MDedge Pediatrics

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Children with hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are much more likely to also have congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, according to an analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Although researchers found no association between ALL and congenital CMV infection overall, pediatric patients diagnosed with hyperdiploid ALL had sixfold greater odds of being positive for congenital CMV than cancer-free controls.

“These findings suggest mixed evidence for an association between congenital CMV infection and ALL” and that “a CMV-ALL association may be specific to hyperdiploid ALL,” said investigators, led by Jennifer Geris, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

A growing body of evidence suggests that CMV, a member of the herpesvirus family, may be a risk factor for ALL. Although the mechanism remains unclear, congenital CMV may encourage proliferation of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in bone marrow that are vulnerable to oncogenic transformation.

Two prior independent studies have suggested that prenatal CMV infection is associated with an increased risk of childhood ALL. However, given how common CMV infection is (more than 80% seropositivity worldwide) and the relatively rarity of pediatric ALL, Joseph Wiemels, PhD, argued in an accompanying editorial that CMV can’t be a direct cause of leukemia.

“Instead, CMV may play a supportive role” with infection in some infants altering immune function in a way that increases vulnerability to more direct causes of ALL, explained Dr. Wiemels, professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. In other words, “exposure to CMV early rather than fulminant infection” at birth “may be the key epidemiologic feature.”

In the current study, Dr. Geris and colleagues tested dried newborn blood spots from 1189 children with ALL and 4,756 controls matched on age, sex, and mother’s race and ethnicity for the presence of cytomegalovirus at birth. Children were born in Michigan on or after Oct. 1, 1987.

Across the entire study population, congenital CMV was detected in 6 ALL cases (0.5%) and 21 controls (0.4%), with no difference in the odds of congenital CMV infection between the two groups. Among subjects positive for congenital CMV, it was not clear who had fulminant, clinically recognized disease and who did not.

Overall, 2 of 74 cases (2.7%) of hyperdiploid ALL were positive for congenital CMV. Compared with all controls in an unmatched analysis, those with hyperdiploid ALL were 6.26 times more likely to be CMV positive.

Overall, the investigators concluded that the current findings, in combination with previous evidence showing a similar connection, “strongly suggest CMV is associated specifically to hyperdiploid ALL.”

Although “the evidence supporting an association between CMV and ALL is tantalizing and mounting rapidly,” Dr. Wiemels noted that “much additional research attention is required to mechanistically describe pathways by which CMV may influence leukemia before the virus could be considered a potential target for prevention or clinical management of ALL.”

“We are still in the early chapters of the book describing the role of CMV and ALL,” but the virus might emerge as a clinical target “with much future promise for the health and well-being of our children,” he said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota, and the Department of Defense. The investigators and editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children with hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are much more likely to also have congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, according to an analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Although researchers found no association between ALL and congenital CMV infection overall, pediatric patients diagnosed with hyperdiploid ALL had sixfold greater odds of being positive for congenital CMV than cancer-free controls.

“These findings suggest mixed evidence for an association between congenital CMV infection and ALL” and that “a CMV-ALL association may be specific to hyperdiploid ALL,” said investigators, led by Jennifer Geris, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

A growing body of evidence suggests that CMV, a member of the herpesvirus family, may be a risk factor for ALL. Although the mechanism remains unclear, congenital CMV may encourage proliferation of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in bone marrow that are vulnerable to oncogenic transformation.

Two prior independent studies have suggested that prenatal CMV infection is associated with an increased risk of childhood ALL. However, given how common CMV infection is (more than 80% seropositivity worldwide) and the relatively rarity of pediatric ALL, Joseph Wiemels, PhD, argued in an accompanying editorial that CMV can’t be a direct cause of leukemia.

“Instead, CMV may play a supportive role” with infection in some infants altering immune function in a way that increases vulnerability to more direct causes of ALL, explained Dr. Wiemels, professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. In other words, “exposure to CMV early rather than fulminant infection” at birth “may be the key epidemiologic feature.”

In the current study, Dr. Geris and colleagues tested dried newborn blood spots from 1189 children with ALL and 4,756 controls matched on age, sex, and mother’s race and ethnicity for the presence of cytomegalovirus at birth. Children were born in Michigan on or after Oct. 1, 1987.

Across the entire study population, congenital CMV was detected in 6 ALL cases (0.5%) and 21 controls (0.4%), with no difference in the odds of congenital CMV infection between the two groups. Among subjects positive for congenital CMV, it was not clear who had fulminant, clinically recognized disease and who did not.

Overall, 2 of 74 cases (2.7%) of hyperdiploid ALL were positive for congenital CMV. Compared with all controls in an unmatched analysis, those with hyperdiploid ALL were 6.26 times more likely to be CMV positive.

Overall, the investigators concluded that the current findings, in combination with previous evidence showing a similar connection, “strongly suggest CMV is associated specifically to hyperdiploid ALL.”

Although “the evidence supporting an association between CMV and ALL is tantalizing and mounting rapidly,” Dr. Wiemels noted that “much additional research attention is required to mechanistically describe pathways by which CMV may influence leukemia before the virus could be considered a potential target for prevention or clinical management of ALL.”

“We are still in the early chapters of the book describing the role of CMV and ALL,” but the virus might emerge as a clinical target “with much future promise for the health and well-being of our children,” he said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota, and the Department of Defense. The investigators and editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children with hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are much more likely to also have congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, according to an analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Although researchers found no association between ALL and congenital CMV infection overall, pediatric patients diagnosed with hyperdiploid ALL had sixfold greater odds of being positive for congenital CMV than cancer-free controls.

“These findings suggest mixed evidence for an association between congenital CMV infection and ALL” and that “a CMV-ALL association may be specific to hyperdiploid ALL,” said investigators, led by Jennifer Geris, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

A growing body of evidence suggests that CMV, a member of the herpesvirus family, may be a risk factor for ALL. Although the mechanism remains unclear, congenital CMV may encourage proliferation of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in bone marrow that are vulnerable to oncogenic transformation.

Two prior independent studies have suggested that prenatal CMV infection is associated with an increased risk of childhood ALL. However, given how common CMV infection is (more than 80% seropositivity worldwide) and the relatively rarity of pediatric ALL, Joseph Wiemels, PhD, argued in an accompanying editorial that CMV can’t be a direct cause of leukemia.

“Instead, CMV may play a supportive role” with infection in some infants altering immune function in a way that increases vulnerability to more direct causes of ALL, explained Dr. Wiemels, professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. In other words, “exposure to CMV early rather than fulminant infection” at birth “may be the key epidemiologic feature.”

In the current study, Dr. Geris and colleagues tested dried newborn blood spots from 1189 children with ALL and 4,756 controls matched on age, sex, and mother’s race and ethnicity for the presence of cytomegalovirus at birth. Children were born in Michigan on or after Oct. 1, 1987.

Across the entire study population, congenital CMV was detected in 6 ALL cases (0.5%) and 21 controls (0.4%), with no difference in the odds of congenital CMV infection between the two groups. Among subjects positive for congenital CMV, it was not clear who had fulminant, clinically recognized disease and who did not.

Overall, 2 of 74 cases (2.7%) of hyperdiploid ALL were positive for congenital CMV. Compared with all controls in an unmatched analysis, those with hyperdiploid ALL were 6.26 times more likely to be CMV positive.

Overall, the investigators concluded that the current findings, in combination with previous evidence showing a similar connection, “strongly suggest CMV is associated specifically to hyperdiploid ALL.”

Although “the evidence supporting an association between CMV and ALL is tantalizing and mounting rapidly,” Dr. Wiemels noted that “much additional research attention is required to mechanistically describe pathways by which CMV may influence leukemia before the virus could be considered a potential target for prevention or clinical management of ALL.”

“We are still in the early chapters of the book describing the role of CMV and ALL,” but the virus might emerge as a clinical target “with much future promise for the health and well-being of our children,” he said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota, and the Department of Defense. The investigators and editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

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.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

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.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

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.

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

Given the over 1-year history of an unchanging longitudinal band of pigment without extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds or any other nail findings, the most likely diagnosis is benign longitudinal melanonychia.

Longitudinal melanonychia, also known as melanonychia striata, describes a brown to black streak of pigment extending from the nail matrix to the free edge of the nail.^1,2

This disorder can occur secondary to a wide variety of benign and pathologic causes including lentigines, nevi, melanoma, chronic trauma, inflammatory skin diseases, systemic diseases, iatrogenic causes, and genetic syndromes.³ In melanocytic causes of longitudinal melanonychia, either melanocytic activation or hyperplasia drive pigmentary development leading to the brown to black band seen in the nail.⁴ Benign causes of longitudinal melanonychia include benign melanocyte activation, lentigo, and benign nevus.¹

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis for longitudinal melanonychia can include a wide variety of local and systemic causes. For our discussion, we will limit our differential to other locally involved disorders of the nail including subungual melanoma, subungual hematoma, onychomycosis, and glomus tumor.

Subungual melanoma is a rare subtype of acral lentiginous melanoma that most often presents as longitudinal melanonychia. Subungual melanoma is more common in those aged 50-70 years, individuals with personal or family history of melanoma or dysplastic nevus syndrome, and persons with African American, Native American, and Asian descent. Longitudinal melanonychia features that can be concerning for subungual melanoma include the presence of multiple colors, width greater than or equal to 3 mm, blurry borders, rapid increase in size, and extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds (Hutchinson’s sign). Biopsy is required to make the diagnosis of subungual melanoma but is not necessary for melanonychia without atypical features.

Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Ms. Sui is a research associate in the department of dermatology, division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Mannava KA et al. Hand Surg. 2013;18(1):133-9.

2. Leung AKC et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58(11):1239-45.

3. Andre J and Lateur N. Dermatol Clin. 2006;24(3):329-39.

4. Lee DK and Lipner SR. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):694-712.

5. Smith RJ and Rubin AI. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(4):506-15. .

6. Matsui Y et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(4):946-8.

7. Lee JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(2):366-72.

Given the over 1-year history of an unchanging longitudinal band of pigment without extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds or any other nail findings, the most likely diagnosis is benign longitudinal melanonychia.

Longitudinal melanonychia, also known as melanonychia striata, describes a brown to black streak of pigment extending from the nail matrix to the free edge of the nail.^1,2

This disorder can occur secondary to a wide variety of benign and pathologic causes including lentigines, nevi, melanoma, chronic trauma, inflammatory skin diseases, systemic diseases, iatrogenic causes, and genetic syndromes.³ In melanocytic causes of longitudinal melanonychia, either melanocytic activation or hyperplasia drive pigmentary development leading to the brown to black band seen in the nail.⁴ Benign causes of longitudinal melanonychia include benign melanocyte activation, lentigo, and benign nevus.¹

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis for longitudinal melanonychia can include a wide variety of local and systemic causes. For our discussion, we will limit our differential to other locally involved disorders of the nail including subungual melanoma, subungual hematoma, onychomycosis, and glomus tumor.

Subungual melanoma is a rare subtype of acral lentiginous melanoma that most often presents as longitudinal melanonychia. Subungual melanoma is more common in those aged 50-70 years, individuals with personal or family history of melanoma or dysplastic nevus syndrome, and persons with African American, Native American, and Asian descent. Longitudinal melanonychia features that can be concerning for subungual melanoma include the presence of multiple colors, width greater than or equal to 3 mm, blurry borders, rapid increase in size, and extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds (Hutchinson’s sign). Biopsy is required to make the diagnosis of subungual melanoma but is not necessary for melanonychia without atypical features.

Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Ms. Sui is a research associate in the department of dermatology, division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Mannava KA et al. Hand Surg. 2013;18(1):133-9.

2. Leung AKC et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58(11):1239-45.

3. Andre J and Lateur N. Dermatol Clin. 2006;24(3):329-39.

4. Lee DK and Lipner SR. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):694-712.

5. Smith RJ and Rubin AI. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(4):506-15. .

6. Matsui Y et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(4):946-8.

7. Lee JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(2):366-72.

Given the over 1-year history of an unchanging longitudinal band of pigment without extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds or any other nail findings, the most likely diagnosis is benign longitudinal melanonychia.

Longitudinal melanonychia, also known as melanonychia striata, describes a brown to black streak of pigment extending from the nail matrix to the free edge of the nail.^1,2

This disorder can occur secondary to a wide variety of benign and pathologic causes including lentigines, nevi, melanoma, chronic trauma, inflammatory skin diseases, systemic diseases, iatrogenic causes, and genetic syndromes.³ In melanocytic causes of longitudinal melanonychia, either melanocytic activation or hyperplasia drive pigmentary development leading to the brown to black band seen in the nail.⁴ Benign causes of longitudinal melanonychia include benign melanocyte activation, lentigo, and benign nevus.¹

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis for longitudinal melanonychia can include a wide variety of local and systemic causes. For our discussion, we will limit our differential to other locally involved disorders of the nail including subungual melanoma, subungual hematoma, onychomycosis, and glomus tumor.

Subungual melanoma is a rare subtype of acral lentiginous melanoma that most often presents as longitudinal melanonychia. Subungual melanoma is more common in those aged 50-70 years, individuals with personal or family history of melanoma or dysplastic nevus syndrome, and persons with African American, Native American, and Asian descent. Longitudinal melanonychia features that can be concerning for subungual melanoma include the presence of multiple colors, width greater than or equal to 3 mm, blurry borders, rapid increase in size, and extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds (Hutchinson’s sign). Biopsy is required to make the diagnosis of subungual melanoma but is not necessary for melanonychia without atypical features.

Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Ms. Sui is a research associate in the department of dermatology, division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Mannava KA et al. Hand Surg. 2013;18(1):133-9.

2. Leung AKC et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58(11):1239-45.

3. Andre J and Lateur N. Dermatol Clin. 2006;24(3):329-39.

4. Lee DK and Lipner SR. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):694-712.

5. Smith RJ and Rubin AI. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(4):506-15. .

6. Matsui Y et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(4):946-8.

7. Lee JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(2):366-72.

The American College of Gastroenterology issued updated guidelines for celiac disease diagnosis, management, and screening that incorporates research conducted since the last update in 2013.

The guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations for common clinical questions on topics that include nonbiopsy diagnosis, gluten-free oats, probiotic use, and gluten-detection devices. They also point to areas for ongoing research.

“The main message of the guideline is all about quality of care,” Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“A precise celiac disease diagnosis is just the beginning of the role of the gastroenterologist,” he said. “But most importantly, we need to take care of our patients’ needs with good goal-directed follow-up using a multidisciplinary approach, with experienced dietitians playing an important role.”

The update was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Diagnosis recommendations

The ACG assembled a team of celiac disease experts and expert guideline methodologists to develop an update with high-quality evidence, Dr. Rubio-Tapia said. The authors made recommendations and suggestions for future research regarding eight questions concerning diagnosis, disease management, and screening.

For diagnosis, the guidelines recommend esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with multiple duodenal biopsies – one or two from the bulb and four from the distal duodenum – for confirmation in children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. EGD and duodenal biopsies can also be useful for the differential diagnosis of other malabsorptive disorders or enteropathies, the authors wrote.

For children, a nonbiopsy option may be considered to be reliable for diagnosis. This option includes a combination of high-level tissue transglutaminase (TTG) IgA – at greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal – and a positive endomysial antibody finding in a second blood sample. The same criteria may be considered after the fact for symptomatic adults who are unwilling or unable to undergo upper GI endoscopy.

For children younger than 2 years, the TTG-IgA is the preferred test for those who are not IgA deficient. For children with IgA deficiency, testing should be performed using IgG-based antibodies.
 

Disease management guidance

After diagnosis, intestinal healing should be the endpoint for a gluten-free diet, the guidelines recommended. Clinicians and patients should discuss individualized goals of the gluten-free diet beyond clinical and serologic remission.

The standard of care for assessing patients’ diet adherence is an interview with a dietician who has expertise in gluten-free diets, the recommendations stated. Subsequent visits should be encouraged as needed to reinforce adherence.

During disease management, upper endoscopy with intestinal biopsies can be helpful for monitoring cases in which there is a lack of clinical response or in which symptoms relapse despite a gluten-free diet, the authors noted.

In addition, after a shared decision-making conversation between the patient and provider, a follow-up biopsy could be considered for assessment of mucosal healing in adults who don’t have symptoms 2 years after starting a gluten-free diet, they wrote.

“Although most patients do well on a gluten-free diet, it’s a heavy burden of care and an important issue that impacts patients,” Joseph Murray, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Dr. Murray, who wasn’t involved with this guideline update, contributed to the 2013 guidelines and the 2019 American Gastroenterological Association practice update on diagnosing and monitoring celiac disease. He agreed with many of the recommendations in this update.

“The goal of achieving healing is a good goal to reach. We do that routinely in my practice,” he said. “The older the patient, perhaps the more important it is to discuss, including the risk for complications. There’s a nuance involved with shared decision-making.”
 

Nutrition advice

The guidelines recommended against routine use of gluten-detection devices for food or biospecimens for patients with celiac disease. Although multiple devices have become commercially available in recent years, they are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and have sensitivity problems that can lead to false positive and false negative results, the authors noted. There’s also a lack of evidence that the devices enhance diet adherence or quality of life.

The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of probiotics for the treatment of celiac disease, the recommendations stated. Although dysbiosis is a feature of celiac disease, its role in disease pathogenesis and symptomatology is uncertain, the authors wrote.

Probiotics may help with functional disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome, but because probiotics are marketed as supplements and regulations are lax, some products may contain detectable gluten despite being labeled gluten free, they added.

On the other hand, the authors recommended gluten-free oats as part of a gluten-free diet. Oat consumption appears to be safe for most patients with celiac disease, but it may be immunogenic in a subset of patients, depending on the products or quantity consumed. Given the small risk for an immune reaction to the oat protein avenin, monitoring for oat tolerance through symptoms and serology should be conducted, although the intervals for monitoring remain unknown.
 

Vaccination and screening

The guidelines also support vaccination against pneumococcal disease, since adults with celiac disease are at significantly increased risk of infection and complications. Vaccination is widely recommended for people aged 65 and older, for smokers aged 19-64, and for adults with underlying conditions that place them at higher risk, the authors noted.

Overall, the guidelines recommended case findings to increase detection of celiac disease in clinical practice but recommend against mass screening in the community. Patients with symptoms for whom there is lab evidence of malabsorption should be tested, as well as those for whom celiac disease could be a treatable cause of symptoms, the authors wrote. Those with a first-degree family member who has a confirmed diagnosis should also be tested if they have possible symptoms, and asymptomatic relatives should consider testing as well.

The updated guidelines include changes that are important for patients and patient care, and they emphasize the need for continued research on key questions, Isabel Hujoel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization.

“In particular, the discussion on the lack of evidence behind gluten-detection devices and probiotic use in celiac disease addresses conversations that come up frequently in clinic,” said Dr. Hujoel, who wasn’t involved with the update. “The guidelines also include a new addition below each recommendation where future research questions are raised. Many of these questions address gaps in our understanding on celiac disease, such as the possibility of a nonbiopsy diagnosis in adults, which will potentially dramatically impact patient care if addressed.”

The update received no funding. The authors, Dr. Murray, and Dr. Hujoel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Gastroenterology issued updated guidelines for celiac disease diagnosis, management, and screening that incorporates research conducted since the last update in 2013.

The guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations for common clinical questions on topics that include nonbiopsy diagnosis, gluten-free oats, probiotic use, and gluten-detection devices. They also point to areas for ongoing research.

“The main message of the guideline is all about quality of care,” Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“A precise celiac disease diagnosis is just the beginning of the role of the gastroenterologist,” he said. “But most importantly, we need to take care of our patients’ needs with good goal-directed follow-up using a multidisciplinary approach, with experienced dietitians playing an important role.”

The update was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Diagnosis recommendations

The ACG assembled a team of celiac disease experts and expert guideline methodologists to develop an update with high-quality evidence, Dr. Rubio-Tapia said. The authors made recommendations and suggestions for future research regarding eight questions concerning diagnosis, disease management, and screening.

For diagnosis, the guidelines recommend esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with multiple duodenal biopsies – one or two from the bulb and four from the distal duodenum – for confirmation in children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. EGD and duodenal biopsies can also be useful for the differential diagnosis of other malabsorptive disorders or enteropathies, the authors wrote.

For children, a nonbiopsy option may be considered to be reliable for diagnosis. This option includes a combination of high-level tissue transglutaminase (TTG) IgA – at greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal – and a positive endomysial antibody finding in a second blood sample. The same criteria may be considered after the fact for symptomatic adults who are unwilling or unable to undergo upper GI endoscopy.

For children younger than 2 years, the TTG-IgA is the preferred test for those who are not IgA deficient. For children with IgA deficiency, testing should be performed using IgG-based antibodies.
 

Disease management guidance

After diagnosis, intestinal healing should be the endpoint for a gluten-free diet, the guidelines recommended. Clinicians and patients should discuss individualized goals of the gluten-free diet beyond clinical and serologic remission.

The standard of care for assessing patients’ diet adherence is an interview with a dietician who has expertise in gluten-free diets, the recommendations stated. Subsequent visits should be encouraged as needed to reinforce adherence.

During disease management, upper endoscopy with intestinal biopsies can be helpful for monitoring cases in which there is a lack of clinical response or in which symptoms relapse despite a gluten-free diet, the authors noted.

In addition, after a shared decision-making conversation between the patient and provider, a follow-up biopsy could be considered for assessment of mucosal healing in adults who don’t have symptoms 2 years after starting a gluten-free diet, they wrote.

“Although most patients do well on a gluten-free diet, it’s a heavy burden of care and an important issue that impacts patients,” Joseph Murray, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Dr. Murray, who wasn’t involved with this guideline update, contributed to the 2013 guidelines and the 2019 American Gastroenterological Association practice update on diagnosing and monitoring celiac disease. He agreed with many of the recommendations in this update.

“The goal of achieving healing is a good goal to reach. We do that routinely in my practice,” he said. “The older the patient, perhaps the more important it is to discuss, including the risk for complications. There’s a nuance involved with shared decision-making.”
 

Nutrition advice

The guidelines recommended against routine use of gluten-detection devices for food or biospecimens for patients with celiac disease. Although multiple devices have become commercially available in recent years, they are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and have sensitivity problems that can lead to false positive and false negative results, the authors noted. There’s also a lack of evidence that the devices enhance diet adherence or quality of life.

The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of probiotics for the treatment of celiac disease, the recommendations stated. Although dysbiosis is a feature of celiac disease, its role in disease pathogenesis and symptomatology is uncertain, the authors wrote.

Probiotics may help with functional disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome, but because probiotics are marketed as supplements and regulations are lax, some products may contain detectable gluten despite being labeled gluten free, they added.

On the other hand, the authors recommended gluten-free oats as part of a gluten-free diet. Oat consumption appears to be safe for most patients with celiac disease, but it may be immunogenic in a subset of patients, depending on the products or quantity consumed. Given the small risk for an immune reaction to the oat protein avenin, monitoring for oat tolerance through symptoms and serology should be conducted, although the intervals for monitoring remain unknown.
 

Vaccination and screening

The guidelines also support vaccination against pneumococcal disease, since adults with celiac disease are at significantly increased risk of infection and complications. Vaccination is widely recommended for people aged 65 and older, for smokers aged 19-64, and for adults with underlying conditions that place them at higher risk, the authors noted.

Overall, the guidelines recommended case findings to increase detection of celiac disease in clinical practice but recommend against mass screening in the community. Patients with symptoms for whom there is lab evidence of malabsorption should be tested, as well as those for whom celiac disease could be a treatable cause of symptoms, the authors wrote. Those with a first-degree family member who has a confirmed diagnosis should also be tested if they have possible symptoms, and asymptomatic relatives should consider testing as well.

The updated guidelines include changes that are important for patients and patient care, and they emphasize the need for continued research on key questions, Isabel Hujoel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization.

“In particular, the discussion on the lack of evidence behind gluten-detection devices and probiotic use in celiac disease addresses conversations that come up frequently in clinic,” said Dr. Hujoel, who wasn’t involved with the update. “The guidelines also include a new addition below each recommendation where future research questions are raised. Many of these questions address gaps in our understanding on celiac disease, such as the possibility of a nonbiopsy diagnosis in adults, which will potentially dramatically impact patient care if addressed.”

The update received no funding. The authors, Dr. Murray, and Dr. Hujoel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Gastroenterology issued updated guidelines for celiac disease diagnosis, management, and screening that incorporates research conducted since the last update in 2013.

The guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations for common clinical questions on topics that include nonbiopsy diagnosis, gluten-free oats, probiotic use, and gluten-detection devices. They also point to areas for ongoing research.

“The main message of the guideline is all about quality of care,” Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“A precise celiac disease diagnosis is just the beginning of the role of the gastroenterologist,” he said. “But most importantly, we need to take care of our patients’ needs with good goal-directed follow-up using a multidisciplinary approach, with experienced dietitians playing an important role.”

The update was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Diagnosis recommendations

The ACG assembled a team of celiac disease experts and expert guideline methodologists to develop an update with high-quality evidence, Dr. Rubio-Tapia said. The authors made recommendations and suggestions for future research regarding eight questions concerning diagnosis, disease management, and screening.

For diagnosis, the guidelines recommend esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with multiple duodenal biopsies – one or two from the bulb and four from the distal duodenum – for confirmation in children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. EGD and duodenal biopsies can also be useful for the differential diagnosis of other malabsorptive disorders or enteropathies, the authors wrote.

For children, a nonbiopsy option may be considered to be reliable for diagnosis. This option includes a combination of high-level tissue transglutaminase (TTG) IgA – at greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal – and a positive endomysial antibody finding in a second blood sample. The same criteria may be considered after the fact for symptomatic adults who are unwilling or unable to undergo upper GI endoscopy.

For children younger than 2 years, the TTG-IgA is the preferred test for those who are not IgA deficient. For children with IgA deficiency, testing should be performed using IgG-based antibodies.
 

Disease management guidance

After diagnosis, intestinal healing should be the endpoint for a gluten-free diet, the guidelines recommended. Clinicians and patients should discuss individualized goals of the gluten-free diet beyond clinical and serologic remission.

The standard of care for assessing patients’ diet adherence is an interview with a dietician who has expertise in gluten-free diets, the recommendations stated. Subsequent visits should be encouraged as needed to reinforce adherence.

During disease management, upper endoscopy with intestinal biopsies can be helpful for monitoring cases in which there is a lack of clinical response or in which symptoms relapse despite a gluten-free diet, the authors noted.

In addition, after a shared decision-making conversation between the patient and provider, a follow-up biopsy could be considered for assessment of mucosal healing in adults who don’t have symptoms 2 years after starting a gluten-free diet, they wrote.

“Although most patients do well on a gluten-free diet, it’s a heavy burden of care and an important issue that impacts patients,” Joseph Murray, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Dr. Murray, who wasn’t involved with this guideline update, contributed to the 2013 guidelines and the 2019 American Gastroenterological Association practice update on diagnosing and monitoring celiac disease. He agreed with many of the recommendations in this update.

“The goal of achieving healing is a good goal to reach. We do that routinely in my practice,” he said. “The older the patient, perhaps the more important it is to discuss, including the risk for complications. There’s a nuance involved with shared decision-making.”
 

Nutrition advice

The guidelines recommended against routine use of gluten-detection devices for food or biospecimens for patients with celiac disease. Although multiple devices have become commercially available in recent years, they are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and have sensitivity problems that can lead to false positive and false negative results, the authors noted. There’s also a lack of evidence that the devices enhance diet adherence or quality of life.

The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of probiotics for the treatment of celiac disease, the recommendations stated. Although dysbiosis is a feature of celiac disease, its role in disease pathogenesis and symptomatology is uncertain, the authors wrote.

Probiotics may help with functional disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome, but because probiotics are marketed as supplements and regulations are lax, some products may contain detectable gluten despite being labeled gluten free, they added.

On the other hand, the authors recommended gluten-free oats as part of a gluten-free diet. Oat consumption appears to be safe for most patients with celiac disease, but it may be immunogenic in a subset of patients, depending on the products or quantity consumed. Given the small risk for an immune reaction to the oat protein avenin, monitoring for oat tolerance through symptoms and serology should be conducted, although the intervals for monitoring remain unknown.
 

Vaccination and screening

The guidelines also support vaccination against pneumococcal disease, since adults with celiac disease are at significantly increased risk of infection and complications. Vaccination is widely recommended for people aged 65 and older, for smokers aged 19-64, and for adults with underlying conditions that place them at higher risk, the authors noted.

Overall, the guidelines recommended case findings to increase detection of celiac disease in clinical practice but recommend against mass screening in the community. Patients with symptoms for whom there is lab evidence of malabsorption should be tested, as well as those for whom celiac disease could be a treatable cause of symptoms, the authors wrote. Those with a first-degree family member who has a confirmed diagnosis should also be tested if they have possible symptoms, and asymptomatic relatives should consider testing as well.

The updated guidelines include changes that are important for patients and patient care, and they emphasize the need for continued research on key questions, Isabel Hujoel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization.

“In particular, the discussion on the lack of evidence behind gluten-detection devices and probiotic use in celiac disease addresses conversations that come up frequently in clinic,” said Dr. Hujoel, who wasn’t involved with the update. “The guidelines also include a new addition below each recommendation where future research questions are raised. Many of these questions address gaps in our understanding on celiac disease, such as the possibility of a nonbiopsy diagnosis in adults, which will potentially dramatically impact patient care if addressed.”

The update received no funding. The authors, Dr. Murray, and Dr. Hujoel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.¹ Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.²

LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.³ As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.

Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.⁴ In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.

Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.⁵

Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.⁶ It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.⁷

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.⁸

The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.⁹

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.

Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”¹⁰ While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.

A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.¹¹

As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.

Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
 

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Resources

Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf

Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248

American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/

References

1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.

2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.

3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.

4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.

5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.

6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.

7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.

8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.

9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.

10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.

11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.

Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.¹ Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.²

LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.³ As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.

Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.⁴ In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.

Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.⁵

Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.⁶ It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.⁷

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.⁸

The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.⁹

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.

Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”¹⁰ While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.

A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.¹¹

As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.

Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
 

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Resources

Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf

Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248

American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/

References

1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.

2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.

3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.

4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.

5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.

6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.

7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.

8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.

9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.

10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.

11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.

Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.¹ Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.²

LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.³ As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.

Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.⁴ In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.

Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.⁵

Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.⁶ It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.⁷

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.⁸

The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.⁹

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.

Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”¹⁰ While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.

A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.¹¹

As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.

Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
 

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Resources

Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf

Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248

American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/

References

1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.

2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.

3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.

4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.

5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.

6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.

7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.

8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.

9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.

10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.

11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.