical technology advances every year. In the 22 years since I began practicing, we’ve made remarkable strides in some areas – multiple sclerosis, for example. But our work in so many other areas is nowhere close. The increasing knowledge as to the mechanisms and causes of Alzheimer’s disease have, to date, failed to translate into treatment success.
That’s not to say we should give up. Far from it. Our species has gotten where we are by always wanting to get over the next hill. Initial failures will always outnumber successes. But when you’re a doctor dealing with the very real human cost of neurologic disease, that’s not much consolation. And it’s far less so for the patients and families affected who come to us for help.
We use terms like “burden” or “cost” to discuss the financial aspects of illness, but they often don’t seem adequate to describe the real effects. The emotional damages. The gifted musicians and loved family members lost. Family members struggling with the difficult role of being care givers.
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone, regardless of age, fame, or talent. I’ll stay here and do my best for all of them who come to me. I’m certainly not on the front line of research. That’s incredibly important, but I’ll leave it to others. My work is where the patients are every day.
Thank you for the music, Neil.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In 1982, I went to my first concert. It was Rush, on their “Signals” tour, and I loved it. In fact, I went back and saw them again about a year later. I bought a concert T-shirt at the first one. I still have it somewhere, though I am pretty sure it hasn’t fit me in years.
I loved their music before the concert, enjoyed it even more afterwards, and still do. Their albums are all on my computer and phone, and part of the daily soundtrack of my life when working at my desk, driving, and walking (I’m trying to fit back in the shirt).
On Jan. 7, 2020, Neil Peart, the trio’s remarkably gifted drummer, died of a neurologic disease.
According to the news, he had a glioblastoma multiforme, a tumor terrifying for its aggressiveness, difficulty of treatment, and lack of preventable risk factors.
The cost of neurologic disease is terrible. Glioblastoma multiforme, unfortunately, is far from rare, nor is it the only one. In recent times, entertainers afflicted with neurologic disease have included Neil Diamond, Linda Ronstadt, Peter Falk, Glen Campbell, Charlton Heston, Gene Siskel, Michael J. Fox, Stephen Hillenburg, Teri Garr, Annette Funicello, Robin Williams, Dudley Moore, and most recently Ozzy Osbourne.
That’s a pretty short list, too, far from all-encompassing. The majority of people with these disorders won’t be in the news. Their everyday struggles, stories, and losses are known only to family, friends, and the medical team doing its best to help.
Medical technology advances every year. In the 22 years since I began practicing, we’ve made remarkable strides in some areas – multiple sclerosis, for example. But our work in so many other areas is nowhere close. The increasing knowledge as to the mechanisms and causes of Alzheimer’s disease have, to date, failed to translate into treatment success.
That’s not to say we should give up. Far from it. Our species has gotten where we are by always wanting to get over the next hill. Initial failures will always outnumber successes. But when you’re a doctor dealing with the very real human cost of neurologic disease, that’s not much consolation. And it’s far less so for the patients and families affected who come to us for help.
We use terms like “burden” or “cost” to discuss the financial aspects of illness, but they often don’t seem adequate to describe the real effects. The emotional damages. The gifted musicians and loved family members lost. Family members struggling with the difficult role of being care givers.
Neurologic disease doesn’t discriminate against anyone, regardless of age, fame, or talent. I’ll stay here and do my best for all of them who come to me. I’m certainly not on the front line of research. That’s incredibly important, but I’ll leave it to others. My work is where the patients are every day.
Thank you for the music, Neil.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The suicide wars
Topic of suicide prevention causing divisions within psychiatry
At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.
It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.
Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.
The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.
We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.
Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.
Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”
Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.
I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.
In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.
The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”
If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.
If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.
Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.
Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
Topic of suicide prevention causing divisions within psychiatry
Topic of suicide prevention causing divisions within psychiatry
At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.
It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.
Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.
The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.
We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.
Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.
Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”
Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.
I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.
In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.
The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”
If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.
If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.
Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.
Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.
It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.
Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.
The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.
We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.
Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.
Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”
Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.
I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.
In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.
The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”
If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.
If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.
Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.
Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
February 2020
Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus
Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a type of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that may occur independently of or in combination with systemic lupus erythematosus. About 10%-15% of patients with SCLE will develop systemic lupus erythematosus. White females are more typically affected.
SCLE lesions often present as scaly, annular, or polycyclic scaly patches and plaques with central clearing. They may appear psoriasiform. They heal without atrophy or scarring but may leave dyspigmentation. Follicular plugging is absent. Lesions generally occur on sun exposed areas such as the neck, V of the chest, and upper extremities. Up to 75% of patients may exhibit associated symptoms such as photosensitivity, oral ulcers, and arthritis. Less than 20% of patients will develop internal disease, including nephritis and pulmonary disease. Symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome and SCLE may overlap in some patients, and will portend higher risk for internal disease.
The differential diagnosis includes eczema, psoriasis, dermatophytosis, granuloma annulare, and erythema annulare centrifugum. Histology reveals epidermal atrophy and keratinocyte apoptosis, with a superficial and perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate in the upper dermis. Interface changes at the dermal-epidermal junction can be seen. Direct immunofluorescence of lesional skin is positive in one-third of cases, often revealing granular deposits of IgG and IgM at the dermal-epidermal junction and around hair follicles (called the lupus-band test). Serology in SCLE may reveal a positive antinuclear antigen test, as well as positive Ro/SSA antigen. Other lupus serologies such as La/SSB, dsDNA, antihistone, and Sm antibodies may be positive, but are less commonly seen.
Several drugs may cause SCLE, such as hydrochlorothiazide, terbinafine, ACE inhibitors, NSAIDs, calcium-channel blockers, interferons, anticonvulsants, griseofulvin, penicillamine, spironolactone, tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors, and statins. Discontinuing the offending medications may clear the lesions, but not always.
Treatment includes sunscreen and avoidance of sun exposure. Potent topical corticosteroids are helpful. If systemic treatment is indicated, antimalarials are first line.
This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus
Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a type of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that may occur independently of or in combination with systemic lupus erythematosus. About 10%-15% of patients with SCLE will develop systemic lupus erythematosus. White females are more typically affected.
SCLE lesions often present as scaly, annular, or polycyclic scaly patches and plaques with central clearing. They may appear psoriasiform. They heal without atrophy or scarring but may leave dyspigmentation. Follicular plugging is absent. Lesions generally occur on sun exposed areas such as the neck, V of the chest, and upper extremities. Up to 75% of patients may exhibit associated symptoms such as photosensitivity, oral ulcers, and arthritis. Less than 20% of patients will develop internal disease, including nephritis and pulmonary disease. Symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome and SCLE may overlap in some patients, and will portend higher risk for internal disease.
The differential diagnosis includes eczema, psoriasis, dermatophytosis, granuloma annulare, and erythema annulare centrifugum. Histology reveals epidermal atrophy and keratinocyte apoptosis, with a superficial and perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate in the upper dermis. Interface changes at the dermal-epidermal junction can be seen. Direct immunofluorescence of lesional skin is positive in one-third of cases, often revealing granular deposits of IgG and IgM at the dermal-epidermal junction and around hair follicles (called the lupus-band test). Serology in SCLE may reveal a positive antinuclear antigen test, as well as positive Ro/SSA antigen. Other lupus serologies such as La/SSB, dsDNA, antihistone, and Sm antibodies may be positive, but are less commonly seen.
Several drugs may cause SCLE, such as hydrochlorothiazide, terbinafine, ACE inhibitors, NSAIDs, calcium-channel blockers, interferons, anticonvulsants, griseofulvin, penicillamine, spironolactone, tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors, and statins. Discontinuing the offending medications may clear the lesions, but not always.
Treatment includes sunscreen and avoidance of sun exposure. Potent topical corticosteroids are helpful. If systemic treatment is indicated, antimalarials are first line.
This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus
Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a type of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that may occur independently of or in combination with systemic lupus erythematosus. About 10%-15% of patients with SCLE will develop systemic lupus erythematosus. White females are more typically affected.
SCLE lesions often present as scaly, annular, or polycyclic scaly patches and plaques with central clearing. They may appear psoriasiform. They heal without atrophy or scarring but may leave dyspigmentation. Follicular plugging is absent. Lesions generally occur on sun exposed areas such as the neck, V of the chest, and upper extremities. Up to 75% of patients may exhibit associated symptoms such as photosensitivity, oral ulcers, and arthritis. Less than 20% of patients will develop internal disease, including nephritis and pulmonary disease. Symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome and SCLE may overlap in some patients, and will portend higher risk for internal disease.
The differential diagnosis includes eczema, psoriasis, dermatophytosis, granuloma annulare, and erythema annulare centrifugum. Histology reveals epidermal atrophy and keratinocyte apoptosis, with a superficial and perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate in the upper dermis. Interface changes at the dermal-epidermal junction can be seen. Direct immunofluorescence of lesional skin is positive in one-third of cases, often revealing granular deposits of IgG and IgM at the dermal-epidermal junction and around hair follicles (called the lupus-band test). Serology in SCLE may reveal a positive antinuclear antigen test, as well as positive Ro/SSA antigen. Other lupus serologies such as La/SSB, dsDNA, antihistone, and Sm antibodies may be positive, but are less commonly seen.
Several drugs may cause SCLE, such as hydrochlorothiazide, terbinafine, ACE inhibitors, NSAIDs, calcium-channel blockers, interferons, anticonvulsants, griseofulvin, penicillamine, spironolactone, tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors, and statins. Discontinuing the offending medications may clear the lesions, but not always.
Treatment includes sunscreen and avoidance of sun exposure. Potent topical corticosteroids are helpful. If systemic treatment is indicated, antimalarials are first line.
This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
New year, old you
This column should arrive just in time. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!
I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.
If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?
And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.
As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.
We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).
Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.
Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.
These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.
Happy New Year! And good luck!
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
This column should arrive just in time. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!
I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.
If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?
And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.
As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.
We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).
Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.
Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.
These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.
Happy New Year! And good luck!
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
This column should arrive just in time. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!
I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.
If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?
And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.
As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.
We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).
Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.
Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.
These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.
Happy New Year! And good luck!
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
USPSTF recommendations on screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm
The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is decreasing, thought to be caused by a decrease in smoking. But the risk of death if one ruptures is as high as 81%. So, screening is still an important part of preventive medicine.
When the abdominal aorta enlarges to greater than 3.0 cm, it is considered an aneurysm. Risk factors that can lead to an enlarged aorta include older age, male sex, smoking, history of AAA in a first-degree relative, hypertension, history of other aneurysms, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and hypercholesterolemia.
History of AAA in a first-degree relative puts patients at double the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Interestingly, diabetes has been associated with a reduced risk of AAA. People of African American, Asian, and Hispanic descent have a reduced risk of AAA.
Screening
Screening is performed using abdominal duplex ultrasound. It has high sensitivity (94%-100%) and specificity (98%-100%), is low cost, and has low risk to the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breaks its screening recommendations into four categories:
1. Men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked (at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime): One-time screening (grade B, moderate net benefit).
2. Men aged 65-75 years who have never smoked: Selectively offer screening (grade C, small net benefit). “To determine whether this service is appropriate, patients and clinicians should consider the patient’s medical history, family history, other risk factors, and personal values.”
3. Women without a smoking history or family history of AAA: Do not perform screening (grade D, recommendation against the service).
4. Women aged 65-75 years who have a smoking history or family history of AAA: There is insufficient evidence on whether or not to screen for AAA (grade I, insufficient evidence).
To assess screening and treatment of AAAs, the USPSTF looked at four randomized, controlled trials largely focused on men older than 65 years. With the combined data, they found 246 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 AAA rupture, and 305 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 death from AAA.
The USPSTF does note that, while the risk of death is lower for elective AAA repair than ruptured AAA, there is still increased risk with elective surgery. In addition, increased screening and detection increases the rate of elective surgery. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment could represent a harm.
Treatment
Surgical repair of AAA in men depends on the size of the aneurysm and rate of growth.
For men, surgical repair is standard when the AAA reaches 5.5 cm or if the AAA is growing faster than 1.0 cm per year and is larger than 4.0 cm. For women, surgical repair is often recommended between 5.0 cm and 5.4 cm in size.
Surgical repair is not recommended for AAAs that are less than 5.0 cm because the annual risk of rupture is 0%-1% below 5.0 cm. The risk increases to 11% for aneurysms that are 5.0-5.9 cm in size.
There are two methods of surgical repair: endovascular aneurysm repair and open repair. Recommendations for the surveillance of AAA between 3.0 cm and 5.5 cm is regular ultrasound surveillance, with the interval becoming shorter as the aneurysm size becomes larger. Exact intervals differ from one guideline group to another.
Screening and treatment in women
While it is true that AAAs in women are more likely to rupture at smaller sizes than AAAs in men, the AAAs that rupture in women are more likely to rupture at an older age than AAAs rupture in men.
The prevalence of AAAs in women is thought to be one-sixth of the prevalence of men. In addition, women had a higher 30-day mortality after surgical repair. They also had higher rates of complications for elective surgical repair of AAAs.
For these reasons, it is unclear that the benefits of AAA screening and treatment in women outweigh the risks, and the USPSTF cannot come to a conclusive recommendation for women who have ever smoked or women who have a family history of AAA.
The USPSTF is able to state definitively that they do not recommend screening in women with no smoking history or family history of AAA.
Bottom line
The USPSTF recommends screening men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked and selectively screening men aged 65-75 years with no smoking history. The USPSTF recommends against screening women aged 65-75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. There is insufficient evidence to either recommend for or against screening women aged 65-75 years who have smoked or have a family history of AAA.
Reference
Owens DK et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2211-18.
Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.
The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is decreasing, thought to be caused by a decrease in smoking. But the risk of death if one ruptures is as high as 81%. So, screening is still an important part of preventive medicine.
When the abdominal aorta enlarges to greater than 3.0 cm, it is considered an aneurysm. Risk factors that can lead to an enlarged aorta include older age, male sex, smoking, history of AAA in a first-degree relative, hypertension, history of other aneurysms, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and hypercholesterolemia.
History of AAA in a first-degree relative puts patients at double the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Interestingly, diabetes has been associated with a reduced risk of AAA. People of African American, Asian, and Hispanic descent have a reduced risk of AAA.
Screening
Screening is performed using abdominal duplex ultrasound. It has high sensitivity (94%-100%) and specificity (98%-100%), is low cost, and has low risk to the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breaks its screening recommendations into four categories:
1. Men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked (at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime): One-time screening (grade B, moderate net benefit).
2. Men aged 65-75 years who have never smoked: Selectively offer screening (grade C, small net benefit). “To determine whether this service is appropriate, patients and clinicians should consider the patient’s medical history, family history, other risk factors, and personal values.”
3. Women without a smoking history or family history of AAA: Do not perform screening (grade D, recommendation against the service).
4. Women aged 65-75 years who have a smoking history or family history of AAA: There is insufficient evidence on whether or not to screen for AAA (grade I, insufficient evidence).
To assess screening and treatment of AAAs, the USPSTF looked at four randomized, controlled trials largely focused on men older than 65 years. With the combined data, they found 246 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 AAA rupture, and 305 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 death from AAA.
The USPSTF does note that, while the risk of death is lower for elective AAA repair than ruptured AAA, there is still increased risk with elective surgery. In addition, increased screening and detection increases the rate of elective surgery. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment could represent a harm.
Treatment
Surgical repair of AAA in men depends on the size of the aneurysm and rate of growth.
For men, surgical repair is standard when the AAA reaches 5.5 cm or if the AAA is growing faster than 1.0 cm per year and is larger than 4.0 cm. For women, surgical repair is often recommended between 5.0 cm and 5.4 cm in size.
Surgical repair is not recommended for AAAs that are less than 5.0 cm because the annual risk of rupture is 0%-1% below 5.0 cm. The risk increases to 11% for aneurysms that are 5.0-5.9 cm in size.
There are two methods of surgical repair: endovascular aneurysm repair and open repair. Recommendations for the surveillance of AAA between 3.0 cm and 5.5 cm is regular ultrasound surveillance, with the interval becoming shorter as the aneurysm size becomes larger. Exact intervals differ from one guideline group to another.
Screening and treatment in women
While it is true that AAAs in women are more likely to rupture at smaller sizes than AAAs in men, the AAAs that rupture in women are more likely to rupture at an older age than AAAs rupture in men.
The prevalence of AAAs in women is thought to be one-sixth of the prevalence of men. In addition, women had a higher 30-day mortality after surgical repair. They also had higher rates of complications for elective surgical repair of AAAs.
For these reasons, it is unclear that the benefits of AAA screening and treatment in women outweigh the risks, and the USPSTF cannot come to a conclusive recommendation for women who have ever smoked or women who have a family history of AAA.
The USPSTF is able to state definitively that they do not recommend screening in women with no smoking history or family history of AAA.
Bottom line
The USPSTF recommends screening men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked and selectively screening men aged 65-75 years with no smoking history. The USPSTF recommends against screening women aged 65-75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. There is insufficient evidence to either recommend for or against screening women aged 65-75 years who have smoked or have a family history of AAA.
Reference
Owens DK et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2211-18.
Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.
The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is decreasing, thought to be caused by a decrease in smoking. But the risk of death if one ruptures is as high as 81%. So, screening is still an important part of preventive medicine.
When the abdominal aorta enlarges to greater than 3.0 cm, it is considered an aneurysm. Risk factors that can lead to an enlarged aorta include older age, male sex, smoking, history of AAA in a first-degree relative, hypertension, history of other aneurysms, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and hypercholesterolemia.
History of AAA in a first-degree relative puts patients at double the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Interestingly, diabetes has been associated with a reduced risk of AAA. People of African American, Asian, and Hispanic descent have a reduced risk of AAA.
Screening
Screening is performed using abdominal duplex ultrasound. It has high sensitivity (94%-100%) and specificity (98%-100%), is low cost, and has low risk to the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breaks its screening recommendations into four categories:
1. Men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked (at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime): One-time screening (grade B, moderate net benefit).
2. Men aged 65-75 years who have never smoked: Selectively offer screening (grade C, small net benefit). “To determine whether this service is appropriate, patients and clinicians should consider the patient’s medical history, family history, other risk factors, and personal values.”
3. Women without a smoking history or family history of AAA: Do not perform screening (grade D, recommendation against the service).
4. Women aged 65-75 years who have a smoking history or family history of AAA: There is insufficient evidence on whether or not to screen for AAA (grade I, insufficient evidence).
To assess screening and treatment of AAAs, the USPSTF looked at four randomized, controlled trials largely focused on men older than 65 years. With the combined data, they found 246 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 AAA rupture, and 305 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 death from AAA.
The USPSTF does note that, while the risk of death is lower for elective AAA repair than ruptured AAA, there is still increased risk with elective surgery. In addition, increased screening and detection increases the rate of elective surgery. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment could represent a harm.
Treatment
Surgical repair of AAA in men depends on the size of the aneurysm and rate of growth.
For men, surgical repair is standard when the AAA reaches 5.5 cm or if the AAA is growing faster than 1.0 cm per year and is larger than 4.0 cm. For women, surgical repair is often recommended between 5.0 cm and 5.4 cm in size.
Surgical repair is not recommended for AAAs that are less than 5.0 cm because the annual risk of rupture is 0%-1% below 5.0 cm. The risk increases to 11% for aneurysms that are 5.0-5.9 cm in size.
There are two methods of surgical repair: endovascular aneurysm repair and open repair. Recommendations for the surveillance of AAA between 3.0 cm and 5.5 cm is regular ultrasound surveillance, with the interval becoming shorter as the aneurysm size becomes larger. Exact intervals differ from one guideline group to another.
Screening and treatment in women
While it is true that AAAs in women are more likely to rupture at smaller sizes than AAAs in men, the AAAs that rupture in women are more likely to rupture at an older age than AAAs rupture in men.
The prevalence of AAAs in women is thought to be one-sixth of the prevalence of men. In addition, women had a higher 30-day mortality after surgical repair. They also had higher rates of complications for elective surgical repair of AAAs.
For these reasons, it is unclear that the benefits of AAA screening and treatment in women outweigh the risks, and the USPSTF cannot come to a conclusive recommendation for women who have ever smoked or women who have a family history of AAA.
The USPSTF is able to state definitively that they do not recommend screening in women with no smoking history or family history of AAA.
Bottom line
The USPSTF recommends screening men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked and selectively screening men aged 65-75 years with no smoking history. The USPSTF recommends against screening women aged 65-75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. There is insufficient evidence to either recommend for or against screening women aged 65-75 years who have smoked or have a family history of AAA.
Reference
Owens DK et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2211-18.
Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.
The rise of U.S. dermatology: A brief history from the 1800s to 1970
As Dermatology News (formerly Skin and Allergy News) reaches its 50th-year milestone, a reflection on the history of the discipline, especially in the United States, up to the time of the launch of this publication is in order. Such an overview must, of course, be cursory in this context. Yet, for those who want to learn more, a large body of historical references and research has been created to fill in the gaps, as modern dermatology has always been cognizant of the importance of its history, with many individuals and groups drawn to the subject.
Two excellent sources for the history of the field can be found in work by William Allen Pusey, MD (1865-1940), and Herbert Rattner, MD (1900-1962), “The History of Dermatology” published in 1933 and research by members of the History of Dermatology Society, founded in 1973 in New York.
Modern dermatology
The development of the field of modern dermatology can be traced back to the early to mid-19th century. During the first half of the 19th century, England and France dominated the study of dermatology, but by the middle of the century, the German revolution in microparasitology shifted that focus “with remarkable German discoveries,” according to Bernard S. Potter, MD, in his review of bibliographic landmarks of the history of dermatology (J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;48:919-32). For example, Johann Lucas Schoenlein (1793-1864) in 1839 discovered the fungal origin of favus, and in 1841 Jacob Henle (1809-1885) discovered Demodex folliculorum. Karl Ferdinand Eichstedt (1816-1892) in 1846 followed with the discovery of the causative agent of pityriasis versicolor, and Friedrich Wilhelm Felix von Barensprung (1822-1864) in 1862 coined the term erythrasma and named the organism responsible for this condition Microsporum minutissimum.
Dr. Potter described how American dermatology originated in New York City in 1836 when Henry Daggett Bulkley, MD, (1803-1872) opened the first dispensary for skin diseases, the Broome Street Infirmary for Diseases of the Skin, thus creating the first institution in the United States for the treatment of cutaneous disease. As the first American dermatologist, he was also the first in the United States to lecture on and to exclusively practice dermatology.
The rise of interest in the importance of dermatology led to the organization of the early American Dermatological Association in 1886.
However, the state of dermatology as a science in the 19th century was not always looked upon favorably, even by its practitioners, especially in the United States. In 1871, in a “Review on Modern Dermatology,” given as a series of lectures on skin disease at Harvard University, James C. White, MD (1833-1916) of Massachusetts General Hospital, stated that: “Were the literature of skin diseases previous to that of the last half-century absolutely annihilated, and with it, the influence it has exercised upon that of the present day, it would be an immense gain to dermatology, although much of real value would perish.” He lamented that America had contributed little so far to the study of dermatology, and that the discipline was only taught in some of its largest schools, and he urged that this be changed. He also lamented that The American Journal of Syphilography and Dermatology, established the year before, had so far proved itself heavy on syphilis, but light on dermatology, a situation he also hoped would change dramatically.
By the late-19th century, the conviction that diseases of the skin needed to be connected to the overall metabolism and physiology of the patient as a whole was becoming more mainstream.
“It has been, and still is, too much the custom to study diseases of the skin in the light of pathological pictures, to name the local manifestation and to so label it as disease. It is much easier to give the disease name and to label it than it is to comprehend the process at work. The former is comparatively unimportant for the patient, the latter point upon which recovery may depend. The nature and meaning of the process in connection with the cutaneous symptoms has not received enough attention, and I believe this to be one reason why the treatment of many of these diseases in the past has been so notoriously unsatisfactory,” Louis A. Duhring, MD (1845-1913) chided his colleagues in the Section of Dermatology and Syphilography, at the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association in 1894. (collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/101489447/PDF/101489447.pdf)
In the early-20th century, German dermatology influenced American dermatology more than any other, according to Karl Holubar, MD, of the Institute for the History of Medicine, University of Vienna, in his lecture on the history of European dermatopathology.
He stated that, with regard to dermatopathology, it was Oscar Gans, MD (1888-1983) who brought the latest knowledge into the United States by delivering a series of lectures at Mayo Clinic in the late 1920s upon the invitation of Paul A. O’Leary, MD, (1891-1955) who then headed the Mayo section of dermatology.
By the 1930s, a flurry of organizational activity overtook American dermatology. In 1932, the American Board of Dermatology was established, with its first exams given in 1933 (20 students passed, 7 failed). The Society for Investigative Dermatology was founded in 1937, and the American Academy of Dermatology and Syphilology (now the American Academy of Dermatology), founded in 1938.
The 1930s also saw a major influx of German and other European Jews fleeing Nazi oppression who would forever change the face of American dermatology. “Between 1933 and 1938, a series of repressive measures eliminated them from the practice of medicine in Germany and other countries. Although some died in concentration camps and others committed suicide, many were able to emigrate from Europe. Dermatology in the United States particularly benefited from the influx of several stellar Jewish dermatologists who were major contributors to the subsequent flowering of academic dermatology in the United States” (JAMA Derm. 2013;149[9]:1090-4).
“The overtures of the holocaust and the rising power of Hitler in Europe finally brought over to the United States the flower of dermatologists and investigators of the German School, e.g., Alexander and Walter Lever, Felix and Hermann Pinkus, the Epsteins, Erich Auerbach, Stephen Rothman, to name just a few. With this exodus and transfer of brain power, Europe lost its leading role to never again regain it,” according to Dr. Holubar. Walter F. Lever, MD (1909-1992) was especially well-known for his landmark textbook on dermatology, “Histopathology of the Skin,” published in the United States in 1949.
The therapeutic era
Throughout the 19th century, a variety of soaps and patent medicines were touted as cure-alls for a host of skin diseases. Other than their benefits to surface cleanliness and their antiseptic properties, however, they were of little effect.
It wasn’t until the 20th century that truly effective therapeutics entered the dermatologic pharmacopoeia. In their 1989 review, Diane Quintal, MD, and Robert Jackson, MD, discussed the origins of the most important of these drugs and pointed out that, “Until this century, the essence of dermatology resided in the realm of morphology. Early contributors largely confined their activities to the classification of skin diseases and to the elaboration of clinical dermatologic entities based on morphologic features. ... but “in the last 50 years, there have been significant scientific discoveries in the field of therapeutics that have revolutionized the practice of dermatology.“ (Clin Dermatol. 1989;7[3]38-47).
These key drugs comprised:
- Quinacrine was introduced in 1932 by Walter Kikuth, MD, as an antimalarial drug. But it was not until 1940, that A.J. Prokoptchouksi, MD, reported on its effectiveness 35 patients with lupus erythematosus.
- Para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA) came into prominence in 1942, when Stephen Rothman, MD, and Jack Rubin, MD, at the University of Chicago, published the results of their experiment, showing that when PABA was incorporated in an ointment base and applied to the skin, it could protect against sunburn.
- Dapsone. The effectiveness of sulfapyridine was demonstrated in 1947 by M.J. Costello, MD, who reported its usefulness in a patient with dermatitis herpetiformis, which he believed to be caused by a bacterial allergy. Sulfapyridine controlled the disease, but gastrointestinal intolerance and sulfonamide sensitivity were side effects. Ultimately, in 1951, Theodore Cornbleet, MD, introduced the use of sulfoxones in his article entitled “Sulfoxone (diasones) sodium for dermatitis herpetiformis,” considered more effective than sulfapyridine. Dapsone is the active principal ingredient.
- Hydrocortisone. In August 1952, Marion Sulzberger, MD, and Victor H. Witten, MD (both members of the first Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board), described use of Compound F (17-hydroxycorticosterone-21-acetate, hydrocortisone) in seven cases of atopic dermatitis and one case of discoid or subacute lupus erythematosus, reporting improvement in all of these cases.
- Benzoyl peroxide. Canadian dermatologist William E. Pace, MD, reported on the beneficial effects of benzoyl peroxide on acne in 1953. The product had originally been used for chronic Staphylococcus aureus folliculitis of the beard.
- Griseofulvin, a metabolic byproduct of a number of species of Penicillium, was first isolated in 1939. But in 1958, Harvey Blank, MD, at the University of Miami (also on the first Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board), and Stanley I. Cullen, MD, administered the drug to a patient with Trichophyton rubrum granuloma, in the first human trial. In 1959, they reported the drug’s benefits on 31 patients with various fungal infections.
- Methotrexate. In 1951, R. Gubner, MD, and colleagues noticed the rapid clearing of skin lesions in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis who had been treated with the folic acid antagonist, aminopterin. And in 1958, W.F. Edmundson, MD, and W.B. Guy, MD, reported on the oral use of the folic acid antagonist, methotrexate. This was followed by multiple reports on the successful use of methotrexate in psoriasis.
- 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In 1957, 5-FU, an antimetabolite of uracil, was first synthesized. In 1962, G. Falkson, MD, and E.J. Schulz, MD, reported on skin changes observed in 85 patients being treated with systemic 5-FU for advanced carcinomatosis. They found that 31 of the 85 patients developed sensitivity to sunlight and subsequent disappearance of actinic keratoses in these same patients.
Technology in skin care also was developing in the era just before the launch of Skin & Allergy News. For example, Leon Goldman, MD, then chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Cincinnati, was the first physician to use a laser for tattoo removal. His publication in 1965 helped to solidify its use, leading him to be “regarded by many in the dermatologic community as the ‘godfather of lasers in medicine and surgery’ ” (Clin Dermatol. 2007;25:434-42).
So, by 1970, dermatology as a field had established itself fully with a strong societal infrastructure, a vibrant base of journals and books, and an evolving set of scientific and technical tools. The launch of Skin & Allergy News (now Dermatology News) that year would chronicle dermatology’s commitment to the development of new therapeutics and technologies in service of patient needs – the stories of which would grace the newspaper’s pages for 5 decades and counting.
As Dermatology News (formerly Skin and Allergy News) reaches its 50th-year milestone, a reflection on the history of the discipline, especially in the United States, up to the time of the launch of this publication is in order. Such an overview must, of course, be cursory in this context. Yet, for those who want to learn more, a large body of historical references and research has been created to fill in the gaps, as modern dermatology has always been cognizant of the importance of its history, with many individuals and groups drawn to the subject.
Two excellent sources for the history of the field can be found in work by William Allen Pusey, MD (1865-1940), and Herbert Rattner, MD (1900-1962), “The History of Dermatology” published in 1933 and research by members of the History of Dermatology Society, founded in 1973 in New York.
Modern dermatology
The development of the field of modern dermatology can be traced back to the early to mid-19th century. During the first half of the 19th century, England and France dominated the study of dermatology, but by the middle of the century, the German revolution in microparasitology shifted that focus “with remarkable German discoveries,” according to Bernard S. Potter, MD, in his review of bibliographic landmarks of the history of dermatology (J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;48:919-32). For example, Johann Lucas Schoenlein (1793-1864) in 1839 discovered the fungal origin of favus, and in 1841 Jacob Henle (1809-1885) discovered Demodex folliculorum. Karl Ferdinand Eichstedt (1816-1892) in 1846 followed with the discovery of the causative agent of pityriasis versicolor, and Friedrich Wilhelm Felix von Barensprung (1822-1864) in 1862 coined the term erythrasma and named the organism responsible for this condition Microsporum minutissimum.
Dr. Potter described how American dermatology originated in New York City in 1836 when Henry Daggett Bulkley, MD, (1803-1872) opened the first dispensary for skin diseases, the Broome Street Infirmary for Diseases of the Skin, thus creating the first institution in the United States for the treatment of cutaneous disease. As the first American dermatologist, he was also the first in the United States to lecture on and to exclusively practice dermatology.
The rise of interest in the importance of dermatology led to the organization of the early American Dermatological Association in 1886.
However, the state of dermatology as a science in the 19th century was not always looked upon favorably, even by its practitioners, especially in the United States. In 1871, in a “Review on Modern Dermatology,” given as a series of lectures on skin disease at Harvard University, James C. White, MD (1833-1916) of Massachusetts General Hospital, stated that: “Were the literature of skin diseases previous to that of the last half-century absolutely annihilated, and with it, the influence it has exercised upon that of the present day, it would be an immense gain to dermatology, although much of real value would perish.” He lamented that America had contributed little so far to the study of dermatology, and that the discipline was only taught in some of its largest schools, and he urged that this be changed. He also lamented that The American Journal of Syphilography and Dermatology, established the year before, had so far proved itself heavy on syphilis, but light on dermatology, a situation he also hoped would change dramatically.
By the late-19th century, the conviction that diseases of the skin needed to be connected to the overall metabolism and physiology of the patient as a whole was becoming more mainstream.
“It has been, and still is, too much the custom to study diseases of the skin in the light of pathological pictures, to name the local manifestation and to so label it as disease. It is much easier to give the disease name and to label it than it is to comprehend the process at work. The former is comparatively unimportant for the patient, the latter point upon which recovery may depend. The nature and meaning of the process in connection with the cutaneous symptoms has not received enough attention, and I believe this to be one reason why the treatment of many of these diseases in the past has been so notoriously unsatisfactory,” Louis A. Duhring, MD (1845-1913) chided his colleagues in the Section of Dermatology and Syphilography, at the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association in 1894. (collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/101489447/PDF/101489447.pdf)
In the early-20th century, German dermatology influenced American dermatology more than any other, according to Karl Holubar, MD, of the Institute for the History of Medicine, University of Vienna, in his lecture on the history of European dermatopathology.
He stated that, with regard to dermatopathology, it was Oscar Gans, MD (1888-1983) who brought the latest knowledge into the United States by delivering a series of lectures at Mayo Clinic in the late 1920s upon the invitation of Paul A. O’Leary, MD, (1891-1955) who then headed the Mayo section of dermatology.
By the 1930s, a flurry of organizational activity overtook American dermatology. In 1932, the American Board of Dermatology was established, with its first exams given in 1933 (20 students passed, 7 failed). The Society for Investigative Dermatology was founded in 1937, and the American Academy of Dermatology and Syphilology (now the American Academy of Dermatology), founded in 1938.
The 1930s also saw a major influx of German and other European Jews fleeing Nazi oppression who would forever change the face of American dermatology. “Between 1933 and 1938, a series of repressive measures eliminated them from the practice of medicine in Germany and other countries. Although some died in concentration camps and others committed suicide, many were able to emigrate from Europe. Dermatology in the United States particularly benefited from the influx of several stellar Jewish dermatologists who were major contributors to the subsequent flowering of academic dermatology in the United States” (JAMA Derm. 2013;149[9]:1090-4).
“The overtures of the holocaust and the rising power of Hitler in Europe finally brought over to the United States the flower of dermatologists and investigators of the German School, e.g., Alexander and Walter Lever, Felix and Hermann Pinkus, the Epsteins, Erich Auerbach, Stephen Rothman, to name just a few. With this exodus and transfer of brain power, Europe lost its leading role to never again regain it,” according to Dr. Holubar. Walter F. Lever, MD (1909-1992) was especially well-known for his landmark textbook on dermatology, “Histopathology of the Skin,” published in the United States in 1949.
The therapeutic era
Throughout the 19th century, a variety of soaps and patent medicines were touted as cure-alls for a host of skin diseases. Other than their benefits to surface cleanliness and their antiseptic properties, however, they were of little effect.
It wasn’t until the 20th century that truly effective therapeutics entered the dermatologic pharmacopoeia. In their 1989 review, Diane Quintal, MD, and Robert Jackson, MD, discussed the origins of the most important of these drugs and pointed out that, “Until this century, the essence of dermatology resided in the realm of morphology. Early contributors largely confined their activities to the classification of skin diseases and to the elaboration of clinical dermatologic entities based on morphologic features. ... but “in the last 50 years, there have been significant scientific discoveries in the field of therapeutics that have revolutionized the practice of dermatology.“ (Clin Dermatol. 1989;7[3]38-47).
These key drugs comprised:
- Quinacrine was introduced in 1932 by Walter Kikuth, MD, as an antimalarial drug. But it was not until 1940, that A.J. Prokoptchouksi, MD, reported on its effectiveness 35 patients with lupus erythematosus.
- Para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA) came into prominence in 1942, when Stephen Rothman, MD, and Jack Rubin, MD, at the University of Chicago, published the results of their experiment, showing that when PABA was incorporated in an ointment base and applied to the skin, it could protect against sunburn.
- Dapsone. The effectiveness of sulfapyridine was demonstrated in 1947 by M.J. Costello, MD, who reported its usefulness in a patient with dermatitis herpetiformis, which he believed to be caused by a bacterial allergy. Sulfapyridine controlled the disease, but gastrointestinal intolerance and sulfonamide sensitivity were side effects. Ultimately, in 1951, Theodore Cornbleet, MD, introduced the use of sulfoxones in his article entitled “Sulfoxone (diasones) sodium for dermatitis herpetiformis,” considered more effective than sulfapyridine. Dapsone is the active principal ingredient.
- Hydrocortisone. In August 1952, Marion Sulzberger, MD, and Victor H. Witten, MD (both members of the first Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board), described use of Compound F (17-hydroxycorticosterone-21-acetate, hydrocortisone) in seven cases of atopic dermatitis and one case of discoid or subacute lupus erythematosus, reporting improvement in all of these cases.
- Benzoyl peroxide. Canadian dermatologist William E. Pace, MD, reported on the beneficial effects of benzoyl peroxide on acne in 1953. The product had originally been used for chronic Staphylococcus aureus folliculitis of the beard.
- Griseofulvin, a metabolic byproduct of a number of species of Penicillium, was first isolated in 1939. But in 1958, Harvey Blank, MD, at the University of Miami (also on the first Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board), and Stanley I. Cullen, MD, administered the drug to a patient with Trichophyton rubrum granuloma, in the first human trial. In 1959, they reported the drug’s benefits on 31 patients with various fungal infections.
- Methotrexate. In 1951, R. Gubner, MD, and colleagues noticed the rapid clearing of skin lesions in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis who had been treated with the folic acid antagonist, aminopterin. And in 1958, W.F. Edmundson, MD, and W.B. Guy, MD, reported on the oral use of the folic acid antagonist, methotrexate. This was followed by multiple reports on the successful use of methotrexate in psoriasis.
- 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In 1957, 5-FU, an antimetabolite of uracil, was first synthesized. In 1962, G. Falkson, MD, and E.J. Schulz, MD, reported on skin changes observed in 85 patients being treated with systemic 5-FU for advanced carcinomatosis. They found that 31 of the 85 patients developed sensitivity to sunlight and subsequent disappearance of actinic keratoses in these same patients.
Technology in skin care also was developing in the era just before the launch of Skin & Allergy News. For example, Leon Goldman, MD, then chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Cincinnati, was the first physician to use a laser for tattoo removal. His publication in 1965 helped to solidify its use, leading him to be “regarded by many in the dermatologic community as the ‘godfather of lasers in medicine and surgery’ ” (Clin Dermatol. 2007;25:434-42).
So, by 1970, dermatology as a field had established itself fully with a strong societal infrastructure, a vibrant base of journals and books, and an evolving set of scientific and technical tools. The launch of Skin & Allergy News (now Dermatology News) that year would chronicle dermatology’s commitment to the development of new therapeutics and technologies in service of patient needs – the stories of which would grace the newspaper’s pages for 5 decades and counting.
As Dermatology News (formerly Skin and Allergy News) reaches its 50th-year milestone, a reflection on the history of the discipline, especially in the United States, up to the time of the launch of this publication is in order. Such an overview must, of course, be cursory in this context. Yet, for those who want to learn more, a large body of historical references and research has been created to fill in the gaps, as modern dermatology has always been cognizant of the importance of its history, with many individuals and groups drawn to the subject.
Two excellent sources for the history of the field can be found in work by William Allen Pusey, MD (1865-1940), and Herbert Rattner, MD (1900-1962), “The History of Dermatology” published in 1933 and research by members of the History of Dermatology Society, founded in 1973 in New York.
Modern dermatology
The development of the field of modern dermatology can be traced back to the early to mid-19th century. During the first half of the 19th century, England and France dominated the study of dermatology, but by the middle of the century, the German revolution in microparasitology shifted that focus “with remarkable German discoveries,” according to Bernard S. Potter, MD, in his review of bibliographic landmarks of the history of dermatology (J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;48:919-32). For example, Johann Lucas Schoenlein (1793-1864) in 1839 discovered the fungal origin of favus, and in 1841 Jacob Henle (1809-1885) discovered Demodex folliculorum. Karl Ferdinand Eichstedt (1816-1892) in 1846 followed with the discovery of the causative agent of pityriasis versicolor, and Friedrich Wilhelm Felix von Barensprung (1822-1864) in 1862 coined the term erythrasma and named the organism responsible for this condition Microsporum minutissimum.
Dr. Potter described how American dermatology originated in New York City in 1836 when Henry Daggett Bulkley, MD, (1803-1872) opened the first dispensary for skin diseases, the Broome Street Infirmary for Diseases of the Skin, thus creating the first institution in the United States for the treatment of cutaneous disease. As the first American dermatologist, he was also the first in the United States to lecture on and to exclusively practice dermatology.
The rise of interest in the importance of dermatology led to the organization of the early American Dermatological Association in 1886.
However, the state of dermatology as a science in the 19th century was not always looked upon favorably, even by its practitioners, especially in the United States. In 1871, in a “Review on Modern Dermatology,” given as a series of lectures on skin disease at Harvard University, James C. White, MD (1833-1916) of Massachusetts General Hospital, stated that: “Were the literature of skin diseases previous to that of the last half-century absolutely annihilated, and with it, the influence it has exercised upon that of the present day, it would be an immense gain to dermatology, although much of real value would perish.” He lamented that America had contributed little so far to the study of dermatology, and that the discipline was only taught in some of its largest schools, and he urged that this be changed. He also lamented that The American Journal of Syphilography and Dermatology, established the year before, had so far proved itself heavy on syphilis, but light on dermatology, a situation he also hoped would change dramatically.
By the late-19th century, the conviction that diseases of the skin needed to be connected to the overall metabolism and physiology of the patient as a whole was becoming more mainstream.
“It has been, and still is, too much the custom to study diseases of the skin in the light of pathological pictures, to name the local manifestation and to so label it as disease. It is much easier to give the disease name and to label it than it is to comprehend the process at work. The former is comparatively unimportant for the patient, the latter point upon which recovery may depend. The nature and meaning of the process in connection with the cutaneous symptoms has not received enough attention, and I believe this to be one reason why the treatment of many of these diseases in the past has been so notoriously unsatisfactory,” Louis A. Duhring, MD (1845-1913) chided his colleagues in the Section of Dermatology and Syphilography, at the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association in 1894. (collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/101489447/PDF/101489447.pdf)
In the early-20th century, German dermatology influenced American dermatology more than any other, according to Karl Holubar, MD, of the Institute for the History of Medicine, University of Vienna, in his lecture on the history of European dermatopathology.
He stated that, with regard to dermatopathology, it was Oscar Gans, MD (1888-1983) who brought the latest knowledge into the United States by delivering a series of lectures at Mayo Clinic in the late 1920s upon the invitation of Paul A. O’Leary, MD, (1891-1955) who then headed the Mayo section of dermatology.
By the 1930s, a flurry of organizational activity overtook American dermatology. In 1932, the American Board of Dermatology was established, with its first exams given in 1933 (20 students passed, 7 failed). The Society for Investigative Dermatology was founded in 1937, and the American Academy of Dermatology and Syphilology (now the American Academy of Dermatology), founded in 1938.
The 1930s also saw a major influx of German and other European Jews fleeing Nazi oppression who would forever change the face of American dermatology. “Between 1933 and 1938, a series of repressive measures eliminated them from the practice of medicine in Germany and other countries. Although some died in concentration camps and others committed suicide, many were able to emigrate from Europe. Dermatology in the United States particularly benefited from the influx of several stellar Jewish dermatologists who were major contributors to the subsequent flowering of academic dermatology in the United States” (JAMA Derm. 2013;149[9]:1090-4).
“The overtures of the holocaust and the rising power of Hitler in Europe finally brought over to the United States the flower of dermatologists and investigators of the German School, e.g., Alexander and Walter Lever, Felix and Hermann Pinkus, the Epsteins, Erich Auerbach, Stephen Rothman, to name just a few. With this exodus and transfer of brain power, Europe lost its leading role to never again regain it,” according to Dr. Holubar. Walter F. Lever, MD (1909-1992) was especially well-known for his landmark textbook on dermatology, “Histopathology of the Skin,” published in the United States in 1949.
The therapeutic era
Throughout the 19th century, a variety of soaps and patent medicines were touted as cure-alls for a host of skin diseases. Other than their benefits to surface cleanliness and their antiseptic properties, however, they were of little effect.
It wasn’t until the 20th century that truly effective therapeutics entered the dermatologic pharmacopoeia. In their 1989 review, Diane Quintal, MD, and Robert Jackson, MD, discussed the origins of the most important of these drugs and pointed out that, “Until this century, the essence of dermatology resided in the realm of morphology. Early contributors largely confined their activities to the classification of skin diseases and to the elaboration of clinical dermatologic entities based on morphologic features. ... but “in the last 50 years, there have been significant scientific discoveries in the field of therapeutics that have revolutionized the practice of dermatology.“ (Clin Dermatol. 1989;7[3]38-47).
These key drugs comprised:
- Quinacrine was introduced in 1932 by Walter Kikuth, MD, as an antimalarial drug. But it was not until 1940, that A.J. Prokoptchouksi, MD, reported on its effectiveness 35 patients with lupus erythematosus.
- Para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA) came into prominence in 1942, when Stephen Rothman, MD, and Jack Rubin, MD, at the University of Chicago, published the results of their experiment, showing that when PABA was incorporated in an ointment base and applied to the skin, it could protect against sunburn.
- Dapsone. The effectiveness of sulfapyridine was demonstrated in 1947 by M.J. Costello, MD, who reported its usefulness in a patient with dermatitis herpetiformis, which he believed to be caused by a bacterial allergy. Sulfapyridine controlled the disease, but gastrointestinal intolerance and sulfonamide sensitivity were side effects. Ultimately, in 1951, Theodore Cornbleet, MD, introduced the use of sulfoxones in his article entitled “Sulfoxone (diasones) sodium for dermatitis herpetiformis,” considered more effective than sulfapyridine. Dapsone is the active principal ingredient.
- Hydrocortisone. In August 1952, Marion Sulzberger, MD, and Victor H. Witten, MD (both members of the first Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board), described use of Compound F (17-hydroxycorticosterone-21-acetate, hydrocortisone) in seven cases of atopic dermatitis and one case of discoid or subacute lupus erythematosus, reporting improvement in all of these cases.
- Benzoyl peroxide. Canadian dermatologist William E. Pace, MD, reported on the beneficial effects of benzoyl peroxide on acne in 1953. The product had originally been used for chronic Staphylococcus aureus folliculitis of the beard.
- Griseofulvin, a metabolic byproduct of a number of species of Penicillium, was first isolated in 1939. But in 1958, Harvey Blank, MD, at the University of Miami (also on the first Skin & Allergy News editorial advisory board), and Stanley I. Cullen, MD, administered the drug to a patient with Trichophyton rubrum granuloma, in the first human trial. In 1959, they reported the drug’s benefits on 31 patients with various fungal infections.
- Methotrexate. In 1951, R. Gubner, MD, and colleagues noticed the rapid clearing of skin lesions in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis who had been treated with the folic acid antagonist, aminopterin. And in 1958, W.F. Edmundson, MD, and W.B. Guy, MD, reported on the oral use of the folic acid antagonist, methotrexate. This was followed by multiple reports on the successful use of methotrexate in psoriasis.
- 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In 1957, 5-FU, an antimetabolite of uracil, was first synthesized. In 1962, G. Falkson, MD, and E.J. Schulz, MD, reported on skin changes observed in 85 patients being treated with systemic 5-FU for advanced carcinomatosis. They found that 31 of the 85 patients developed sensitivity to sunlight and subsequent disappearance of actinic keratoses in these same patients.
Technology in skin care also was developing in the era just before the launch of Skin & Allergy News. For example, Leon Goldman, MD, then chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Cincinnati, was the first physician to use a laser for tattoo removal. His publication in 1965 helped to solidify its use, leading him to be “regarded by many in the dermatologic community as the ‘godfather of lasers in medicine and surgery’ ” (Clin Dermatol. 2007;25:434-42).
So, by 1970, dermatology as a field had established itself fully with a strong societal infrastructure, a vibrant base of journals and books, and an evolving set of scientific and technical tools. The launch of Skin & Allergy News (now Dermatology News) that year would chronicle dermatology’s commitment to the development of new therapeutics and technologies in service of patient needs – the stories of which would grace the newspaper’s pages for 5 decades and counting.
Common drug with lots of surprising side effects
A 55-year-old woman comes to clinic for follow-up. She reports her family is worried that she isn’t getting enough sleep and is more tired than usual. The patient reports she is sleeping 8 hours a night and wakes up feeling rested, but she has noticed she has been yawning much more frequently than she remembers in the past.
Past medical history: gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, and osteoporosis. Medications: amlodipine, lansoprazole, irbesartan, escitalopram, levothyroxine, and alendronate. Physical examination: blood pressure 110/70 mm Hg, pulse 60 bpm. Lower extremities: 1+ edema.
What is the likely cause of her increased yawning?
A. Amlodipine.
B. Alendronate.
C. Irbesartan.
D. Escitalopram.
E. Lansoprazole.
The correct answer here is escitalopram. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general are well tolerated. Given how commonly these drugs are used, however, there are a number of lesser-known side effects that you are likely to see.
In the above case, this patient has yawning caused by her SSRI. Roncero et al. described a case of yawning in a patient on escitalopram that resolved when the dose of escitalopram was reduced.1 Paroxetine has been reported to cause yawning at both low and high doses.2
In a review of drug-induced yawning, SSRIs as a class were most frequently involved, and sertraline and fluoxetine were implicated in addition to paroxetine.3 The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine have also been associated with yawning.4,5
Hyperhydrosis has also been linked to SSRIs and SNRIs, and both yawning and hyperhidrosis may occur because of an underlying thermoregulatory dysfunction.6
SSRIs have been linked to increased bleeding risk, especially increased risk of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Laporte and colleagues showed an association of SSRI use and risk of bleeding in a meta-analysis of 42 observational studies, with an odds ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.57; P less than .0001).7 The risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is further increased if patients are also taking NSAIDs.
Anglin et al. looked at 15 case-control studies and 4 cohort studies and found an OR of 1.66 for UGI bleeding with SSRI use, and an OR of 4.25 for UGI bleeding if SSRI use was combined with NSAID use.8 The number needed to harm is 3,177 for NSAID use in populations at low risk for GI bleeding, but it is much lower (881) in higher-risk populations.8 Make sure to think about patients’ bleeding risks when starting SSRIs.
An issue that comes up frequently is: What is the risk of bleeding in patients on SSRIs who are also on anticoagulants? Dr. Quinn and colleagues looked at the bleeding risk of anticoagulated patients also taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF trial.9 They found 737 patients who received SSRIs and matched them with other patients not on SSRIs in the trial. All patients in the trial were either receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin for stroke prophylaxis. They found no significant increase risk in bleeding in the patients on SSRIs and anticoagulants.
Take-home points:
- Yawning and hyperhidrosis are interesting side effects of SSRIs.
- Bleeding risk is increased in patients on SSRIs, especially when combined with NSAIDs.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Neurologia. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(9):589-90.
2. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Apr;60(2):260.
3. Presse Med. 2014 Oct;43(10 Pt 1):1135-6.
4. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Jun 15;33(4):747.
5. Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1297-301.
6. Depress Anxiety. 2017 Dec;34(12):1134-46.
7. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Apr;118:19-32.
8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;109(6):811-9.
9. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Aug 7;7(15):e008755.
A 55-year-old woman comes to clinic for follow-up. She reports her family is worried that she isn’t getting enough sleep and is more tired than usual. The patient reports she is sleeping 8 hours a night and wakes up feeling rested, but she has noticed she has been yawning much more frequently than she remembers in the past.
Past medical history: gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, and osteoporosis. Medications: amlodipine, lansoprazole, irbesartan, escitalopram, levothyroxine, and alendronate. Physical examination: blood pressure 110/70 mm Hg, pulse 60 bpm. Lower extremities: 1+ edema.
What is the likely cause of her increased yawning?
A. Amlodipine.
B. Alendronate.
C. Irbesartan.
D. Escitalopram.
E. Lansoprazole.
The correct answer here is escitalopram. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general are well tolerated. Given how commonly these drugs are used, however, there are a number of lesser-known side effects that you are likely to see.
In the above case, this patient has yawning caused by her SSRI. Roncero et al. described a case of yawning in a patient on escitalopram that resolved when the dose of escitalopram was reduced.1 Paroxetine has been reported to cause yawning at both low and high doses.2
In a review of drug-induced yawning, SSRIs as a class were most frequently involved, and sertraline and fluoxetine were implicated in addition to paroxetine.3 The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine have also been associated with yawning.4,5
Hyperhydrosis has also been linked to SSRIs and SNRIs, and both yawning and hyperhidrosis may occur because of an underlying thermoregulatory dysfunction.6
SSRIs have been linked to increased bleeding risk, especially increased risk of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Laporte and colleagues showed an association of SSRI use and risk of bleeding in a meta-analysis of 42 observational studies, with an odds ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.57; P less than .0001).7 The risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is further increased if patients are also taking NSAIDs.
Anglin et al. looked at 15 case-control studies and 4 cohort studies and found an OR of 1.66 for UGI bleeding with SSRI use, and an OR of 4.25 for UGI bleeding if SSRI use was combined with NSAID use.8 The number needed to harm is 3,177 for NSAID use in populations at low risk for GI bleeding, but it is much lower (881) in higher-risk populations.8 Make sure to think about patients’ bleeding risks when starting SSRIs.
An issue that comes up frequently is: What is the risk of bleeding in patients on SSRIs who are also on anticoagulants? Dr. Quinn and colleagues looked at the bleeding risk of anticoagulated patients also taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF trial.9 They found 737 patients who received SSRIs and matched them with other patients not on SSRIs in the trial. All patients in the trial were either receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin for stroke prophylaxis. They found no significant increase risk in bleeding in the patients on SSRIs and anticoagulants.
Take-home points:
- Yawning and hyperhidrosis are interesting side effects of SSRIs.
- Bleeding risk is increased in patients on SSRIs, especially when combined with NSAIDs.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Neurologia. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(9):589-90.
2. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Apr;60(2):260.
3. Presse Med. 2014 Oct;43(10 Pt 1):1135-6.
4. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Jun 15;33(4):747.
5. Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1297-301.
6. Depress Anxiety. 2017 Dec;34(12):1134-46.
7. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Apr;118:19-32.
8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;109(6):811-9.
9. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Aug 7;7(15):e008755.
A 55-year-old woman comes to clinic for follow-up. She reports her family is worried that she isn’t getting enough sleep and is more tired than usual. The patient reports she is sleeping 8 hours a night and wakes up feeling rested, but she has noticed she has been yawning much more frequently than she remembers in the past.
Past medical history: gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, and osteoporosis. Medications: amlodipine, lansoprazole, irbesartan, escitalopram, levothyroxine, and alendronate. Physical examination: blood pressure 110/70 mm Hg, pulse 60 bpm. Lower extremities: 1+ edema.
What is the likely cause of her increased yawning?
A. Amlodipine.
B. Alendronate.
C. Irbesartan.
D. Escitalopram.
E. Lansoprazole.
The correct answer here is escitalopram. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general are well tolerated. Given how commonly these drugs are used, however, there are a number of lesser-known side effects that you are likely to see.
In the above case, this patient has yawning caused by her SSRI. Roncero et al. described a case of yawning in a patient on escitalopram that resolved when the dose of escitalopram was reduced.1 Paroxetine has been reported to cause yawning at both low and high doses.2
In a review of drug-induced yawning, SSRIs as a class were most frequently involved, and sertraline and fluoxetine were implicated in addition to paroxetine.3 The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine have also been associated with yawning.4,5
Hyperhydrosis has also been linked to SSRIs and SNRIs, and both yawning and hyperhidrosis may occur because of an underlying thermoregulatory dysfunction.6
SSRIs have been linked to increased bleeding risk, especially increased risk of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Laporte and colleagues showed an association of SSRI use and risk of bleeding in a meta-analysis of 42 observational studies, with an odds ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.57; P less than .0001).7 The risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is further increased if patients are also taking NSAIDs.
Anglin et al. looked at 15 case-control studies and 4 cohort studies and found an OR of 1.66 for UGI bleeding with SSRI use, and an OR of 4.25 for UGI bleeding if SSRI use was combined with NSAID use.8 The number needed to harm is 3,177 for NSAID use in populations at low risk for GI bleeding, but it is much lower (881) in higher-risk populations.8 Make sure to think about patients’ bleeding risks when starting SSRIs.
An issue that comes up frequently is: What is the risk of bleeding in patients on SSRIs who are also on anticoagulants? Dr. Quinn and colleagues looked at the bleeding risk of anticoagulated patients also taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF trial.9 They found 737 patients who received SSRIs and matched them with other patients not on SSRIs in the trial. All patients in the trial were either receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin for stroke prophylaxis. They found no significant increase risk in bleeding in the patients on SSRIs and anticoagulants.
Take-home points:
- Yawning and hyperhidrosis are interesting side effects of SSRIs.
- Bleeding risk is increased in patients on SSRIs, especially when combined with NSAIDs.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Neurologia. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(9):589-90.
2. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Apr;60(2):260.
3. Presse Med. 2014 Oct;43(10 Pt 1):1135-6.
4. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Jun 15;33(4):747.
5. Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1297-301.
6. Depress Anxiety. 2017 Dec;34(12):1134-46.
7. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Apr;118:19-32.
8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;109(6):811-9.
9. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Aug 7;7(15):e008755.
Anxiety may be a part of healthy development, sometimes
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
CD1a and cosmetic-related contact dermatitis
As industries develop more chemical extraction techniques for synthetic or purified botanical ingredients to include in cosmetic and personal care products, the incidence of contact dermatitis is rising. Contact dermatitis (irritant or allergic) is the most common occupational skin disease, with current lifetime incidence exceeding 50%. For allergic contact dermatitis, type IV hypersensitivity (or delayed-type hypersensitivity) is thought to be the immunologic mediated pathway in which a T cell–mediated response occurs approximately 72 hours after exposure to the contact allergen. Diagnosis currently is predominately made clinically, after identifying the potential allergen or via patch testing. Treatment typically involves topical steroids or anti-inflammatories should a rash occur, and avoidance of the identified allergen.
In delayed-type hypersensitivity, most T-cell receptors recognize a peptide antigen bound to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) I or MHC II proteins, which stimulates a subsequent inflammatory immune response. However, in a recently published study, the authors wrote that “most known contact allergens are nonpeptidic small molecules, cations, or metals that are typically delivered to skin as drugs, oils, cosmetics, skin creams, or fragrances.” The chemical nature and structure of contact allergens “does not match the chemical structures of most antigens commonly recognized within the TCR-peptide-MHC axis,” they added. Thus, the mechanism by which nonpeptide molecules found in cosmetics cause a T cell–mediated hypersensitivity is poorly understood.
In that study, investigators from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Columbia University, New York; and Monash University, Melbourne, looked at whether a protein found in immune cells – CD1a – could be involved in these allergic reactions. In a press release describing the results, cosenior author D. Branch Moody, MD, a principal investigator and physician in Brigham and Women’s division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity, noted that they “questioned the prevailing paradigm that T cell–mediated allergic reaction is only triggered when T cells respond to proteins or peptide antigens,” and found “a mechanism through which fragrance can initiate a T-cell response through a protein called CD1a.”
In their study, CD1a was identified as the and personal care products. Specifically, balsam of Peru (a tree oil commonly found in cosmetics and toothpaste), benzyl benzoate, benzyl cinnamate, and farnesol (often present in “fragrance”) after positive patch tests were found to elicit a CD1a-mediated immune response. Their findings suggest that, for these hydrophobic contact allergens, in forming CD1a-farnesol (or other) complexes, displacement of self-lipids normally bound to CD1a occurs, exposing T cell–stimulatory surface regions of CD1a that are normally hidden, thereby eliciting T cell–mediated hypersensitivity reactions.
The authors note that having a better understanding of how these ingredients elicit an immune response on a molecular level can help us potentially identify other molecules that can potentially block this response in humans, thereby treating or potentially mitigating allergic skin disease from these ingredients.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Resource
Nicolai S et al. Sci Immunol. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aax5430.
As industries develop more chemical extraction techniques for synthetic or purified botanical ingredients to include in cosmetic and personal care products, the incidence of contact dermatitis is rising. Contact dermatitis (irritant or allergic) is the most common occupational skin disease, with current lifetime incidence exceeding 50%. For allergic contact dermatitis, type IV hypersensitivity (or delayed-type hypersensitivity) is thought to be the immunologic mediated pathway in which a T cell–mediated response occurs approximately 72 hours after exposure to the contact allergen. Diagnosis currently is predominately made clinically, after identifying the potential allergen or via patch testing. Treatment typically involves topical steroids or anti-inflammatories should a rash occur, and avoidance of the identified allergen.
In delayed-type hypersensitivity, most T-cell receptors recognize a peptide antigen bound to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) I or MHC II proteins, which stimulates a subsequent inflammatory immune response. However, in a recently published study, the authors wrote that “most known contact allergens are nonpeptidic small molecules, cations, or metals that are typically delivered to skin as drugs, oils, cosmetics, skin creams, or fragrances.” The chemical nature and structure of contact allergens “does not match the chemical structures of most antigens commonly recognized within the TCR-peptide-MHC axis,” they added. Thus, the mechanism by which nonpeptide molecules found in cosmetics cause a T cell–mediated hypersensitivity is poorly understood.
In that study, investigators from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Columbia University, New York; and Monash University, Melbourne, looked at whether a protein found in immune cells – CD1a – could be involved in these allergic reactions. In a press release describing the results, cosenior author D. Branch Moody, MD, a principal investigator and physician in Brigham and Women’s division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity, noted that they “questioned the prevailing paradigm that T cell–mediated allergic reaction is only triggered when T cells respond to proteins or peptide antigens,” and found “a mechanism through which fragrance can initiate a T-cell response through a protein called CD1a.”
In their study, CD1a was identified as the and personal care products. Specifically, balsam of Peru (a tree oil commonly found in cosmetics and toothpaste), benzyl benzoate, benzyl cinnamate, and farnesol (often present in “fragrance”) after positive patch tests were found to elicit a CD1a-mediated immune response. Their findings suggest that, for these hydrophobic contact allergens, in forming CD1a-farnesol (or other) complexes, displacement of self-lipids normally bound to CD1a occurs, exposing T cell–stimulatory surface regions of CD1a that are normally hidden, thereby eliciting T cell–mediated hypersensitivity reactions.
The authors note that having a better understanding of how these ingredients elicit an immune response on a molecular level can help us potentially identify other molecules that can potentially block this response in humans, thereby treating or potentially mitigating allergic skin disease from these ingredients.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Resource
Nicolai S et al. Sci Immunol. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aax5430.
As industries develop more chemical extraction techniques for synthetic or purified botanical ingredients to include in cosmetic and personal care products, the incidence of contact dermatitis is rising. Contact dermatitis (irritant or allergic) is the most common occupational skin disease, with current lifetime incidence exceeding 50%. For allergic contact dermatitis, type IV hypersensitivity (or delayed-type hypersensitivity) is thought to be the immunologic mediated pathway in which a T cell–mediated response occurs approximately 72 hours after exposure to the contact allergen. Diagnosis currently is predominately made clinically, after identifying the potential allergen or via patch testing. Treatment typically involves topical steroids or anti-inflammatories should a rash occur, and avoidance of the identified allergen.
In delayed-type hypersensitivity, most T-cell receptors recognize a peptide antigen bound to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) I or MHC II proteins, which stimulates a subsequent inflammatory immune response. However, in a recently published study, the authors wrote that “most known contact allergens are nonpeptidic small molecules, cations, or metals that are typically delivered to skin as drugs, oils, cosmetics, skin creams, or fragrances.” The chemical nature and structure of contact allergens “does not match the chemical structures of most antigens commonly recognized within the TCR-peptide-MHC axis,” they added. Thus, the mechanism by which nonpeptide molecules found in cosmetics cause a T cell–mediated hypersensitivity is poorly understood.
In that study, investigators from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Columbia University, New York; and Monash University, Melbourne, looked at whether a protein found in immune cells – CD1a – could be involved in these allergic reactions. In a press release describing the results, cosenior author D. Branch Moody, MD, a principal investigator and physician in Brigham and Women’s division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity, noted that they “questioned the prevailing paradigm that T cell–mediated allergic reaction is only triggered when T cells respond to proteins or peptide antigens,” and found “a mechanism through which fragrance can initiate a T-cell response through a protein called CD1a.”
In their study, CD1a was identified as the and personal care products. Specifically, balsam of Peru (a tree oil commonly found in cosmetics and toothpaste), benzyl benzoate, benzyl cinnamate, and farnesol (often present in “fragrance”) after positive patch tests were found to elicit a CD1a-mediated immune response. Their findings suggest that, for these hydrophobic contact allergens, in forming CD1a-farnesol (or other) complexes, displacement of self-lipids normally bound to CD1a occurs, exposing T cell–stimulatory surface regions of CD1a that are normally hidden, thereby eliciting T cell–mediated hypersensitivity reactions.
The authors note that having a better understanding of how these ingredients elicit an immune response on a molecular level can help us potentially identify other molecules that can potentially block this response in humans, thereby treating or potentially mitigating allergic skin disease from these ingredients.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Resource
Nicolai S et al. Sci Immunol. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aax5430.