Commentary

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to discuss the results of a new automated insulin delivery system that I think can really help many people with type 1 diabetes.

Dr. Steven Russell presented the results at the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting. The study focused on the iLet system, which is made by Beta Bionics and has been under development for a while. This was the single-hormone study, so it just looked at their algorithm using insulin alone. Eventually they’re going to study this, looking at the use of insulin plus glucagon together to see if that further improves outcomes.

One of the main reasons I think this study was so cool is because it included over 25% minority individuals who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials. The study also included people who had a wide range of hemoglobin A1c levels; there was no high cut-point here. Over 30% of participants had an A1c greater than 8%. They also studied both children and adults and combined the results together.

Before I talk about the results, let me tell you about the pump. This is a tubed pump that has a sensor that it communicates with – it’s the Dexcom sensor – and it has an algorithm so it does automated insulin delivery. Instead of having to enter all sorts of information into the system, this thing requires that you put in only the patient’s weight. That’s it. From there, the system begins to figure out what the patient needs in terms of automated insulin delivery.

There are several different target settings that can be entered, and they can differ by time of day. There’s basically the time of day that one is eating a meal, so breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and there is the meal size, basically small, medium, and large. The individual enters this in real time so the system knows they’re eating, but other than that, the system just works.

It does this in a way that doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.

They compared this system with people on any other system, including other automated insulin delivery systems, and put them into this trial. People were randomized to this system vs. whatever they’d been on (that was the control group) and they followed them for 13 weeks, which is not all that long.

There was a 0.5% reduction in A1c between the two groups. There was also an increase in the time in range, and this improvement in time in range happened almost immediately – within the first day or two of people being on the system. In terms of actual numbers, the adult patients started out with a time in range of 56% and this increased to 69% by the end of the study. The biggest improvement was time in range overnight, as is seen with other automated insulin delivery systems.

There was no reduction in time below a glucose level of 54 and there was an increase in the number of episodes of severe hypoglycemia in the group treated with the iLet system, but this was not statistically significant between the two groups.

I think these results are hard to compare with other pivotal trials investigating automated insulin delivery systems. The Tandem pivotal trial was a randomized controlled trial similar to this one, but the Medtronic and Omnipod studies were single-arm trials where patients were compared before and after they used the device.

More than anything, I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.

I couldn’t be happier. I love what they’re doing at Beta Bionics, and I look forward to more results, and in particular, to see if these results improve further when they do a study of insulin and glucagon in their dual-hormone pump system.

Thank you very much. This has been Dr Anne Peters for Medscape.
 

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to discuss the results of a new automated insulin delivery system that I think can really help many people with type 1 diabetes.

Dr. Steven Russell presented the results at the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting. The study focused on the iLet system, which is made by Beta Bionics and has been under development for a while. This was the single-hormone study, so it just looked at their algorithm using insulin alone. Eventually they’re going to study this, looking at the use of insulin plus glucagon together to see if that further improves outcomes.

One of the main reasons I think this study was so cool is because it included over 25% minority individuals who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials. The study also included people who had a wide range of hemoglobin A1c levels; there was no high cut-point here. Over 30% of participants had an A1c greater than 8%. They also studied both children and adults and combined the results together.

Before I talk about the results, let me tell you about the pump. This is a tubed pump that has a sensor that it communicates with – it’s the Dexcom sensor – and it has an algorithm so it does automated insulin delivery. Instead of having to enter all sorts of information into the system, this thing requires that you put in only the patient’s weight. That’s it. From there, the system begins to figure out what the patient needs in terms of automated insulin delivery.

There are several different target settings that can be entered, and they can differ by time of day. There’s basically the time of day that one is eating a meal, so breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and there is the meal size, basically small, medium, and large. The individual enters this in real time so the system knows they’re eating, but other than that, the system just works.

It does this in a way that doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.

They compared this system with people on any other system, including other automated insulin delivery systems, and put them into this trial. People were randomized to this system vs. whatever they’d been on (that was the control group) and they followed them for 13 weeks, which is not all that long.

There was a 0.5% reduction in A1c between the two groups. There was also an increase in the time in range, and this improvement in time in range happened almost immediately – within the first day or two of people being on the system. In terms of actual numbers, the adult patients started out with a time in range of 56% and this increased to 69% by the end of the study. The biggest improvement was time in range overnight, as is seen with other automated insulin delivery systems.

There was no reduction in time below a glucose level of 54 and there was an increase in the number of episodes of severe hypoglycemia in the group treated with the iLet system, but this was not statistically significant between the two groups.

I think these results are hard to compare with other pivotal trials investigating automated insulin delivery systems. The Tandem pivotal trial was a randomized controlled trial similar to this one, but the Medtronic and Omnipod studies were single-arm trials where patients were compared before and after they used the device.

More than anything, I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.

I couldn’t be happier. I love what they’re doing at Beta Bionics, and I look forward to more results, and in particular, to see if these results improve further when they do a study of insulin and glucagon in their dual-hormone pump system.

Thank you very much. This has been Dr Anne Peters for Medscape.
 

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to discuss the results of a new automated insulin delivery system that I think can really help many people with type 1 diabetes.

Dr. Steven Russell presented the results at the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting. The study focused on the iLet system, which is made by Beta Bionics and has been under development for a while. This was the single-hormone study, so it just looked at their algorithm using insulin alone. Eventually they’re going to study this, looking at the use of insulin plus glucagon together to see if that further improves outcomes.

One of the main reasons I think this study was so cool is because it included over 25% minority individuals who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials. The study also included people who had a wide range of hemoglobin A1c levels; there was no high cut-point here. Over 30% of participants had an A1c greater than 8%. They also studied both children and adults and combined the results together.

Before I talk about the results, let me tell you about the pump. This is a tubed pump that has a sensor that it communicates with – it’s the Dexcom sensor – and it has an algorithm so it does automated insulin delivery. Instead of having to enter all sorts of information into the system, this thing requires that you put in only the patient’s weight. That’s it. From there, the system begins to figure out what the patient needs in terms of automated insulin delivery.

There are several different target settings that can be entered, and they can differ by time of day. There’s basically the time of day that one is eating a meal, so breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and there is the meal size, basically small, medium, and large. The individual enters this in real time so the system knows they’re eating, but other than that, the system just works.

It does this in a way that doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.

They compared this system with people on any other system, including other automated insulin delivery systems, and put them into this trial. People were randomized to this system vs. whatever they’d been on (that was the control group) and they followed them for 13 weeks, which is not all that long.

There was a 0.5% reduction in A1c between the two groups. There was also an increase in the time in range, and this improvement in time in range happened almost immediately – within the first day or two of people being on the system. In terms of actual numbers, the adult patients started out with a time in range of 56% and this increased to 69% by the end of the study. The biggest improvement was time in range overnight, as is seen with other automated insulin delivery systems.

There was no reduction in time below a glucose level of 54 and there was an increase in the number of episodes of severe hypoglycemia in the group treated with the iLet system, but this was not statistically significant between the two groups.

I think these results are hard to compare with other pivotal trials investigating automated insulin delivery systems. The Tandem pivotal trial was a randomized controlled trial similar to this one, but the Medtronic and Omnipod studies were single-arm trials where patients were compared before and after they used the device.

More than anything, I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.

I couldn’t be happier. I love what they’re doing at Beta Bionics, and I look forward to more results, and in particular, to see if these results improve further when they do a study of insulin and glucagon in their dual-hormone pump system.

Thank you very much. This has been Dr Anne Peters for Medscape.
 

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen.

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

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

Hyaluronic acid is the most common filler used in the United States for cosmetic procedures. As cosmetic treatments continue to grow and the filler market expands, the use of hyaluronidase for the reversal of facial hyaluronic acid fillers is becoming more widespread. However, there has been little research and there are no formal clinical guidelines on its use. Hyaluronidase is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for several indications, but its use in cosmetic procedures is off-label.

Hyaluronic acid filler complications can be local and transient or delayed and/or dangerous. Local reactions generally improve over time or respond to symptomatic care. But granulomatous reactions, misplaced injection, adverse aesthetic outcomes, and vascular occlusion are some of the detrimental outcomes that require immediate treatment, often using hyaluronidase, a naturally occurring enzyme that degrades hyaluronic acid.

Hyaluronic acid products vary in concentration, cross-linking, type of cross-linker used, and particle size, and therefore display different degradation patterns with hyaluronidase. The three hyaluronidase products available also vary in concentration, source, and enzyme activity. Hyaluronidase has a half-life of 2 minutes but has a duration of action of 24-48 hours depending on the product used.

In an interesting study by Casabona G et al., the dose and activity of five hyaluronidase products available worldwide were used to degrade five different fillers (Juvederm Volbella, Voluma, and Ultraplus; Belotero, and Belotero Balance) with various concentrations and cross-linking in human skin. The results showed that the Vycross products (Juvederm Voluma) are the least sensitive to hyaluronidase and require the greatest concentration of hyaluronidase and a longer time for dissolution requiring up to three times more hyaluronidase to degrade the same volume of other hyaluronic acid products.

In addition, the ovine hyaluronidase product marketed in the United States as Vitrase had the greatest activity against the range of hyaluronic acids used in the trial. Higher concentrations of hyaluronidase also could produce type-I hypersensitivity reactions and angioedema in susceptible patients as evidenced by eosinophilic tissue reactions at concentrations greater than 300 IU.

Hyaluronidase is stored at cool temperatures (35-46° F). It can be reconstituted with saline, water, or bacteriostatic saline for reducing injection site pain; however, it should not be mixed with local anesthetic. The volume of diluent used depends on the surface area treated and ranges from 1 mL to 10 mL. Smaller volumes are used for more concentrated local injection and larger volumes for more precise dosing.

For impending necrosis, hyaluronidase should be used within minutes to hours of blanching of the skin and the area should be flooded every 30 minutes until the tissue has reperfused. Depending on the type of filler used, the volume of injection varies and the area should continually be injected and tissue response observed. A high-dosed large-volume protocol allows the tissue perfusion to gradually infiltrate the vessel walls. Recommendations are 2 mL of bacteriostatic saline diluted with a vial of hyaluronidase. Retrobulbar injection of hyaluronidase within minutes of retinal artery occlusion in doses of 150-200 units in 2-4 mL of diluent into the inferolateral orbit by an experienced ophthalmologist or oculoplastic surgeon is recommended.

Although there is no consensus, there are various clinical studies using hyaluronidase dilutions varying between 5 and 30 units to break down 0.1mg/mL of hyaluronic acid for the reversal of facial hyaluronic acid fillers. In my clinical experience, the recommendation is that, apart from necrosis, the concentration used is titrated to clinical efficacy, which can also be done over multiple appointments every 48 hours until the desired outcome is achieved.

Complications from hyaluronidase injection include local tissue erythema, edema, pain, allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis. An intradermal patch test of 10-20 units of hyaluronidase in the forearm can be done in patients with a history of allergy to hyaluronidase, which, in people with sensitivity, results in a wheal within 30 minutes of injection. If a patient has a positive patch test, hyaluronidase cannot be used. In addition, a history of allergic reactions to bees may pose a heightened reaction to hyaluronidase and is a contraindication to use.

It is recommended that any practitioner using hyaluronic acid fillers keep 2-3 vials of hyaluronidase available at all times in the event of a vascular emergency. Stability, storage, and expiration dates should also be monitored closely.

Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. Dr. Talakoub has no relevant disclosures.

References

Casabona G et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Nov;44 Suppl 1:S42-S50.

DeLorenzi C. Aesthet Surg J. 2017 Jul 1;37(7):814-25.

Juhász MLW et al. Dermatol Surg. 2017 Jun;43(6):841-7.

King M. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016 Nov; 9(11):E6–8.

Kim M et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018 Jun;11(6):E61-8.

Hyaluronic acid is the most common filler used in the United States for cosmetic procedures. As cosmetic treatments continue to grow and the filler market expands, the use of hyaluronidase for the reversal of facial hyaluronic acid fillers is becoming more widespread. However, there has been little research and there are no formal clinical guidelines on its use. Hyaluronidase is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for several indications, but its use in cosmetic procedures is off-label.

Hyaluronic acid filler complications can be local and transient or delayed and/or dangerous. Local reactions generally improve over time or respond to symptomatic care. But granulomatous reactions, misplaced injection, adverse aesthetic outcomes, and vascular occlusion are some of the detrimental outcomes that require immediate treatment, often using hyaluronidase, a naturally occurring enzyme that degrades hyaluronic acid.

Hyaluronic acid products vary in concentration, cross-linking, type of cross-linker used, and particle size, and therefore display different degradation patterns with hyaluronidase. The three hyaluronidase products available also vary in concentration, source, and enzyme activity. Hyaluronidase has a half-life of 2 minutes but has a duration of action of 24-48 hours depending on the product used.

In an interesting study by Casabona G et al., the dose and activity of five hyaluronidase products available worldwide were used to degrade five different fillers (Juvederm Volbella, Voluma, and Ultraplus; Belotero, and Belotero Balance) with various concentrations and cross-linking in human skin. The results showed that the Vycross products (Juvederm Voluma) are the least sensitive to hyaluronidase and require the greatest concentration of hyaluronidase and a longer time for dissolution requiring up to three times more hyaluronidase to degrade the same volume of other hyaluronic acid products.

In addition, the ovine hyaluronidase product marketed in the United States as Vitrase had the greatest activity against the range of hyaluronic acids used in the trial. Higher concentrations of hyaluronidase also could produce type-I hypersensitivity reactions and angioedema in susceptible patients as evidenced by eosinophilic tissue reactions at concentrations greater than 300 IU.

Hyaluronidase is stored at cool temperatures (35-46° F). It can be reconstituted with saline, water, or bacteriostatic saline for reducing injection site pain; however, it should not be mixed with local anesthetic. The volume of diluent used depends on the surface area treated and ranges from 1 mL to 10 mL. Smaller volumes are used for more concentrated local injection and larger volumes for more precise dosing.

For impending necrosis, hyaluronidase should be used within minutes to hours of blanching of the skin and the area should be flooded every 30 minutes until the tissue has reperfused. Depending on the type of filler used, the volume of injection varies and the area should continually be injected and tissue response observed. A high-dosed large-volume protocol allows the tissue perfusion to gradually infiltrate the vessel walls. Recommendations are 2 mL of bacteriostatic saline diluted with a vial of hyaluronidase. Retrobulbar injection of hyaluronidase within minutes of retinal artery occlusion in doses of 150-200 units in 2-4 mL of diluent into the inferolateral orbit by an experienced ophthalmologist or oculoplastic surgeon is recommended.

Although there is no consensus, there are various clinical studies using hyaluronidase dilutions varying between 5 and 30 units to break down 0.1mg/mL of hyaluronic acid for the reversal of facial hyaluronic acid fillers. In my clinical experience, the recommendation is that, apart from necrosis, the concentration used is titrated to clinical efficacy, which can also be done over multiple appointments every 48 hours until the desired outcome is achieved.

Complications from hyaluronidase injection include local tissue erythema, edema, pain, allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis. An intradermal patch test of 10-20 units of hyaluronidase in the forearm can be done in patients with a history of allergy to hyaluronidase, which, in people with sensitivity, results in a wheal within 30 minutes of injection. If a patient has a positive patch test, hyaluronidase cannot be used. In addition, a history of allergic reactions to bees may pose a heightened reaction to hyaluronidase and is a contraindication to use.

It is recommended that any practitioner using hyaluronic acid fillers keep 2-3 vials of hyaluronidase available at all times in the event of a vascular emergency. Stability, storage, and expiration dates should also be monitored closely.

Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. Dr. Talakoub has no relevant disclosures.

References

Casabona G et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Nov;44 Suppl 1:S42-S50.

DeLorenzi C. Aesthet Surg J. 2017 Jul 1;37(7):814-25.

Juhász MLW et al. Dermatol Surg. 2017 Jun;43(6):841-7.

King M. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016 Nov; 9(11):E6–8.

Kim M et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018 Jun;11(6):E61-8.

Hyaluronic acid is the most common filler used in the United States for cosmetic procedures. As cosmetic treatments continue to grow and the filler market expands, the use of hyaluronidase for the reversal of facial hyaluronic acid fillers is becoming more widespread. However, there has been little research and there are no formal clinical guidelines on its use. Hyaluronidase is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for several indications, but its use in cosmetic procedures is off-label.

Hyaluronic acid filler complications can be local and transient or delayed and/or dangerous. Local reactions generally improve over time or respond to symptomatic care. But granulomatous reactions, misplaced injection, adverse aesthetic outcomes, and vascular occlusion are some of the detrimental outcomes that require immediate treatment, often using hyaluronidase, a naturally occurring enzyme that degrades hyaluronic acid.

Hyaluronic acid products vary in concentration, cross-linking, type of cross-linker used, and particle size, and therefore display different degradation patterns with hyaluronidase. The three hyaluronidase products available also vary in concentration, source, and enzyme activity. Hyaluronidase has a half-life of 2 minutes but has a duration of action of 24-48 hours depending on the product used.

In an interesting study by Casabona G et al., the dose and activity of five hyaluronidase products available worldwide were used to degrade five different fillers (Juvederm Volbella, Voluma, and Ultraplus; Belotero, and Belotero Balance) with various concentrations and cross-linking in human skin. The results showed that the Vycross products (Juvederm Voluma) are the least sensitive to hyaluronidase and require the greatest concentration of hyaluronidase and a longer time for dissolution requiring up to three times more hyaluronidase to degrade the same volume of other hyaluronic acid products.

In addition, the ovine hyaluronidase product marketed in the United States as Vitrase had the greatest activity against the range of hyaluronic acids used in the trial. Higher concentrations of hyaluronidase also could produce type-I hypersensitivity reactions and angioedema in susceptible patients as evidenced by eosinophilic tissue reactions at concentrations greater than 300 IU.

Hyaluronidase is stored at cool temperatures (35-46° F). It can be reconstituted with saline, water, or bacteriostatic saline for reducing injection site pain; however, it should not be mixed with local anesthetic. The volume of diluent used depends on the surface area treated and ranges from 1 mL to 10 mL. Smaller volumes are used for more concentrated local injection and larger volumes for more precise dosing.

For impending necrosis, hyaluronidase should be used within minutes to hours of blanching of the skin and the area should be flooded every 30 minutes until the tissue has reperfused. Depending on the type of filler used, the volume of injection varies and the area should continually be injected and tissue response observed. A high-dosed large-volume protocol allows the tissue perfusion to gradually infiltrate the vessel walls. Recommendations are 2 mL of bacteriostatic saline diluted with a vial of hyaluronidase. Retrobulbar injection of hyaluronidase within minutes of retinal artery occlusion in doses of 150-200 units in 2-4 mL of diluent into the inferolateral orbit by an experienced ophthalmologist or oculoplastic surgeon is recommended.

Although there is no consensus, there are various clinical studies using hyaluronidase dilutions varying between 5 and 30 units to break down 0.1mg/mL of hyaluronic acid for the reversal of facial hyaluronic acid fillers. In my clinical experience, the recommendation is that, apart from necrosis, the concentration used is titrated to clinical efficacy, which can also be done over multiple appointments every 48 hours until the desired outcome is achieved.

Complications from hyaluronidase injection include local tissue erythema, edema, pain, allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis. An intradermal patch test of 10-20 units of hyaluronidase in the forearm can be done in patients with a history of allergy to hyaluronidase, which, in people with sensitivity, results in a wheal within 30 minutes of injection. If a patient has a positive patch test, hyaluronidase cannot be used. In addition, a history of allergic reactions to bees may pose a heightened reaction to hyaluronidase and is a contraindication to use.

It is recommended that any practitioner using hyaluronic acid fillers keep 2-3 vials of hyaluronidase available at all times in the event of a vascular emergency. Stability, storage, and expiration dates should also be monitored closely.

Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. Dr. Talakoub has no relevant disclosures.

References

Casabona G et al. Dermatol Surg. 2018 Nov;44 Suppl 1:S42-S50.

DeLorenzi C. Aesthet Surg J. 2017 Jul 1;37(7):814-25.

Juhász MLW et al. Dermatol Surg. 2017 Jun;43(6):841-7.

King M. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016 Nov; 9(11):E6–8.

Kim M et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018 Jun;11(6):E61-8.

“My soul is in deep anguish. How long, Lord, how long?” – Psalm 6

Lament is making a comeback. A once-common word in the 1800s, it fell steeply in popularity in the 20th century. Lately, I see it everywhere. It’s a beautiful word, capturing not only sorrow, but also weariness. It is also audacious, facing injustice and acknowledging that it ought not be this way, and communal, bearing witness to the shared hardship of being human. The Hebrew scriptures captured the experience of lament in the form of psalms, from the Greek, psalmoi or “words to accompany the music.” A few thousand years later, the words still resonate, especially in times of grief. “I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.”

“Hair loss” is not the chief complaint you want to see when running behind in clinic – it’s never a 15-minute visit. A woman in her late 30s with wavy, light-brown hair that grew to her waistline was seated on the exam chair. When I sat across from her, I couldn’t see her scalp. No erythema or scale. No frontal band of hair loss. Just a bit thin everywhere. Perhaps another post-COVID telogen? This might be easy. I blew right by her mother, who was sitting in the corner of the room. Her black and white horizontal striped shirt seemed to match her gray and white hair. She looked worried.

Having perused my patient’s labs and done an exam, I announced that the diagnosis was telogen effluvium. “There are many possible causes, stress is a common one. Have you been under a lot of stress lately?” (The answer is always yes, thus providing a good foothold to climb out of a hair-loss visit). “Yes. My 1-year-old daughter died last year. She had choked on a cashew from a granola bar given by her sister.” I gasped and turned from her green eyes to her mom’s. Without saying a word, mom pleaded with me to help. “I don’t know what to say,” I said, “I’m so sorry.” Neither replied.

On the commute home that day I listened to a live recording of the U2 song, “40.” I had recently read about it in a touching essay about lament by Enuma Okoro of the Financial Times. I thought about my patient’s suffering and the brutal injustice of fate. It feels like it’s everywhere lately. Reporting from the events in Ukraine, Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa has put agonized faces like hers in the public square for us all to gape at and quietly mourn.

Even from a secular lens, it can be seen that a beauty of psalms is how they move from despair to hope. Prayers will be answered. Things will get better. Turn up the volume and feel the urgency and pathos Bono injects into your soul as he sings the refrain; “How long, how long? How long to sing this song?” In the live version we the audience take over for him. The words accompanying the music swell over the crowd. How much longer? How much more suffering? My patient’s hair will grow back. It will take years. All we can do is lament with her.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“My soul is in deep anguish. How long, Lord, how long?” – Psalm 6

Lament is making a comeback. A once-common word in the 1800s, it fell steeply in popularity in the 20th century. Lately, I see it everywhere. It’s a beautiful word, capturing not only sorrow, but also weariness. It is also audacious, facing injustice and acknowledging that it ought not be this way, and communal, bearing witness to the shared hardship of being human. The Hebrew scriptures captured the experience of lament in the form of psalms, from the Greek, psalmoi or “words to accompany the music.” A few thousand years later, the words still resonate, especially in times of grief. “I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.”

“Hair loss” is not the chief complaint you want to see when running behind in clinic – it’s never a 15-minute visit. A woman in her late 30s with wavy, light-brown hair that grew to her waistline was seated on the exam chair. When I sat across from her, I couldn’t see her scalp. No erythema or scale. No frontal band of hair loss. Just a bit thin everywhere. Perhaps another post-COVID telogen? This might be easy. I blew right by her mother, who was sitting in the corner of the room. Her black and white horizontal striped shirt seemed to match her gray and white hair. She looked worried.

Having perused my patient’s labs and done an exam, I announced that the diagnosis was telogen effluvium. “There are many possible causes, stress is a common one. Have you been under a lot of stress lately?” (The answer is always yes, thus providing a good foothold to climb out of a hair-loss visit). “Yes. My 1-year-old daughter died last year. She had choked on a cashew from a granola bar given by her sister.” I gasped and turned from her green eyes to her mom’s. Without saying a word, mom pleaded with me to help. “I don’t know what to say,” I said, “I’m so sorry.” Neither replied.

On the commute home that day I listened to a live recording of the U2 song, “40.” I had recently read about it in a touching essay about lament by Enuma Okoro of the Financial Times. I thought about my patient’s suffering and the brutal injustice of fate. It feels like it’s everywhere lately. Reporting from the events in Ukraine, Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa has put agonized faces like hers in the public square for us all to gape at and quietly mourn.

Even from a secular lens, it can be seen that a beauty of psalms is how they move from despair to hope. Prayers will be answered. Things will get better. Turn up the volume and feel the urgency and pathos Bono injects into your soul as he sings the refrain; “How long, how long? How long to sing this song?” In the live version we the audience take over for him. The words accompanying the music swell over the crowd. How much longer? How much more suffering? My patient’s hair will grow back. It will take years. All we can do is lament with her.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“My soul is in deep anguish. How long, Lord, how long?” – Psalm 6

Lament is making a comeback. A once-common word in the 1800s, it fell steeply in popularity in the 20th century. Lately, I see it everywhere. It’s a beautiful word, capturing not only sorrow, but also weariness. It is also audacious, facing injustice and acknowledging that it ought not be this way, and communal, bearing witness to the shared hardship of being human. The Hebrew scriptures captured the experience of lament in the form of psalms, from the Greek, psalmoi or “words to accompany the music.” A few thousand years later, the words still resonate, especially in times of grief. “I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.”

“Hair loss” is not the chief complaint you want to see when running behind in clinic – it’s never a 15-minute visit. A woman in her late 30s with wavy, light-brown hair that grew to her waistline was seated on the exam chair. When I sat across from her, I couldn’t see her scalp. No erythema or scale. No frontal band of hair loss. Just a bit thin everywhere. Perhaps another post-COVID telogen? This might be easy. I blew right by her mother, who was sitting in the corner of the room. Her black and white horizontal striped shirt seemed to match her gray and white hair. She looked worried.

Having perused my patient’s labs and done an exam, I announced that the diagnosis was telogen effluvium. “There are many possible causes, stress is a common one. Have you been under a lot of stress lately?” (The answer is always yes, thus providing a good foothold to climb out of a hair-loss visit). “Yes. My 1-year-old daughter died last year. She had choked on a cashew from a granola bar given by her sister.” I gasped and turned from her green eyes to her mom’s. Without saying a word, mom pleaded with me to help. “I don’t know what to say,” I said, “I’m so sorry.” Neither replied.

On the commute home that day I listened to a live recording of the U2 song, “40.” I had recently read about it in a touching essay about lament by Enuma Okoro of the Financial Times. I thought about my patient’s suffering and the brutal injustice of fate. It feels like it’s everywhere lately. Reporting from the events in Ukraine, Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa has put agonized faces like hers in the public square for us all to gape at and quietly mourn.

Even from a secular lens, it can be seen that a beauty of psalms is how they move from despair to hope. Prayers will be answered. Things will get better. Turn up the volume and feel the urgency and pathos Bono injects into your soul as he sings the refrain; “How long, how long? How long to sing this song?” In the live version we the audience take over for him. The words accompanying the music swell over the crowd. How much longer? How much more suffering? My patient’s hair will grow back. It will take years. All we can do is lament with her.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A recent series of columns on practice merger options generated a multitude of questions regarding merger, employment, and buyout agreements. The most common question was, “Do I really need to go to the trouble and expense of negotiating them?” If you have more than one physician in your group, you absolutely do need written contracts for a variety of reasons, but mostly to avoid conflicts later on. The proverbial “handshake agreement” is worthless in a major business dispute; everyone loses in such situations except the lawyers and accountants.

Mergers and buy-ins were covered at some length in my two previous columns. If the arrangement is to be one of employer and employees rather than a merger of equal partners, you will need an employment agreement to cover duties, requirements, expectations, and benefits. They define how each practitioner/employee will be paid, along with paid time off, health insurance, expense allowances, and malpractice coverage, among other basics. The more that is spelled out in the employment agreement, the fewer disagreements you are likely to have down the road.

Many employment contracts include a “termination without cause” clause, which benefits both the practice and the practitioners. It allows a practice to terminate a new associate if it feels a mistake has been made, even if he or she has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, the newcomer has the option to terminate if a better offer arises, their spouse hates the area, or for any other reason.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. Several recent correspondents told me they didn’t see the necessity of writing a buyout agreement, because they plan to eventually sell their practice, rendering any buyout conditions moot. But what happens if an associate dies, becomes permanently disabled, or abruptly decides to leave the practice? If you haven’t prepared for such eventualities, you could find yourself receiving a demand from your ex-partner (or surviving spouse) for immediate payment of that partner’s portion of the practice’s value. And your valuation of the practice is likely to be severely at odds with the other party’s. Meanwhile, remaining partners must cover all the practice’s expenses and deal with an increased patient load.

A buyout agreement avoids these problems by planning for such eventualities in advance. You must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. As I’ve said in previous columns, I strongly advise using a formula, not a fixed amount. If a buyout is based on 15- or 20-year-old reimbursements, the buyout will have no relationship to what the partners are currently being paid. Likewise, any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. Have an actuary create a formula, so that a buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

To avoid surprises, any buyout should require ample notice (6-12 months is common) to allow time to rearrange finances and recruit a new provider. Vesting schedules, similar to those used in retirement plans, are also popular. If a partner leaves before a prescribed time period has elapsed – say, 20 years – the buyout is proportionally reduced.

Buyouts can also be useful when dealing with noncompete agreements, which are notoriously difficult (and expensive) to enforce. One solution is a buyout penalty; a departing partner can compete with his or her former practice, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it, and compensates the targeted practice.

Buyouts are also a potential solution to some buy-in issues. A new associate entering an established practice may not be able to contribute assets equal to existing partners’ stakes and may lack the cash necessary to make up the difference. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end in buyout value. Those partners contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts than those contributing less.

As I’ve said many times, these are not negotiations to undertake on your own. Enlist the aid of a consultant or attorney (or both) with ample medical practice experience.

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

A recent series of columns on practice merger options generated a multitude of questions regarding merger, employment, and buyout agreements. The most common question was, “Do I really need to go to the trouble and expense of negotiating them?” If you have more than one physician in your group, you absolutely do need written contracts for a variety of reasons, but mostly to avoid conflicts later on. The proverbial “handshake agreement” is worthless in a major business dispute; everyone loses in such situations except the lawyers and accountants.

Mergers and buy-ins were covered at some length in my two previous columns. If the arrangement is to be one of employer and employees rather than a merger of equal partners, you will need an employment agreement to cover duties, requirements, expectations, and benefits. They define how each practitioner/employee will be paid, along with paid time off, health insurance, expense allowances, and malpractice coverage, among other basics. The more that is spelled out in the employment agreement, the fewer disagreements you are likely to have down the road.

Many employment contracts include a “termination without cause” clause, which benefits both the practice and the practitioners. It allows a practice to terminate a new associate if it feels a mistake has been made, even if he or she has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, the newcomer has the option to terminate if a better offer arises, their spouse hates the area, or for any other reason.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. Several recent correspondents told me they didn’t see the necessity of writing a buyout agreement, because they plan to eventually sell their practice, rendering any buyout conditions moot. But what happens if an associate dies, becomes permanently disabled, or abruptly decides to leave the practice? If you haven’t prepared for such eventualities, you could find yourself receiving a demand from your ex-partner (or surviving spouse) for immediate payment of that partner’s portion of the practice’s value. And your valuation of the practice is likely to be severely at odds with the other party’s. Meanwhile, remaining partners must cover all the practice’s expenses and deal with an increased patient load.

A buyout agreement avoids these problems by planning for such eventualities in advance. You must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. As I’ve said in previous columns, I strongly advise using a formula, not a fixed amount. If a buyout is based on 15- or 20-year-old reimbursements, the buyout will have no relationship to what the partners are currently being paid. Likewise, any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. Have an actuary create a formula, so that a buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

To avoid surprises, any buyout should require ample notice (6-12 months is common) to allow time to rearrange finances and recruit a new provider. Vesting schedules, similar to those used in retirement plans, are also popular. If a partner leaves before a prescribed time period has elapsed – say, 20 years – the buyout is proportionally reduced.

Buyouts can also be useful when dealing with noncompete agreements, which are notoriously difficult (and expensive) to enforce. One solution is a buyout penalty; a departing partner can compete with his or her former practice, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it, and compensates the targeted practice.

Buyouts are also a potential solution to some buy-in issues. A new associate entering an established practice may not be able to contribute assets equal to existing partners’ stakes and may lack the cash necessary to make up the difference. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end in buyout value. Those partners contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts than those contributing less.

As I’ve said many times, these are not negotiations to undertake on your own. Enlist the aid of a consultant or attorney (or both) with ample medical practice experience.

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

A recent series of columns on practice merger options generated a multitude of questions regarding merger, employment, and buyout agreements. The most common question was, “Do I really need to go to the trouble and expense of negotiating them?” If you have more than one physician in your group, you absolutely do need written contracts for a variety of reasons, but mostly to avoid conflicts later on. The proverbial “handshake agreement” is worthless in a major business dispute; everyone loses in such situations except the lawyers and accountants.

Mergers and buy-ins were covered at some length in my two previous columns. If the arrangement is to be one of employer and employees rather than a merger of equal partners, you will need an employment agreement to cover duties, requirements, expectations, and benefits. They define how each practitioner/employee will be paid, along with paid time off, health insurance, expense allowances, and malpractice coverage, among other basics. The more that is spelled out in the employment agreement, the fewer disagreements you are likely to have down the road.

Many employment contracts include a “termination without cause” clause, which benefits both the practice and the practitioners. It allows a practice to terminate a new associate if it feels a mistake has been made, even if he or she has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, the newcomer has the option to terminate if a better offer arises, their spouse hates the area, or for any other reason.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. Several recent correspondents told me they didn’t see the necessity of writing a buyout agreement, because they plan to eventually sell their practice, rendering any buyout conditions moot. But what happens if an associate dies, becomes permanently disabled, or abruptly decides to leave the practice? If you haven’t prepared for such eventualities, you could find yourself receiving a demand from your ex-partner (or surviving spouse) for immediate payment of that partner’s portion of the practice’s value. And your valuation of the practice is likely to be severely at odds with the other party’s. Meanwhile, remaining partners must cover all the practice’s expenses and deal with an increased patient load.

A buyout agreement avoids these problems by planning for such eventualities in advance. You must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. As I’ve said in previous columns, I strongly advise using a formula, not a fixed amount. If a buyout is based on 15- or 20-year-old reimbursements, the buyout will have no relationship to what the partners are currently being paid. Likewise, any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. Have an actuary create a formula, so that a buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

To avoid surprises, any buyout should require ample notice (6-12 months is common) to allow time to rearrange finances and recruit a new provider. Vesting schedules, similar to those used in retirement plans, are also popular. If a partner leaves before a prescribed time period has elapsed – say, 20 years – the buyout is proportionally reduced.

Buyouts can also be useful when dealing with noncompete agreements, which are notoriously difficult (and expensive) to enforce. One solution is a buyout penalty; a departing partner can compete with his or her former practice, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it, and compensates the targeted practice.

Buyouts are also a potential solution to some buy-in issues. A new associate entering an established practice may not be able to contribute assets equal to existing partners’ stakes and may lack the cash necessary to make up the difference. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end in buyout value. Those partners contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts than those contributing less.

As I’ve said many times, these are not negotiations to undertake on your own. Enlist the aid of a consultant or attorney (or both) with ample medical practice experience.

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

Not long ago, a pediatrician working in a local urgent care clinic called me about a teenage girl with a pruritic rash. She described vesicles and pustules located primarily on the face and arms with no surrounding cellulitis or other exam findings.

“She probably has impetigo,” my colleague said. “But I took a travel and exposure history and learned that her grandma had recently returned home from visiting family in the Congo. Do you think I need to worry about monkeypox?”

While most pediatricians in the United States have never seen a case of monkeypox, the virus is not new. An orthopox, it belongs to the same genus that includes smallpox and cowpox viruses. It was discovered in 1958 when two colonies of monkeys kept for research developed pox-like rashes. The earliest human case was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and now the virus is endemic in some counties in Central and West Africa.

Monkeypox virus is a zoonotic disease – it can spread from animals to people. Rodents and other small mammals – not monkeys – are thought to be the most likely reservoir. The virus typically spreads from person to person through close contact with skin or respiratory secretions or contact with contaminated fomites. Typical infection begins with fever, lymphadenopathy, and flulike symptoms that include headache and malaise. One to four days after the onset of fever, the characteristic rash begins as macular lesions that evolve into papules, then vesicles, and finally pustules. Pustular lesions are deep-seated, well circumscribed, and are usually the same size and in the same stage of development on a given body site. The rash often starts on the face or the mouth, and then moves to the extremities, including the palms and soles. Over time, the lesions umbilicate and ultimately crust over.

On May 20, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Advisory describing a case of monkeypox in a patient in Massachusetts. A single case normally wouldn’t cause too much alarm. In fact, there were two cases reported in the United States in 2021, both in travelers returning to the United States from Nigeria, a country in which the virus is endemic. No transmissions from these individuals to close contacts were identified.

The Massachusetts case was remarkable for two reasons. It occurred in an individual who had recently returned from a trip to Canada, which is not a country in which the virus is endemic. Additionally, it occurred in the context of a global outbreak of monkey pox that has, to date, disproportionately affected individuals who identify as men who have sex with men. Patients have often lacked the characteristic prodrome and many have had rash localized to the perianal and genital area, with or without symptoms of proctitis (anorectal pain, tenesmus, and bleeding). Clinically, some lesions mimicked sexually transmitted infections that the occur in the anogenital area, including herpes, syphilis, and lymphogranuloma venereum.

As of May 31, 2022, 17 persons in nine states had been diagnosed with presumed monkeypox virus infection. They ranged in age from 28 to 61 years and 16/17 identified as MSM. Fourteen reported international travel in the 3 weeks before developing symptoms. As of June 12, that number had grown to 53, while worldwide the number of confirmed and suspected cases reached 1,584. Up-to-date case counts are available at https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox.

Back on the phone, my colleague laughed a little nervously. “I guess I’m not really worried about monkeypox in my patient.” She paused and then asked, “This isn’t going to be the next pandemic, is it?”

Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have been reassuring in that regard. Two vaccines are available for the prevention of monkeypox. JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live viral vaccine licensed as a two-dose series to prevent both monkeypox and smallpox. ACAM 2000 is a live Vaccinia virus preparation licensed to prevent smallpox. These vaccines are effective when given before exposure but are thought to also beneficial when given as postexposure prophylaxis. According to the CDC, vaccination within 4 days of exposure can prevent the development of disease. Vaccination within 14 days of exposure may not prevent the development of disease but may lessen symptoms. Treatment is generally supportive but antiviral therapy could be considered for individuals with severe disease. Tecovirmat is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of smallpox but is available under nonresearch Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol for the treatment of children and adults with severe orthopox infections, including monkeypox.

So, what’s a pediatrician to do? Take a good travel history, as my colleague did, because that is good medicine. At this point in an outbreak though, a lack of travel does not exclude the diagnosis. Perform a thorough exam of skin and mucosal areas. When there are rashes in the genital or perianal area, consider the possibility of monkeypox in addition to typical sexually transmitted infections. Ask about exposure to other persons with similar rashes, as well as close or intimate contact with a persons in a social network experiencing monkeypox infections. This includes MSM who meet partners through an online website, app, or at social events. Monkeypox can also be spread through contact with an animal (dead or alive) that is an African endemic species or use of a product derived from such animals. Public health experts encourage clinicians to be alert for rash illnesses consistent with monkeypox, regardless of a patient’s gender or sexual orientation, history of international travel, or specific risk factors.

Pediatricians see many kids with rashes, and while cases of monkeypox climb daily, the disease is still very rare. Given the media coverage of the outbreak, pediatricians should be prepared for questions from patients and their parents. Clinicians who suspect a case of monkeypox should contact their local or state health department for guidance and the need for testing. Tips for recognizing monkeypox and distinguishing it from more common viral illnesses such as chicken pox are available at www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Not long ago, a pediatrician working in a local urgent care clinic called me about a teenage girl with a pruritic rash. She described vesicles and pustules located primarily on the face and arms with no surrounding cellulitis or other exam findings.

“She probably has impetigo,” my colleague said. “But I took a travel and exposure history and learned that her grandma had recently returned home from visiting family in the Congo. Do you think I need to worry about monkeypox?”

While most pediatricians in the United States have never seen a case of monkeypox, the virus is not new. An orthopox, it belongs to the same genus that includes smallpox and cowpox viruses. It was discovered in 1958 when two colonies of monkeys kept for research developed pox-like rashes. The earliest human case was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and now the virus is endemic in some counties in Central and West Africa.

Monkeypox virus is a zoonotic disease – it can spread from animals to people. Rodents and other small mammals – not monkeys – are thought to be the most likely reservoir. The virus typically spreads from person to person through close contact with skin or respiratory secretions or contact with contaminated fomites. Typical infection begins with fever, lymphadenopathy, and flulike symptoms that include headache and malaise. One to four days after the onset of fever, the characteristic rash begins as macular lesions that evolve into papules, then vesicles, and finally pustules. Pustular lesions are deep-seated, well circumscribed, and are usually the same size and in the same stage of development on a given body site. The rash often starts on the face or the mouth, and then moves to the extremities, including the palms and soles. Over time, the lesions umbilicate and ultimately crust over.

On May 20, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Advisory describing a case of monkeypox in a patient in Massachusetts. A single case normally wouldn’t cause too much alarm. In fact, there were two cases reported in the United States in 2021, both in travelers returning to the United States from Nigeria, a country in which the virus is endemic. No transmissions from these individuals to close contacts were identified.

The Massachusetts case was remarkable for two reasons. It occurred in an individual who had recently returned from a trip to Canada, which is not a country in which the virus is endemic. Additionally, it occurred in the context of a global outbreak of monkey pox that has, to date, disproportionately affected individuals who identify as men who have sex with men. Patients have often lacked the characteristic prodrome and many have had rash localized to the perianal and genital area, with or without symptoms of proctitis (anorectal pain, tenesmus, and bleeding). Clinically, some lesions mimicked sexually transmitted infections that the occur in the anogenital area, including herpes, syphilis, and lymphogranuloma venereum.

As of May 31, 2022, 17 persons in nine states had been diagnosed with presumed monkeypox virus infection. They ranged in age from 28 to 61 years and 16/17 identified as MSM. Fourteen reported international travel in the 3 weeks before developing symptoms. As of June 12, that number had grown to 53, while worldwide the number of confirmed and suspected cases reached 1,584. Up-to-date case counts are available at https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox.

Back on the phone, my colleague laughed a little nervously. “I guess I’m not really worried about monkeypox in my patient.” She paused and then asked, “This isn’t going to be the next pandemic, is it?”

Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have been reassuring in that regard. Two vaccines are available for the prevention of monkeypox. JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live viral vaccine licensed as a two-dose series to prevent both monkeypox and smallpox. ACAM 2000 is a live Vaccinia virus preparation licensed to prevent smallpox. These vaccines are effective when given before exposure but are thought to also beneficial when given as postexposure prophylaxis. According to the CDC, vaccination within 4 days of exposure can prevent the development of disease. Vaccination within 14 days of exposure may not prevent the development of disease but may lessen symptoms. Treatment is generally supportive but antiviral therapy could be considered for individuals with severe disease. Tecovirmat is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of smallpox but is available under nonresearch Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol for the treatment of children and adults with severe orthopox infections, including monkeypox.

So, what’s a pediatrician to do? Take a good travel history, as my colleague did, because that is good medicine. At this point in an outbreak though, a lack of travel does not exclude the diagnosis. Perform a thorough exam of skin and mucosal areas. When there are rashes in the genital or perianal area, consider the possibility of monkeypox in addition to typical sexually transmitted infections. Ask about exposure to other persons with similar rashes, as well as close or intimate contact with a persons in a social network experiencing monkeypox infections. This includes MSM who meet partners through an online website, app, or at social events. Monkeypox can also be spread through contact with an animal (dead or alive) that is an African endemic species or use of a product derived from such animals. Public health experts encourage clinicians to be alert for rash illnesses consistent with monkeypox, regardless of a patient’s gender or sexual orientation, history of international travel, or specific risk factors.

Pediatricians see many kids with rashes, and while cases of monkeypox climb daily, the disease is still very rare. Given the media coverage of the outbreak, pediatricians should be prepared for questions from patients and their parents. Clinicians who suspect a case of monkeypox should contact their local or state health department for guidance and the need for testing. Tips for recognizing monkeypox and distinguishing it from more common viral illnesses such as chicken pox are available at www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Not long ago, a pediatrician working in a local urgent care clinic called me about a teenage girl with a pruritic rash. She described vesicles and pustules located primarily on the face and arms with no surrounding cellulitis or other exam findings.

“She probably has impetigo,” my colleague said. “But I took a travel and exposure history and learned that her grandma had recently returned home from visiting family in the Congo. Do you think I need to worry about monkeypox?”

While most pediatricians in the United States have never seen a case of monkeypox, the virus is not new. An orthopox, it belongs to the same genus that includes smallpox and cowpox viruses. It was discovered in 1958 when two colonies of monkeys kept for research developed pox-like rashes. The earliest human case was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and now the virus is endemic in some counties in Central and West Africa.

Monkeypox virus is a zoonotic disease – it can spread from animals to people. Rodents and other small mammals – not monkeys – are thought to be the most likely reservoir. The virus typically spreads from person to person through close contact with skin or respiratory secretions or contact with contaminated fomites. Typical infection begins with fever, lymphadenopathy, and flulike symptoms that include headache and malaise. One to four days after the onset of fever, the characteristic rash begins as macular lesions that evolve into papules, then vesicles, and finally pustules. Pustular lesions are deep-seated, well circumscribed, and are usually the same size and in the same stage of development on a given body site. The rash often starts on the face or the mouth, and then moves to the extremities, including the palms and soles. Over time, the lesions umbilicate and ultimately crust over.

On May 20, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Advisory describing a case of monkeypox in a patient in Massachusetts. A single case normally wouldn’t cause too much alarm. In fact, there were two cases reported in the United States in 2021, both in travelers returning to the United States from Nigeria, a country in which the virus is endemic. No transmissions from these individuals to close contacts were identified.

The Massachusetts case was remarkable for two reasons. It occurred in an individual who had recently returned from a trip to Canada, which is not a country in which the virus is endemic. Additionally, it occurred in the context of a global outbreak of monkey pox that has, to date, disproportionately affected individuals who identify as men who have sex with men. Patients have often lacked the characteristic prodrome and many have had rash localized to the perianal and genital area, with or without symptoms of proctitis (anorectal pain, tenesmus, and bleeding). Clinically, some lesions mimicked sexually transmitted infections that the occur in the anogenital area, including herpes, syphilis, and lymphogranuloma venereum.

As of May 31, 2022, 17 persons in nine states had been diagnosed with presumed monkeypox virus infection. They ranged in age from 28 to 61 years and 16/17 identified as MSM. Fourteen reported international travel in the 3 weeks before developing symptoms. As of June 12, that number had grown to 53, while worldwide the number of confirmed and suspected cases reached 1,584. Up-to-date case counts are available at https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox.

Back on the phone, my colleague laughed a little nervously. “I guess I’m not really worried about monkeypox in my patient.” She paused and then asked, “This isn’t going to be the next pandemic, is it?”

Public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have been reassuring in that regard. Two vaccines are available for the prevention of monkeypox. JYNNEOS is a nonreplicating live viral vaccine licensed as a two-dose series to prevent both monkeypox and smallpox. ACAM 2000 is a live Vaccinia virus preparation licensed to prevent smallpox. These vaccines are effective when given before exposure but are thought to also beneficial when given as postexposure prophylaxis. According to the CDC, vaccination within 4 days of exposure can prevent the development of disease. Vaccination within 14 days of exposure may not prevent the development of disease but may lessen symptoms. Treatment is generally supportive but antiviral therapy could be considered for individuals with severe disease. Tecovirmat is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of smallpox but is available under nonresearch Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol for the treatment of children and adults with severe orthopox infections, including monkeypox.

So, what’s a pediatrician to do? Take a good travel history, as my colleague did, because that is good medicine. At this point in an outbreak though, a lack of travel does not exclude the diagnosis. Perform a thorough exam of skin and mucosal areas. When there are rashes in the genital or perianal area, consider the possibility of monkeypox in addition to typical sexually transmitted infections. Ask about exposure to other persons with similar rashes, as well as close or intimate contact with a persons in a social network experiencing monkeypox infections. This includes MSM who meet partners through an online website, app, or at social events. Monkeypox can also be spread through contact with an animal (dead or alive) that is an African endemic species or use of a product derived from such animals. Public health experts encourage clinicians to be alert for rash illnesses consistent with monkeypox, regardless of a patient’s gender or sexual orientation, history of international travel, or specific risk factors.

Pediatricians see many kids with rashes, and while cases of monkeypox climb daily, the disease is still very rare. Given the media coverage of the outbreak, pediatricians should be prepared for questions from patients and their parents. Clinicians who suspect a case of monkeypox should contact their local or state health department for guidance and the need for testing. Tips for recognizing monkeypox and distinguishing it from more common viral illnesses such as chicken pox are available at www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Tinea corporis is a superficial fungal infection that affects the trunk and extremities, more often on exposed skin. In the United States, Trichophyton rubrum, T. mentagrophytes, and Microsporum canis are the most common causal organisms. People can become infected from contact with other people, animals, or soil. Variants of tinea corporis include tinea imbricata (caused by T. concentricum), bullous tinea corporis, tinea gladiatorum (seen in wrestlers), tinea incognito (atypical tinea resulting from topical steroid use), and Majocchi’s granuloma. Widespread tinea may be secondary to underlying immunodeficiency such as HIV/AIDS or treatment with topical or oral steroids.

The typical presentation of tinea corporis is scaly erythematous or hypopigmented annular patches with a raised border and central clearing. In tinea imbricata, which is more commonly seen in southeast Asia, India, and Central America, concentric circles and serpiginous plaques are present. Majocchi’s granuloma has a deeper involvement of fungus in the hair follicles, presenting with papules and pustules at the periphery of the patches. Lesions of tinea incognito may lack a scaly border and can be more widespread.

Diagnosis can be confirmed with a skin scraping and potassium hydroxide (KOH) staining, which will reveal septate and branching hyphae. Biopsy is often helpful, especially in tinea incognito. Classically, a “sandwich sign” is seen: hyphae between orthokeratosis and compact hyperkeratosis or parakeratosis. In this patient, a biopsy from the left hip revealed dermatophytosis, with PAS positive for organisms.

Localized lesions respond to topical antifungal creams such as azoles or topical terbinafine. More extensive tinea will often require a systemic antifungal with griseofulvin, terbinafine, itraconazole, or fluconazole. This patient responded to topical ketoconazole cream and oral terbinafine. A workup for underlying immunodeficiency was negative.

Dr. Bilu Martin provided this case and photo.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at MDedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

Tinea corporis is a superficial fungal infection that affects the trunk and extremities, more often on exposed skin. In the United States, Trichophyton rubrum, T. mentagrophytes, and Microsporum canis are the most common causal organisms. People can become infected from contact with other people, animals, or soil. Variants of tinea corporis include tinea imbricata (caused by T. concentricum), bullous tinea corporis, tinea gladiatorum (seen in wrestlers), tinea incognito (atypical tinea resulting from topical steroid use), and Majocchi’s granuloma. Widespread tinea may be secondary to underlying immunodeficiency such as HIV/AIDS or treatment with topical or oral steroids.

The typical presentation of tinea corporis is scaly erythematous or hypopigmented annular patches with a raised border and central clearing. In tinea imbricata, which is more commonly seen in southeast Asia, India, and Central America, concentric circles and serpiginous plaques are present. Majocchi’s granuloma has a deeper involvement of fungus in the hair follicles, presenting with papules and pustules at the periphery of the patches. Lesions of tinea incognito may lack a scaly border and can be more widespread.

Diagnosis can be confirmed with a skin scraping and potassium hydroxide (KOH) staining, which will reveal septate and branching hyphae. Biopsy is often helpful, especially in tinea incognito. Classically, a “sandwich sign” is seen: hyphae between orthokeratosis and compact hyperkeratosis or parakeratosis. In this patient, a biopsy from the left hip revealed dermatophytosis, with PAS positive for organisms.

Localized lesions respond to topical antifungal creams such as azoles or topical terbinafine. More extensive tinea will often require a systemic antifungal with griseofulvin, terbinafine, itraconazole, or fluconazole. This patient responded to topical ketoconazole cream and oral terbinafine. A workup for underlying immunodeficiency was negative.

Dr. Bilu Martin provided this case and photo.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at MDedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

Tinea corporis is a superficial fungal infection that affects the trunk and extremities, more often on exposed skin. In the United States, Trichophyton rubrum, T. mentagrophytes, and Microsporum canis are the most common causal organisms. People can become infected from contact with other people, animals, or soil. Variants of tinea corporis include tinea imbricata (caused by T. concentricum), bullous tinea corporis, tinea gladiatorum (seen in wrestlers), tinea incognito (atypical tinea resulting from topical steroid use), and Majocchi’s granuloma. Widespread tinea may be secondary to underlying immunodeficiency such as HIV/AIDS or treatment with topical or oral steroids.

The typical presentation of tinea corporis is scaly erythematous or hypopigmented annular patches with a raised border and central clearing. In tinea imbricata, which is more commonly seen in southeast Asia, India, and Central America, concentric circles and serpiginous plaques are present. Majocchi’s granuloma has a deeper involvement of fungus in the hair follicles, presenting with papules and pustules at the periphery of the patches. Lesions of tinea incognito may lack a scaly border and can be more widespread.

Diagnosis can be confirmed with a skin scraping and potassium hydroxide (KOH) staining, which will reveal septate and branching hyphae. Biopsy is often helpful, especially in tinea incognito. Classically, a “sandwich sign” is seen: hyphae between orthokeratosis and compact hyperkeratosis or parakeratosis. In this patient, a biopsy from the left hip revealed dermatophytosis, with PAS positive for organisms.

Localized lesions respond to topical antifungal creams such as azoles or topical terbinafine. More extensive tinea will often require a systemic antifungal with griseofulvin, terbinafine, itraconazole, or fluconazole. This patient responded to topical ketoconazole cream and oral terbinafine. A workup for underlying immunodeficiency was negative.

Dr. Bilu Martin provided this case and photo.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at MDedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

It was wonderful to see long-term friends and colleagues again in New Orleans! Warmed me from the bottom of my COVID-scarred heart.

I had trepidation and anxiety about further COVID exposure, as I am sure many of you all did. I have carefully resumed traveling, although the rules on masking continue to change and confuse us all.

But I did it. I went to the American Psychiatric Association meeting in New Orleans and am so glad I did.

There was of course a lot of discussion about the pandemic, which separated us physically for 3 years – too many virtual meetings. And quiet discussions of grief and loss, both before and during the APA.

I just learned that Joe Napoli, MD, died. He was one of the hearts of the APA Disaster Psychiatry Committee. Others were lost as well, and I am processing those losses.

I do not want this column to be just a promotion for the APA, although it has been my home organization for decades. So, let me define further the cons and pros of going to the meeting. (Yes, I am deliberately reversing the order of these words.) I warn all the readers in advance that this is a soapbox.
 

Cons

The convention center in New Orleans is ridiculously long. Our convention was in Hall G down at end of its telescoping length. Only a couple of doors were open – clearly quite a challenge for folks with disabilities, or those aging into possible disability, like myself. I helped a psychiatrist with impaired vision down the endless hall and of course, felt good about it. (My motto: “Perform acts of kindness, and you will feel better yourself.”)

Another con: Too much going on at the same time. That’s a perpetual problem.

And the noise at the parties was way too loud. We could not hear each other.
 

Pros

Seeing people I have known for 40 years – with masks, without masks. Hugs or bows (on my part, I bow I do not yet hug in COVID times).

The receptions. Great networking. Mid-level psychiatrists who I had forgotten I had mentored. The “young ones” – the psychiatry residents. They seem to be a great and ambitious group.

I did several talks, including one on female veterans, and another on clinical management of the homeless population. The audiences were large and engaged. I am wondering how to make these topics an APA priority, especially engagement with strategies to take care of the unhoused/homeless folks.

Let me give you a brief synopsis of both of those talks, as they represent some of my passions. The first on female veterans. We tend to focus on PTSD and military sexual trauma. I am also concerned about reproductive and musculoskeletal concerns. Too many female service members get pregnant, then quit the military as they cannot manage being a Service member and a mother. They think they can make it (go to school, get a job) but they cannot manage it all.

Veterans services usually focus on single older men. There are not enough rooms and services for female veterans with children. In fairness to the Department of Veterans Affairs, they are trying to remedy this lack.

Transitioning to the homeless population in general, this is an incredible problem which is not easily solved. The VA has done an incredible job here, but the whole country should be mobilized.

My focus at the talk was the importance of assessing and treating medical problems. Again, homeless women are at high risk for barriers to contraception, sexual assault, pregnancy, and the corresponding difficulties of finding housing that will accept infants and small children.

Then there are the numerous medical issues in the unhoused population. Diabetes, hypertension, ulcers on the feet leading to cellulitis and amputation. I am advocating that we psychiatrists behave as medical doctors and think of the whole person, not just of the mind.

Another pro of the APA meeting: such desire to share what we know with the world. I found a few more potential authors for book chapters, specifically Dr. Anne Hansen to write a chapter in my capacity volume. And getting recruited myself, by Maria Llorente, MD, for one on centenarians (people who aged over 100.) Not sure if I know very much now, but I will try.

But another con: I am very tired of endless “scope of practice” discussions about what psychologists and nurse practitioners should do. They are all my comrades. We have plenty of business for all, in this never-ending anxiety tide of COVID.

Another con: I tested positive for COVID after my return, as did several of my friends.

I am sure our readers have many more takes on returning to the APA. These are a few of my thoughts.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She is a member of the Clinical Psychiatry News editorial advisory board, and has no conflicts of interest.

It was wonderful to see long-term friends and colleagues again in New Orleans! Warmed me from the bottom of my COVID-scarred heart.

I had trepidation and anxiety about further COVID exposure, as I am sure many of you all did. I have carefully resumed traveling, although the rules on masking continue to change and confuse us all.

But I did it. I went to the American Psychiatric Association meeting in New Orleans and am so glad I did.

There was of course a lot of discussion about the pandemic, which separated us physically for 3 years – too many virtual meetings. And quiet discussions of grief and loss, both before and during the APA.

I just learned that Joe Napoli, MD, died. He was one of the hearts of the APA Disaster Psychiatry Committee. Others were lost as well, and I am processing those losses.

I do not want this column to be just a promotion for the APA, although it has been my home organization for decades. So, let me define further the cons and pros of going to the meeting. (Yes, I am deliberately reversing the order of these words.) I warn all the readers in advance that this is a soapbox.
 

Cons

The convention center in New Orleans is ridiculously long. Our convention was in Hall G down at end of its telescoping length. Only a couple of doors were open – clearly quite a challenge for folks with disabilities, or those aging into possible disability, like myself. I helped a psychiatrist with impaired vision down the endless hall and of course, felt good about it. (My motto: “Perform acts of kindness, and you will feel better yourself.”)

Another con: Too much going on at the same time. That’s a perpetual problem.

And the noise at the parties was way too loud. We could not hear each other.
 

Pros

Seeing people I have known for 40 years – with masks, without masks. Hugs or bows (on my part, I bow I do not yet hug in COVID times).

The receptions. Great networking. Mid-level psychiatrists who I had forgotten I had mentored. The “young ones” – the psychiatry residents. They seem to be a great and ambitious group.

I did several talks, including one on female veterans, and another on clinical management of the homeless population. The audiences were large and engaged. I am wondering how to make these topics an APA priority, especially engagement with strategies to take care of the unhoused/homeless folks.

Let me give you a brief synopsis of both of those talks, as they represent some of my passions. The first on female veterans. We tend to focus on PTSD and military sexual trauma. I am also concerned about reproductive and musculoskeletal concerns. Too many female service members get pregnant, then quit the military as they cannot manage being a Service member and a mother. They think they can make it (go to school, get a job) but they cannot manage it all.

Veterans services usually focus on single older men. There are not enough rooms and services for female veterans with children. In fairness to the Department of Veterans Affairs, they are trying to remedy this lack.

Transitioning to the homeless population in general, this is an incredible problem which is not easily solved. The VA has done an incredible job here, but the whole country should be mobilized.

My focus at the talk was the importance of assessing and treating medical problems. Again, homeless women are at high risk for barriers to contraception, sexual assault, pregnancy, and the corresponding difficulties of finding housing that will accept infants and small children.

Then there are the numerous medical issues in the unhoused population. Diabetes, hypertension, ulcers on the feet leading to cellulitis and amputation. I am advocating that we psychiatrists behave as medical doctors and think of the whole person, not just of the mind.

Another pro of the APA meeting: such desire to share what we know with the world. I found a few more potential authors for book chapters, specifically Dr. Anne Hansen to write a chapter in my capacity volume. And getting recruited myself, by Maria Llorente, MD, for one on centenarians (people who aged over 100.) Not sure if I know very much now, but I will try.

But another con: I am very tired of endless “scope of practice” discussions about what psychologists and nurse practitioners should do. They are all my comrades. We have plenty of business for all, in this never-ending anxiety tide of COVID.

Another con: I tested positive for COVID after my return, as did several of my friends.

I am sure our readers have many more takes on returning to the APA. These are a few of my thoughts.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She is a member of the Clinical Psychiatry News editorial advisory board, and has no conflicts of interest.

It was wonderful to see long-term friends and colleagues again in New Orleans! Warmed me from the bottom of my COVID-scarred heart.

I had trepidation and anxiety about further COVID exposure, as I am sure many of you all did. I have carefully resumed traveling, although the rules on masking continue to change and confuse us all.

But I did it. I went to the American Psychiatric Association meeting in New Orleans and am so glad I did.

There was of course a lot of discussion about the pandemic, which separated us physically for 3 years – too many virtual meetings. And quiet discussions of grief and loss, both before and during the APA.

I just learned that Joe Napoli, MD, died. He was one of the hearts of the APA Disaster Psychiatry Committee. Others were lost as well, and I am processing those losses.

I do not want this column to be just a promotion for the APA, although it has been my home organization for decades. So, let me define further the cons and pros of going to the meeting. (Yes, I am deliberately reversing the order of these words.) I warn all the readers in advance that this is a soapbox.
 

Cons

The convention center in New Orleans is ridiculously long. Our convention was in Hall G down at end of its telescoping length. Only a couple of doors were open – clearly quite a challenge for folks with disabilities, or those aging into possible disability, like myself. I helped a psychiatrist with impaired vision down the endless hall and of course, felt good about it. (My motto: “Perform acts of kindness, and you will feel better yourself.”)

Another con: Too much going on at the same time. That’s a perpetual problem.

And the noise at the parties was way too loud. We could not hear each other.
 

Pros

Seeing people I have known for 40 years – with masks, without masks. Hugs or bows (on my part, I bow I do not yet hug in COVID times).

The receptions. Great networking. Mid-level psychiatrists who I had forgotten I had mentored. The “young ones” – the psychiatry residents. They seem to be a great and ambitious group.

I did several talks, including one on female veterans, and another on clinical management of the homeless population. The audiences were large and engaged. I am wondering how to make these topics an APA priority, especially engagement with strategies to take care of the unhoused/homeless folks.

Let me give you a brief synopsis of both of those talks, as they represent some of my passions. The first on female veterans. We tend to focus on PTSD and military sexual trauma. I am also concerned about reproductive and musculoskeletal concerns. Too many female service members get pregnant, then quit the military as they cannot manage being a Service member and a mother. They think they can make it (go to school, get a job) but they cannot manage it all.

Veterans services usually focus on single older men. There are not enough rooms and services for female veterans with children. In fairness to the Department of Veterans Affairs, they are trying to remedy this lack.

Transitioning to the homeless population in general, this is an incredible problem which is not easily solved. The VA has done an incredible job here, but the whole country should be mobilized.

My focus at the talk was the importance of assessing and treating medical problems. Again, homeless women are at high risk for barriers to contraception, sexual assault, pregnancy, and the corresponding difficulties of finding housing that will accept infants and small children.

Then there are the numerous medical issues in the unhoused population. Diabetes, hypertension, ulcers on the feet leading to cellulitis and amputation. I am advocating that we psychiatrists behave as medical doctors and think of the whole person, not just of the mind.

Another pro of the APA meeting: such desire to share what we know with the world. I found a few more potential authors for book chapters, specifically Dr. Anne Hansen to write a chapter in my capacity volume. And getting recruited myself, by Maria Llorente, MD, for one on centenarians (people who aged over 100.) Not sure if I know very much now, but I will try.

But another con: I am very tired of endless “scope of practice” discussions about what psychologists and nurse practitioners should do. They are all my comrades. We have plenty of business for all, in this never-ending anxiety tide of COVID.

Another con: I tested positive for COVID after my return, as did several of my friends.

I am sure our readers have many more takes on returning to the APA. These are a few of my thoughts.

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She is a member of the Clinical Psychiatry News editorial advisory board, and has no conflicts of interest.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

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. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

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. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

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. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.