Commentary

The news is portraying our modern time as an existential crisis as though our very existence is threatened. An existential crisis is a profound feeling of lack of meaning, choice, or freedom in one’s life that makes even existing seem worthless. It can emerge as early as 5 years old, especially in introspective, gifted children, when they realize that death is permanent and universal, after a real loss or a story of a loss or failure, or from a sense of guilt.

The past 18 months of COVID-19 have been a perfect storm for developing an existential crisis. One of the main sources of life meaning for children is friendships. COVID-19 has reduced or blocked access to old and new friends. Younger children, when asked what makes a friend, will say “we like to do the same things.” Virtual play dates help but don’t replace shared experiences.

School provides meaning for children not only from socializing but also from accomplishing academic tasks – fulfilling Erickson’s stages of “mastery” and “productivity.” Teachers were better able to carry out hands-on activities, group assignments, and field trips in person so that all children and learning styles were engaged and successful. Not having in-person school has also meant loss of extracurricular activities, sports, and clubs as sources of mastery.

Loss of the structure of daily life, common during COVID-19, for waking, dressing, meals, chores, homework time, bathing, or bedtime can be profoundly disorienting.

For adolescents, opportunities to contribute to society and become productive by volunteering or being employed have been stunted by quarantine and social distancing. Some teens have had to care for relatives at home so that parents can earn a living, which, while meaningful, blocks age-essential socializing.

Meaning can also be created at any age by community structures and agreed upon beliefs such as religion. While religious membership is low in the United States, members have been largely unable to attend services. Following sports teams, an alternate “religion” and source of identity, was on hold for many months.

Existential despair can also come from major life losses. COVID-19 has taken a terrible toll of lives, homes, and jobs for millions. As short-term thinkers, when children see so many of their plans and dreams for making the team, having a girlfriend, going to prom, attending summer camp, or graduating, it feels like the end of the world they had imagined. Even the most important source of meaning – connection to family – has been disrupted by lockdown, illness, or loss.

The loss of choice and freedom goes beyond being stuck indoors. Advanced classes and exams, as well as resume-building jobs or volunteering, which teens saw as essential to college, disappeared; sometimes also the money needed was exhausted by COVID-19 unemployment. Work-at-home parents supervising virtual school see their children’s malaise or panic and pressure them to work harder, which is impossible for despairing children. Observing a parent losing his or her job makes a teen’s own career aspirations uncertain. Teen depression and suicidal ideation/acts have shot up from hopelessness, with loss of meaning at the core.

A profound sense of powerlessness has taken over. COVID-19, an invisible threat, has taken down lives. Even with amazingly effective vaccines available, fear and helplessness have burned into our brains. Helplessness to stop structural racism and the arbitrary killings of our own Black citizens by police has finally registered. And climate change is now reported as an impending disaster that may not be stoppable.

So this must be the worst time in history, right? Actually, no. The past 60 years have been a period of historically remarkable stability of government, economy, and natural forces. Perhaps knowing no other world has made these problems appear unsolvable to the parents of our patients. Their own sense of meaning has been challenged in a way similar to that of their children. Perhaps from lack of privacy or peers, parents have been sharing their own sense of powerlessness with their children directly or indirectly, making it harder to reassure them.

With COVID-19 waning in the United States, many of the sources of meaning just discussed can be reinstated by way of in-person play dates, school, sports, socializing, practicing religion, volunteering, and getting jobs. Although there is “existential therapy,” what our children need most is adult leadership showing confidence in life’s meaning, even if we have to hide our own worries. Parents can point out that, even if it takes years, people have made it through difficult times in the past, and there are many positive alternatives for education and employment.

Children need to repeatedly hear about ways they are valued that are not dependent on accomplishments. Thanking them for and telling others about their effort, ideas, curiosity, integrity, love, and kindness point out meaning for their existence independent of world events. Parents need to establish routines and rules for children to demonstrate that life goes on as usual. Chores helpful to the family are a practical contribution. Family activities that are challenging and unpredictable set up for discussing, modeling, and building resilience; for example, visiting new places, camping, hiking, trying a new sport, or adopting a pet give opportunities to say: “Oh, well, we’ll find another way.”

Parents can share stories or books about people who made it through tougher times, such as Abraham Lincoln, or better, personal, or family experiences overcoming challenges. Recalling and nicknaming instances of the child’s own resilience is valuable. Books such as “The Little Engine That Could,” “Chicken Little,” and fairy tales of overcoming doubts when facing challenges can be helpful. “Stay calm and carry on,” a saying from the British when they were being bombed during World War II, has become a meme.

As clinicians we need to sort out significant complicated grief, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, or suicidal ideation, and provide assessment and treatment. But when children get stuck in existential futility, in addition to engaging them in meaningful activities, we can advise parents to coach them to distract themselves, “put the thoughts in a box in your head” to consider later, and/or write down or photograph things that make them grateful. Good lessons for us all to reinvent meaning in our lives.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The news is portraying our modern time as an existential crisis as though our very existence is threatened. An existential crisis is a profound feeling of lack of meaning, choice, or freedom in one’s life that makes even existing seem worthless. It can emerge as early as 5 years old, especially in introspective, gifted children, when they realize that death is permanent and universal, after a real loss or a story of a loss or failure, or from a sense of guilt.

The past 18 months of COVID-19 have been a perfect storm for developing an existential crisis. One of the main sources of life meaning for children is friendships. COVID-19 has reduced or blocked access to old and new friends. Younger children, when asked what makes a friend, will say “we like to do the same things.” Virtual play dates help but don’t replace shared experiences.

School provides meaning for children not only from socializing but also from accomplishing academic tasks – fulfilling Erickson’s stages of “mastery” and “productivity.” Teachers were better able to carry out hands-on activities, group assignments, and field trips in person so that all children and learning styles were engaged and successful. Not having in-person school has also meant loss of extracurricular activities, sports, and clubs as sources of mastery.

Loss of the structure of daily life, common during COVID-19, for waking, dressing, meals, chores, homework time, bathing, or bedtime can be profoundly disorienting.

For adolescents, opportunities to contribute to society and become productive by volunteering or being employed have been stunted by quarantine and social distancing. Some teens have had to care for relatives at home so that parents can earn a living, which, while meaningful, blocks age-essential socializing.

Meaning can also be created at any age by community structures and agreed upon beliefs such as religion. While religious membership is low in the United States, members have been largely unable to attend services. Following sports teams, an alternate “religion” and source of identity, was on hold for many months.

Existential despair can also come from major life losses. COVID-19 has taken a terrible toll of lives, homes, and jobs for millions. As short-term thinkers, when children see so many of their plans and dreams for making the team, having a girlfriend, going to prom, attending summer camp, or graduating, it feels like the end of the world they had imagined. Even the most important source of meaning – connection to family – has been disrupted by lockdown, illness, or loss.

The loss of choice and freedom goes beyond being stuck indoors. Advanced classes and exams, as well as resume-building jobs or volunteering, which teens saw as essential to college, disappeared; sometimes also the money needed was exhausted by COVID-19 unemployment. Work-at-home parents supervising virtual school see their children’s malaise or panic and pressure them to work harder, which is impossible for despairing children. Observing a parent losing his or her job makes a teen’s own career aspirations uncertain. Teen depression and suicidal ideation/acts have shot up from hopelessness, with loss of meaning at the core.

A profound sense of powerlessness has taken over. COVID-19, an invisible threat, has taken down lives. Even with amazingly effective vaccines available, fear and helplessness have burned into our brains. Helplessness to stop structural racism and the arbitrary killings of our own Black citizens by police has finally registered. And climate change is now reported as an impending disaster that may not be stoppable.

So this must be the worst time in history, right? Actually, no. The past 60 years have been a period of historically remarkable stability of government, economy, and natural forces. Perhaps knowing no other world has made these problems appear unsolvable to the parents of our patients. Their own sense of meaning has been challenged in a way similar to that of their children. Perhaps from lack of privacy or peers, parents have been sharing their own sense of powerlessness with their children directly or indirectly, making it harder to reassure them.

With COVID-19 waning in the United States, many of the sources of meaning just discussed can be reinstated by way of in-person play dates, school, sports, socializing, practicing religion, volunteering, and getting jobs. Although there is “existential therapy,” what our children need most is adult leadership showing confidence in life’s meaning, even if we have to hide our own worries. Parents can point out that, even if it takes years, people have made it through difficult times in the past, and there are many positive alternatives for education and employment.

Children need to repeatedly hear about ways they are valued that are not dependent on accomplishments. Thanking them for and telling others about their effort, ideas, curiosity, integrity, love, and kindness point out meaning for their existence independent of world events. Parents need to establish routines and rules for children to demonstrate that life goes on as usual. Chores helpful to the family are a practical contribution. Family activities that are challenging and unpredictable set up for discussing, modeling, and building resilience; for example, visiting new places, camping, hiking, trying a new sport, or adopting a pet give opportunities to say: “Oh, well, we’ll find another way.”

Parents can share stories or books about people who made it through tougher times, such as Abraham Lincoln, or better, personal, or family experiences overcoming challenges. Recalling and nicknaming instances of the child’s own resilience is valuable. Books such as “The Little Engine That Could,” “Chicken Little,” and fairy tales of overcoming doubts when facing challenges can be helpful. “Stay calm and carry on,” a saying from the British when they were being bombed during World War II, has become a meme.

As clinicians we need to sort out significant complicated grief, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, or suicidal ideation, and provide assessment and treatment. But when children get stuck in existential futility, in addition to engaging them in meaningful activities, we can advise parents to coach them to distract themselves, “put the thoughts in a box in your head” to consider later, and/or write down or photograph things that make them grateful. Good lessons for us all to reinvent meaning in our lives.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The news is portraying our modern time as an existential crisis as though our very existence is threatened. An existential crisis is a profound feeling of lack of meaning, choice, or freedom in one’s life that makes even existing seem worthless. It can emerge as early as 5 years old, especially in introspective, gifted children, when they realize that death is permanent and universal, after a real loss or a story of a loss or failure, or from a sense of guilt.

The past 18 months of COVID-19 have been a perfect storm for developing an existential crisis. One of the main sources of life meaning for children is friendships. COVID-19 has reduced or blocked access to old and new friends. Younger children, when asked what makes a friend, will say “we like to do the same things.” Virtual play dates help but don’t replace shared experiences.

School provides meaning for children not only from socializing but also from accomplishing academic tasks – fulfilling Erickson’s stages of “mastery” and “productivity.” Teachers were better able to carry out hands-on activities, group assignments, and field trips in person so that all children and learning styles were engaged and successful. Not having in-person school has also meant loss of extracurricular activities, sports, and clubs as sources of mastery.

Loss of the structure of daily life, common during COVID-19, for waking, dressing, meals, chores, homework time, bathing, or bedtime can be profoundly disorienting.

For adolescents, opportunities to contribute to society and become productive by volunteering or being employed have been stunted by quarantine and social distancing. Some teens have had to care for relatives at home so that parents can earn a living, which, while meaningful, blocks age-essential socializing.

Meaning can also be created at any age by community structures and agreed upon beliefs such as religion. While religious membership is low in the United States, members have been largely unable to attend services. Following sports teams, an alternate “religion” and source of identity, was on hold for many months.

Existential despair can also come from major life losses. COVID-19 has taken a terrible toll of lives, homes, and jobs for millions. As short-term thinkers, when children see so many of their plans and dreams for making the team, having a girlfriend, going to prom, attending summer camp, or graduating, it feels like the end of the world they had imagined. Even the most important source of meaning – connection to family – has been disrupted by lockdown, illness, or loss.

The loss of choice and freedom goes beyond being stuck indoors. Advanced classes and exams, as well as resume-building jobs or volunteering, which teens saw as essential to college, disappeared; sometimes also the money needed was exhausted by COVID-19 unemployment. Work-at-home parents supervising virtual school see their children’s malaise or panic and pressure them to work harder, which is impossible for despairing children. Observing a parent losing his or her job makes a teen’s own career aspirations uncertain. Teen depression and suicidal ideation/acts have shot up from hopelessness, with loss of meaning at the core.

A profound sense of powerlessness has taken over. COVID-19, an invisible threat, has taken down lives. Even with amazingly effective vaccines available, fear and helplessness have burned into our brains. Helplessness to stop structural racism and the arbitrary killings of our own Black citizens by police has finally registered. And climate change is now reported as an impending disaster that may not be stoppable.

So this must be the worst time in history, right? Actually, no. The past 60 years have been a period of historically remarkable stability of government, economy, and natural forces. Perhaps knowing no other world has made these problems appear unsolvable to the parents of our patients. Their own sense of meaning has been challenged in a way similar to that of their children. Perhaps from lack of privacy or peers, parents have been sharing their own sense of powerlessness with their children directly or indirectly, making it harder to reassure them.

With COVID-19 waning in the United States, many of the sources of meaning just discussed can be reinstated by way of in-person play dates, school, sports, socializing, practicing religion, volunteering, and getting jobs. Although there is “existential therapy,” what our children need most is adult leadership showing confidence in life’s meaning, even if we have to hide our own worries. Parents can point out that, even if it takes years, people have made it through difficult times in the past, and there are many positive alternatives for education and employment.

Children need to repeatedly hear about ways they are valued that are not dependent on accomplishments. Thanking them for and telling others about their effort, ideas, curiosity, integrity, love, and kindness point out meaning for their existence independent of world events. Parents need to establish routines and rules for children to demonstrate that life goes on as usual. Chores helpful to the family are a practical contribution. Family activities that are challenging and unpredictable set up for discussing, modeling, and building resilience; for example, visiting new places, camping, hiking, trying a new sport, or adopting a pet give opportunities to say: “Oh, well, we’ll find another way.”

Parents can share stories or books about people who made it through tougher times, such as Abraham Lincoln, or better, personal, or family experiences overcoming challenges. Recalling and nicknaming instances of the child’s own resilience is valuable. Books such as “The Little Engine That Could,” “Chicken Little,” and fairy tales of overcoming doubts when facing challenges can be helpful. “Stay calm and carry on,” a saying from the British when they were being bombed during World War II, has become a meme.

As clinicians we need to sort out significant complicated grief, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, or suicidal ideation, and provide assessment and treatment. But when children get stuck in existential futility, in addition to engaging them in meaningful activities, we can advise parents to coach them to distract themselves, “put the thoughts in a box in your head” to consider later, and/or write down or photograph things that make them grateful. Good lessons for us all to reinvent meaning in our lives.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

It is June and most of us are looking forward to a more normal summer than the one we had in 2020. Many Americans have been vaccinated and states are rolling back some (or all) masking requirements and restrictions on gatherings. In many sectors, including the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), worries from public health officials about vaccine supply and how to ethically allocate demand have given way to a new set of concerns: We have the shots, but for widespread protection we have to get them into arms.

The reluctance to roll up the sleeve is known as vaccine hesitancy. The National Academies of Science comments on vaccine hesitancy in its report on COVID-19 vaccination allocation. “Potential consequences of vaccine hesitancy—which the committee views as an attitude, preference, or motivational state—are the behaviors of vaccine refusal or delay.”²

On that count, there was encouraging albeit unexpected news in waning days of May. Media reported a sharp increase in the COVID-vaccination of military personnel. Unnamed DoD officials indicated, they had seen a 55% increase in the vaccination of active-duty service members over the previous month. This news represents a dramatic turnaround in a trend of vaccine hesitancy among military members that has persisted since the vaccine became available.³ Even last month, this would have been a very different column. The DoD has not disclosed the exact number of service members who have declined COVID-19 vaccination but multiple news outlets have documented that there was widespread and significant vaccine hesitancy among military personnel. In February, Military News reported that one-third of troops who were offered the vaccine declined it; and in April, USA Today stated that 40% of Marines had refused vaccination.^4,5

Still, it is worth examining the data on vaccination among active duty service members. From December 2020 through March 2021, the military conducted the first study to evaluate rates of vaccine initiation and completion in the military in general and for service members from racial/ethnic minorities in particular. Black military personnel were 28% less likely than non-Hispanic White service members to initiate vaccination against coronavirus even after adjusting for other possible confounders. Just 29% of White, 25.5% of Hispanic, and 18.7% of Black service members had initiated the vaccine process in the survey.⁶

The authors suggest that in part, vaccine hesitancy explains the findings.⁴ Vaccine hesitancy among racial and ethnic minorities is even more tragic because these same already disadvantaged cohorts have disproportionately suffered from COVID-19 throughout the pandemic with higher rates of infection, serious illness requiring hospitalization, and infection-related morbidity.⁷

Vaccine hesitancy, delay, or refusal in Black Americans whether military or civilian often is attributed to the historical abuses like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the more recent example of cancer cell lines taken from Henrietta Lacks without consent.⁸ Such government sponsored betrayals no doubt are the soil in which hesitancy grows but recent commentators have opined that focusing solely on these infamous examples may ignore current systemic racism that is pervasively feeding Black Americans reluctance to consider or accept COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ Blaming infamous research also provides a convenient excuse for confronting contemporary racial discrimination in health care and taking responsibility as health care practitioners for reversing it. “Framing the conversation about distrust in COVID vaccines in terms of everyday racism rather than historical atrocities may increase underserved communities’ willingness to be vaccinated,” Bajaj and Stanford wrote in a recent recent New England Journal of Medicine commentary. “When we hyperfocus on Sims, Lacks, and Tuskegee, we ascribe the current Black health experience to past racism, rooting our present in immovable historical occurrences and undermining efforts to combat mistrust. Everyday racism, by contrast, can be tackled in the present.”⁹

The study of racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination in active-duty service members was a work product of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. The authors underscore several factors that support the connection between discrimination and vaccine hesitancy in the military. Lack of access to and ability to obtain COVID-19 vaccination continues to be a major barrier that disadvantaged populations must overcome.¹⁰ The COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, easily obtained, and free of charge for all military personnel. Yet the vaccine hesitancy in the military parallels that of the civilian sector. This led the study authors to opine that, “forces external to the U.S. Military, such as interpersonal and societal factors also contribute to vaccine hesitancy among military service members.”⁶

Obviously, any unvaccinated active-duty service member reduces the combat readiness of the fighting force a consideration that led some in Congress to call for mandating vaccination. The vaccine is currently being administered under an emergency use authorization (EUA), which prevents even the military from mandating it.¹¹ Even if President Joseph Biden obtained a waiver to make the vaccine mandatory, the implications of forcing service members who have volunteered to serve their country is ethically problematic. Those problems are exponentially amplified when applied to members of ethnic and racial minorities who have a past and present of health disparities and discrimination. Respecting the decision of those in uniform to decline COVID-19 vaccination is the first and perhaps most important step to rebuilding the trust that is the most promising means of reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Part of the accountability we all bear for health care inequity and racism is to continue the work of this landmark study to better understand vaccine hesitancy among military and veteran cohorts, develop counseling and education that target those attitudes, beliefs, and motivations with education, counseling, and support. All of us can in some small measure follow the ethical mandate “to dispel rumors and provide facts to people” of Secretary Austin, a Black retired 4-star Army general.¹

It is June and most of us are looking forward to a more normal summer than the one we had in 2020. Many Americans have been vaccinated and states are rolling back some (or all) masking requirements and restrictions on gatherings. In many sectors, including the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), worries from public health officials about vaccine supply and how to ethically allocate demand have given way to a new set of concerns: We have the shots, but for widespread protection we have to get them into arms.

The reluctance to roll up the sleeve is known as vaccine hesitancy. The National Academies of Science comments on vaccine hesitancy in its report on COVID-19 vaccination allocation. “Potential consequences of vaccine hesitancy—which the committee views as an attitude, preference, or motivational state—are the behaviors of vaccine refusal or delay.”²

On that count, there was encouraging albeit unexpected news in waning days of May. Media reported a sharp increase in the COVID-vaccination of military personnel. Unnamed DoD officials indicated, they had seen a 55% increase in the vaccination of active-duty service members over the previous month. This news represents a dramatic turnaround in a trend of vaccine hesitancy among military members that has persisted since the vaccine became available.³ Even last month, this would have been a very different column. The DoD has not disclosed the exact number of service members who have declined COVID-19 vaccination but multiple news outlets have documented that there was widespread and significant vaccine hesitancy among military personnel. In February, Military News reported that one-third of troops who were offered the vaccine declined it; and in April, USA Today stated that 40% of Marines had refused vaccination.^4,5

Still, it is worth examining the data on vaccination among active duty service members. From December 2020 through March 2021, the military conducted the first study to evaluate rates of vaccine initiation and completion in the military in general and for service members from racial/ethnic minorities in particular. Black military personnel were 28% less likely than non-Hispanic White service members to initiate vaccination against coronavirus even after adjusting for other possible confounders. Just 29% of White, 25.5% of Hispanic, and 18.7% of Black service members had initiated the vaccine process in the survey.⁶

The authors suggest that in part, vaccine hesitancy explains the findings.⁴ Vaccine hesitancy among racial and ethnic minorities is even more tragic because these same already disadvantaged cohorts have disproportionately suffered from COVID-19 throughout the pandemic with higher rates of infection, serious illness requiring hospitalization, and infection-related morbidity.⁷

Vaccine hesitancy, delay, or refusal in Black Americans whether military or civilian often is attributed to the historical abuses like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the more recent example of cancer cell lines taken from Henrietta Lacks without consent.⁸ Such government sponsored betrayals no doubt are the soil in which hesitancy grows but recent commentators have opined that focusing solely on these infamous examples may ignore current systemic racism that is pervasively feeding Black Americans reluctance to consider or accept COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ Blaming infamous research also provides a convenient excuse for confronting contemporary racial discrimination in health care and taking responsibility as health care practitioners for reversing it. “Framing the conversation about distrust in COVID vaccines in terms of everyday racism rather than historical atrocities may increase underserved communities’ willingness to be vaccinated,” Bajaj and Stanford wrote in a recent recent New England Journal of Medicine commentary. “When we hyperfocus on Sims, Lacks, and Tuskegee, we ascribe the current Black health experience to past racism, rooting our present in immovable historical occurrences and undermining efforts to combat mistrust. Everyday racism, by contrast, can be tackled in the present.”⁹

The study of racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination in active-duty service members was a work product of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. The authors underscore several factors that support the connection between discrimination and vaccine hesitancy in the military. Lack of access to and ability to obtain COVID-19 vaccination continues to be a major barrier that disadvantaged populations must overcome.¹⁰ The COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, easily obtained, and free of charge for all military personnel. Yet the vaccine hesitancy in the military parallels that of the civilian sector. This led the study authors to opine that, “forces external to the U.S. Military, such as interpersonal and societal factors also contribute to vaccine hesitancy among military service members.”⁶

Obviously, any unvaccinated active-duty service member reduces the combat readiness of the fighting force a consideration that led some in Congress to call for mandating vaccination. The vaccine is currently being administered under an emergency use authorization (EUA), which prevents even the military from mandating it.¹¹ Even if President Joseph Biden obtained a waiver to make the vaccine mandatory, the implications of forcing service members who have volunteered to serve their country is ethically problematic. Those problems are exponentially amplified when applied to members of ethnic and racial minorities who have a past and present of health disparities and discrimination. Respecting the decision of those in uniform to decline COVID-19 vaccination is the first and perhaps most important step to rebuilding the trust that is the most promising means of reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Part of the accountability we all bear for health care inequity and racism is to continue the work of this landmark study to better understand vaccine hesitancy among military and veteran cohorts, develop counseling and education that target those attitudes, beliefs, and motivations with education, counseling, and support. All of us can in some small measure follow the ethical mandate “to dispel rumors and provide facts to people” of Secretary Austin, a Black retired 4-star Army general.¹

It is June and most of us are looking forward to a more normal summer than the one we had in 2020. Many Americans have been vaccinated and states are rolling back some (or all) masking requirements and restrictions on gatherings. In many sectors, including the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), worries from public health officials about vaccine supply and how to ethically allocate demand have given way to a new set of concerns: We have the shots, but for widespread protection we have to get them into arms.

The reluctance to roll up the sleeve is known as vaccine hesitancy. The National Academies of Science comments on vaccine hesitancy in its report on COVID-19 vaccination allocation. “Potential consequences of vaccine hesitancy—which the committee views as an attitude, preference, or motivational state—are the behaviors of vaccine refusal or delay.”²

On that count, there was encouraging albeit unexpected news in waning days of May. Media reported a sharp increase in the COVID-vaccination of military personnel. Unnamed DoD officials indicated, they had seen a 55% increase in the vaccination of active-duty service members over the previous month. This news represents a dramatic turnaround in a trend of vaccine hesitancy among military members that has persisted since the vaccine became available.³ Even last month, this would have been a very different column. The DoD has not disclosed the exact number of service members who have declined COVID-19 vaccination but multiple news outlets have documented that there was widespread and significant vaccine hesitancy among military personnel. In February, Military News reported that one-third of troops who were offered the vaccine declined it; and in April, USA Today stated that 40% of Marines had refused vaccination.^4,5

Still, it is worth examining the data on vaccination among active duty service members. From December 2020 through March 2021, the military conducted the first study to evaluate rates of vaccine initiation and completion in the military in general and for service members from racial/ethnic minorities in particular. Black military personnel were 28% less likely than non-Hispanic White service members to initiate vaccination against coronavirus even after adjusting for other possible confounders. Just 29% of White, 25.5% of Hispanic, and 18.7% of Black service members had initiated the vaccine process in the survey.⁶

The authors suggest that in part, vaccine hesitancy explains the findings.⁴ Vaccine hesitancy among racial and ethnic minorities is even more tragic because these same already disadvantaged cohorts have disproportionately suffered from COVID-19 throughout the pandemic with higher rates of infection, serious illness requiring hospitalization, and infection-related morbidity.⁷

Vaccine hesitancy, delay, or refusal in Black Americans whether military or civilian often is attributed to the historical abuses like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the more recent example of cancer cell lines taken from Henrietta Lacks without consent.⁸ Such government sponsored betrayals no doubt are the soil in which hesitancy grows but recent commentators have opined that focusing solely on these infamous examples may ignore current systemic racism that is pervasively feeding Black Americans reluctance to consider or accept COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ Blaming infamous research also provides a convenient excuse for confronting contemporary racial discrimination in health care and taking responsibility as health care practitioners for reversing it. “Framing the conversation about distrust in COVID vaccines in terms of everyday racism rather than historical atrocities may increase underserved communities’ willingness to be vaccinated,” Bajaj and Stanford wrote in a recent recent New England Journal of Medicine commentary. “When we hyperfocus on Sims, Lacks, and Tuskegee, we ascribe the current Black health experience to past racism, rooting our present in immovable historical occurrences and undermining efforts to combat mistrust. Everyday racism, by contrast, can be tackled in the present.”⁹

The study of racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination in active-duty service members was a work product of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. The authors underscore several factors that support the connection between discrimination and vaccine hesitancy in the military. Lack of access to and ability to obtain COVID-19 vaccination continues to be a major barrier that disadvantaged populations must overcome.¹⁰ The COVID-19 vaccine is widely available, easily obtained, and free of charge for all military personnel. Yet the vaccine hesitancy in the military parallels that of the civilian sector. This led the study authors to opine that, “forces external to the U.S. Military, such as interpersonal and societal factors also contribute to vaccine hesitancy among military service members.”⁶

Obviously, any unvaccinated active-duty service member reduces the combat readiness of the fighting force a consideration that led some in Congress to call for mandating vaccination. The vaccine is currently being administered under an emergency use authorization (EUA), which prevents even the military from mandating it.¹¹ Even if President Joseph Biden obtained a waiver to make the vaccine mandatory, the implications of forcing service members who have volunteered to serve their country is ethically problematic. Those problems are exponentially amplified when applied to members of ethnic and racial minorities who have a past and present of health disparities and discrimination. Respecting the decision of those in uniform to decline COVID-19 vaccination is the first and perhaps most important step to rebuilding the trust that is the most promising means of reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Part of the accountability we all bear for health care inequity and racism is to continue the work of this landmark study to better understand vaccine hesitancy among military and veteran cohorts, develop counseling and education that target those attitudes, beliefs, and motivations with education, counseling, and support. All of us can in some small measure follow the ethical mandate “to dispel rumors and provide facts to people” of Secretary Austin, a Black retired 4-star Army general.¹

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

A 56-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes presents for evaluation of painful neuropathy. She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?

A. Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency

B. Diabetic neuropathy

C. Insulin neuritis

D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

The most likely cause

In this case, certainly considering vitamin B₁₂ deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B₁₂ levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B₁₂ levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.¹

Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
 

Research on TIN

Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.² All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.

Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.³

A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.

A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.

Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.⁴ One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.

Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.²

Pearl

Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and 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.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.

2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.

3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.

4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.

A 56-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes presents for evaluation of painful neuropathy. She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?

A. Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency

B. Diabetic neuropathy

C. Insulin neuritis

D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

The most likely cause

In this case, certainly considering vitamin B₁₂ deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B₁₂ levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B₁₂ levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.¹

Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
 

Research on TIN

Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.² All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.

Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.³

A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.

A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.

Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.⁴ One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.

Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.²

Pearl

Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and 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.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.

2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.

3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.

4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.

A 56-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes presents for evaluation of painful neuropathy. She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?

A. Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency

B. Diabetic neuropathy

C. Insulin neuritis

D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

The most likely cause

In this case, certainly considering vitamin B₁₂ deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B₁₂ levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B₁₂ levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.¹

Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
 

Research on TIN

Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.² All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.

Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.³

A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.

A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.

Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.⁴ One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.

Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.²

Pearl

Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and 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.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.

2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.

3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.

4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.

In 2018, when Naomi Osaka won the U.S. Open by defeating Serena Williams, the trophy ceremony was painful to watch.

Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images

Ms. Williams had argued with an umpire over a controversial call, and the ceremony began with the crowd booing. Ms. Osaka, the victor, cried while Ms. Williams comforted her and quietly assured Ms. Osaka that the crowd was not booing at her. When asked how her dream of playing against Ms. Williams compared with the reality, the new champion, looking anything but victorious, responded: “Umm, I’m gonna sort of defer from your question, I’m sorry. I know that everyone was cheering for her, and I’m sorry it had to end like this.”

It was hardly the joyous moment it should have been in this young tennis player’s life.

Ms. Osaka, now 23, entered this year’s French Open as the Women’s Tennis Association’s second-ranked player and as the highest-paid female athlete of all time. She is known for her support of Black Lives Matter. Ms. Osaka announced that she would not be attending press conferences in an Instagram post days before the competition began. “If the organizations think they can keep saying, ‘do press or you’re going to get fined,’ and continue to ignore the mental health of the athletes that are the centerpiece of their cooperation then I just gotta laugh,” Ms. Osaka posted.

She was fined $15,000 on Sunday, May 30, when she did not appear at a press conference after winning her first match. Officials noted that she would be subjected to higher fines and expulsion from the tournament if she did not attend the mandatory media briefings. On June 1, Ms. Osaka withdrew from the French Open and explained her reasons on Instagram in a post where she announced that she has been struggling with depression and social anxiety and did not mean to become a distraction for the competition.
 

Psychiatrists weigh in

Sue Kim, MD, a psychiatrist who both plays and watches tennis, brought up Ms. Osaka’s resignation for discussion on the Maryland Psychiatric Society’s listserv. “[Ms.] Osaka put out on social media her depression and wanted to have rules reviewed and revised by the governing body of tennis, for future occasions. I feel it is so unfortunate and unfair and I am interested in hearing your opinions.”

Photo by Mark Brown/Getty Images

Yusuke Sagawa, MD, a psychiatrist and tennis fan, wrote in: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, I rekindled my interest in tennis and I followed what transpired this past weekend. Naomi Osaka is an exceptionally shy and introverted person. I have noted that her speech is somewhat akin to (for lack of a better term) ‘Valley Girl’ talk, and from reading comments on tennis-related blogs, it appears she has garnered a significant amount of hatred as a result. Most of it is along the lines of people feeling her shyness and modesty is simply a masquerade.

“I have also seen YouTube videos of her signing autographs for fans. She is cooperative and pleasant, but clearly uncomfortable around large groups of people.

“Having seen many press conferences after a match,” Dr. Sagawa continued, “tennis journalists have a penchant for asking questions that are either personal or seemingly an attempt to stir up acrimony amongst players. Whatever the case, I truly do believe that this is not some sort of ruse on her part, and I hope that people come to her defense. It is disturbing to hear the comments already coming out from the ‘big names’ in the sport that have mostly been nonsupportive. Fortunately, there have also been a number of her contemporaries who have expressed this support for her.”

In the days following Ms. Osaka’s departure from the French Open, the situation has become more complex. She is now the keystone for discussions of athletes and gender, race, power, mental illness, and the role of social media as it is used in these types of communications.

Maryland psychiatrist Erik Roskes, MD, wrote: “I have followed this story from a distance and what strikes me is the intermixing of athleticism – which is presumably why we watch sports – and entertainment, the money-making part of it. The athletes are both athletes and entertainers, and [Ms.] Osaka seems to be unable to fully fulfill the latter part due to her unique traits. But like many, I wonder what if this had been Michael Phelps? Is there a gender issue at play?”

Stephanie Durruthy, MD, added: “[Ms.] Osaka brings complexity to the mental health conversations. There is no one answer to her current plight, but her being a person of color cannot be minimized. She magnified the race conversation in tennis to a higher level.

“When she was new to the Grand Slam scene, her Haitian, Japanese, and Black heritage became an issue with unending curiosity.

“[Ms.] Osaka used her platform during the 2020 U.S. Open to single-handedly highlight Black Lives Matter,” Dr. Durruthy continued. “Afterward, the tennis fans could not avoid seeing her face mask. In each match, she displayed another mask depicting the name of those killed. She described on social media her fears of being a Black person in America. The biases of gender and race are well described in the sports world.”

Lindsay Crouse wrote June 1 in the New York Times: “When Naomi Osaka dropped out of the French Open, after declining to attend media interviews that she said could trigger her anxiety, she wasn’t just protecting her mental health. She was sending a message to the establishment of one of the world’s most elite sports: I will not be controlled. This was a power move – and it packed more punch coming from a young woman of color. When the system hasn’t historically stood for you, why sacrifice yourself to uphold it? Especially when you have the power to change it instead.”

Professional sports are grueling on athletes, both physically and mentally. People will speculate about Ms. Osaka’s motives for refusing to participate in the media briefings that are mandated by her contract. Some will see it as manipulative, others as the desire of a young woman struggling with anxiety and depression to push back against a system that makes few allowances for those who suffer. As psychiatrists, we see how crippling these illnesses can be and admire those who achieve at these superhuman levels, often at the expense of their own well-being.

Dr. Kim, who started the MPS listserv discussion, ended it with: “I feel bad if Naomi Osaka needs to play a mental ‘illness’ card, as opposed to mental ‘wellness’ card.”

Let’s hope that Ms. Osaka’s withdrawal from the French Open sparks more conversation about how to accommodate athletes as they endeavor to meet both the demands of their contracts and when it might be more appropriate to be flexible for those with individual struggles.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “ Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care ” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

In 2018, when Naomi Osaka won the U.S. Open by defeating Serena Williams, the trophy ceremony was painful to watch.

Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images

Ms. Williams had argued with an umpire over a controversial call, and the ceremony began with the crowd booing. Ms. Osaka, the victor, cried while Ms. Williams comforted her and quietly assured Ms. Osaka that the crowd was not booing at her. When asked how her dream of playing against Ms. Williams compared with the reality, the new champion, looking anything but victorious, responded: “Umm, I’m gonna sort of defer from your question, I’m sorry. I know that everyone was cheering for her, and I’m sorry it had to end like this.”

It was hardly the joyous moment it should have been in this young tennis player’s life.

Ms. Osaka, now 23, entered this year’s French Open as the Women’s Tennis Association’s second-ranked player and as the highest-paid female athlete of all time. She is known for her support of Black Lives Matter. Ms. Osaka announced that she would not be attending press conferences in an Instagram post days before the competition began. “If the organizations think they can keep saying, ‘do press or you’re going to get fined,’ and continue to ignore the mental health of the athletes that are the centerpiece of their cooperation then I just gotta laugh,” Ms. Osaka posted.

She was fined $15,000 on Sunday, May 30, when she did not appear at a press conference after winning her first match. Officials noted that she would be subjected to higher fines and expulsion from the tournament if she did not attend the mandatory media briefings. On June 1, Ms. Osaka withdrew from the French Open and explained her reasons on Instagram in a post where she announced that she has been struggling with depression and social anxiety and did not mean to become a distraction for the competition.
 

Psychiatrists weigh in

Sue Kim, MD, a psychiatrist who both plays and watches tennis, brought up Ms. Osaka’s resignation for discussion on the Maryland Psychiatric Society’s listserv. “[Ms.] Osaka put out on social media her depression and wanted to have rules reviewed and revised by the governing body of tennis, for future occasions. I feel it is so unfortunate and unfair and I am interested in hearing your opinions.”

Photo by Mark Brown/Getty Images

Yusuke Sagawa, MD, a psychiatrist and tennis fan, wrote in: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, I rekindled my interest in tennis and I followed what transpired this past weekend. Naomi Osaka is an exceptionally shy and introverted person. I have noted that her speech is somewhat akin to (for lack of a better term) ‘Valley Girl’ talk, and from reading comments on tennis-related blogs, it appears she has garnered a significant amount of hatred as a result. Most of it is along the lines of people feeling her shyness and modesty is simply a masquerade.

“I have also seen YouTube videos of her signing autographs for fans. She is cooperative and pleasant, but clearly uncomfortable around large groups of people.

“Having seen many press conferences after a match,” Dr. Sagawa continued, “tennis journalists have a penchant for asking questions that are either personal or seemingly an attempt to stir up acrimony amongst players. Whatever the case, I truly do believe that this is not some sort of ruse on her part, and I hope that people come to her defense. It is disturbing to hear the comments already coming out from the ‘big names’ in the sport that have mostly been nonsupportive. Fortunately, there have also been a number of her contemporaries who have expressed this support for her.”

In the days following Ms. Osaka’s departure from the French Open, the situation has become more complex. She is now the keystone for discussions of athletes and gender, race, power, mental illness, and the role of social media as it is used in these types of communications.

Maryland psychiatrist Erik Roskes, MD, wrote: “I have followed this story from a distance and what strikes me is the intermixing of athleticism – which is presumably why we watch sports – and entertainment, the money-making part of it. The athletes are both athletes and entertainers, and [Ms.] Osaka seems to be unable to fully fulfill the latter part due to her unique traits. But like many, I wonder what if this had been Michael Phelps? Is there a gender issue at play?”

Stephanie Durruthy, MD, added: “[Ms.] Osaka brings complexity to the mental health conversations. There is no one answer to her current plight, but her being a person of color cannot be minimized. She magnified the race conversation in tennis to a higher level.

“When she was new to the Grand Slam scene, her Haitian, Japanese, and Black heritage became an issue with unending curiosity.

“[Ms.] Osaka used her platform during the 2020 U.S. Open to single-handedly highlight Black Lives Matter,” Dr. Durruthy continued. “Afterward, the tennis fans could not avoid seeing her face mask. In each match, she displayed another mask depicting the name of those killed. She described on social media her fears of being a Black person in America. The biases of gender and race are well described in the sports world.”

Lindsay Crouse wrote June 1 in the New York Times: “When Naomi Osaka dropped out of the French Open, after declining to attend media interviews that she said could trigger her anxiety, she wasn’t just protecting her mental health. She was sending a message to the establishment of one of the world’s most elite sports: I will not be controlled. This was a power move – and it packed more punch coming from a young woman of color. When the system hasn’t historically stood for you, why sacrifice yourself to uphold it? Especially when you have the power to change it instead.”

Professional sports are grueling on athletes, both physically and mentally. People will speculate about Ms. Osaka’s motives for refusing to participate in the media briefings that are mandated by her contract. Some will see it as manipulative, others as the desire of a young woman struggling with anxiety and depression to push back against a system that makes few allowances for those who suffer. As psychiatrists, we see how crippling these illnesses can be and admire those who achieve at these superhuman levels, often at the expense of their own well-being.

Dr. Kim, who started the MPS listserv discussion, ended it with: “I feel bad if Naomi Osaka needs to play a mental ‘illness’ card, as opposed to mental ‘wellness’ card.”

Let’s hope that Ms. Osaka’s withdrawal from the French Open sparks more conversation about how to accommodate athletes as they endeavor to meet both the demands of their contracts and when it might be more appropriate to be flexible for those with individual struggles.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “ Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care ” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

In 2018, when Naomi Osaka won the U.S. Open by defeating Serena Williams, the trophy ceremony was painful to watch.

Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images

Ms. Williams had argued with an umpire over a controversial call, and the ceremony began with the crowd booing. Ms. Osaka, the victor, cried while Ms. Williams comforted her and quietly assured Ms. Osaka that the crowd was not booing at her. When asked how her dream of playing against Ms. Williams compared with the reality, the new champion, looking anything but victorious, responded: “Umm, I’m gonna sort of defer from your question, I’m sorry. I know that everyone was cheering for her, and I’m sorry it had to end like this.”

It was hardly the joyous moment it should have been in this young tennis player’s life.

Ms. Osaka, now 23, entered this year’s French Open as the Women’s Tennis Association’s second-ranked player and as the highest-paid female athlete of all time. She is known for her support of Black Lives Matter. Ms. Osaka announced that she would not be attending press conferences in an Instagram post days before the competition began. “If the organizations think they can keep saying, ‘do press or you’re going to get fined,’ and continue to ignore the mental health of the athletes that are the centerpiece of their cooperation then I just gotta laugh,” Ms. Osaka posted.

She was fined $15,000 on Sunday, May 30, when she did not appear at a press conference after winning her first match. Officials noted that she would be subjected to higher fines and expulsion from the tournament if she did not attend the mandatory media briefings. On June 1, Ms. Osaka withdrew from the French Open and explained her reasons on Instagram in a post where she announced that she has been struggling with depression and social anxiety and did not mean to become a distraction for the competition.
 

Psychiatrists weigh in

Sue Kim, MD, a psychiatrist who both plays and watches tennis, brought up Ms. Osaka’s resignation for discussion on the Maryland Psychiatric Society’s listserv. “[Ms.] Osaka put out on social media her depression and wanted to have rules reviewed and revised by the governing body of tennis, for future occasions. I feel it is so unfortunate and unfair and I am interested in hearing your opinions.”

Photo by Mark Brown/Getty Images

Yusuke Sagawa, MD, a psychiatrist and tennis fan, wrote in: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, I rekindled my interest in tennis and I followed what transpired this past weekend. Naomi Osaka is an exceptionally shy and introverted person. I have noted that her speech is somewhat akin to (for lack of a better term) ‘Valley Girl’ talk, and from reading comments on tennis-related blogs, it appears she has garnered a significant amount of hatred as a result. Most of it is along the lines of people feeling her shyness and modesty is simply a masquerade.

“I have also seen YouTube videos of her signing autographs for fans. She is cooperative and pleasant, but clearly uncomfortable around large groups of people.

“Having seen many press conferences after a match,” Dr. Sagawa continued, “tennis journalists have a penchant for asking questions that are either personal or seemingly an attempt to stir up acrimony amongst players. Whatever the case, I truly do believe that this is not some sort of ruse on her part, and I hope that people come to her defense. It is disturbing to hear the comments already coming out from the ‘big names’ in the sport that have mostly been nonsupportive. Fortunately, there have also been a number of her contemporaries who have expressed this support for her.”

In the days following Ms. Osaka’s departure from the French Open, the situation has become more complex. She is now the keystone for discussions of athletes and gender, race, power, mental illness, and the role of social media as it is used in these types of communications.

Maryland psychiatrist Erik Roskes, MD, wrote: “I have followed this story from a distance and what strikes me is the intermixing of athleticism – which is presumably why we watch sports – and entertainment, the money-making part of it. The athletes are both athletes and entertainers, and [Ms.] Osaka seems to be unable to fully fulfill the latter part due to her unique traits. But like many, I wonder what if this had been Michael Phelps? Is there a gender issue at play?”

Stephanie Durruthy, MD, added: “[Ms.] Osaka brings complexity to the mental health conversations. There is no one answer to her current plight, but her being a person of color cannot be minimized. She magnified the race conversation in tennis to a higher level.

“When she was new to the Grand Slam scene, her Haitian, Japanese, and Black heritage became an issue with unending curiosity.

“[Ms.] Osaka used her platform during the 2020 U.S. Open to single-handedly highlight Black Lives Matter,” Dr. Durruthy continued. “Afterward, the tennis fans could not avoid seeing her face mask. In each match, she displayed another mask depicting the name of those killed. She described on social media her fears of being a Black person in America. The biases of gender and race are well described in the sports world.”

Lindsay Crouse wrote June 1 in the New York Times: “When Naomi Osaka dropped out of the French Open, after declining to attend media interviews that she said could trigger her anxiety, she wasn’t just protecting her mental health. She was sending a message to the establishment of one of the world’s most elite sports: I will not be controlled. This was a power move – and it packed more punch coming from a young woman of color. When the system hasn’t historically stood for you, why sacrifice yourself to uphold it? Especially when you have the power to change it instead.”

Professional sports are grueling on athletes, both physically and mentally. People will speculate about Ms. Osaka’s motives for refusing to participate in the media briefings that are mandated by her contract. Some will see it as manipulative, others as the desire of a young woman struggling with anxiety and depression to push back against a system that makes few allowances for those who suffer. As psychiatrists, we see how crippling these illnesses can be and admire those who achieve at these superhuman levels, often at the expense of their own well-being.

Dr. Kim, who started the MPS listserv discussion, ended it with: “I feel bad if Naomi Osaka needs to play a mental ‘illness’ card, as opposed to mental ‘wellness’ card.”

Let’s hope that Ms. Osaka’s withdrawal from the French Open sparks more conversation about how to accommodate athletes as they endeavor to meet both the demands of their contracts and when it might be more appropriate to be flexible for those with individual struggles.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “ Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care ” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

Burnout is seldom the result of a single factor. It is more often a tragic case of death by a thousand cuts: a balky user-unfriendly electronic medical record system, administrative pressure to see more patients and the resulting frustration of not being able to provide the care you feel they deserve, an overemphasis on documentation or you won’t get paid, the dark cloud of malpractice always overhead, and of course the difficult balance between family responsibilities and work. It often boils down to feeling that there aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything done and still have time to recharge your physical and psychological batteries.

A recent report in the Harvard Business School newsletter, Working Knowledge (“Commuting Hurts Productivity and Your Best Talent Suffers Most.” Lane Lambert. 2021 Mar 30) describes an interesting study by Andy Wu, assistant professor of business administration, in which he discovered that, for every 10 kilometers of commuting distance, there was a decrease in the productivity of high-tech inventors as measured by the number of patents registered by their companies. The quality of their inventions declined even more (7%) for each additional 10 kilometers of commute.

You might question the relevance of these findings with your work in an outpatient clinic, but a conscientious physician is also an inventor and a creator. Every patient, even those with what sounds like a routine complaint, presents a novel collection of management challenges. The best physicians treat their profession as an art and must be invent solutions on the fly.

There is abundant evidence that commuting also can have a negative effect on the physical and mental health of workers. (“The astonishing human potential wasted on commutes.” The Washington Post .Christopher Ingraham. 2016 Feb 25). Watching my father walk into the house after an hour-long train ride out of the city and listening to him grumble created an image that influenced every decision I made about where my wife and I would live and work.

Did I benefit from the luxury of growing up in a small suburban community? Of course I did and I shall be forever grateful for the sacrifice my father made to allow that to happen. But, I promised myself that, while I would make sacrifices for my family, a long or unpleasant commute was not going to be on that list. For a few years I tolerated a 10- to 12-minute car commute (three stoplights) but asked to dissolve the partnership because even that 9-mile ride was too much for me and instead spent the bulk of my 40-year career a 10-minute bike ride from my office and the two hospitals. It meant we didn’t have a view of the ocean or a gentleman’s farm but we had an extra hour together as a family and I arrived at work and at home happy.

The pandemic has been a wake-up call for many of the fortunate folks who have found that they can work from home, eliminating what may have been a time-gobbling commute that was creating more stress than they may have realized. Even if telemedicine continues to maintain some postpandemic presence, I suspect that most physicians will continue to be faced with the challenge of traveling to an office or hospital.

If work is losing some of its luster and/or you are arriving home grumpy from a long day in the office, it is easy to blame an insensitive office administrator or the clunky electronic medical record system ... they deserve it. But, it may be the journey and not just the destination that is the contributing to the problem. I realize that rethinking the decision about where one lives can be painful and the options may be limited. However, I hope that at least some of you can rethink the role your journey is playing in your life.

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.

Burnout is seldom the result of a single factor. It is more often a tragic case of death by a thousand cuts: a balky user-unfriendly electronic medical record system, administrative pressure to see more patients and the resulting frustration of not being able to provide the care you feel they deserve, an overemphasis on documentation or you won’t get paid, the dark cloud of malpractice always overhead, and of course the difficult balance between family responsibilities and work. It often boils down to feeling that there aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything done and still have time to recharge your physical and psychological batteries.

A recent report in the Harvard Business School newsletter, Working Knowledge (“Commuting Hurts Productivity and Your Best Talent Suffers Most.” Lane Lambert. 2021 Mar 30) describes an interesting study by Andy Wu, assistant professor of business administration, in which he discovered that, for every 10 kilometers of commuting distance, there was a decrease in the productivity of high-tech inventors as measured by the number of patents registered by their companies. The quality of their inventions declined even more (7%) for each additional 10 kilometers of commute.

You might question the relevance of these findings with your work in an outpatient clinic, but a conscientious physician is also an inventor and a creator. Every patient, even those with what sounds like a routine complaint, presents a novel collection of management challenges. The best physicians treat their profession as an art and must be invent solutions on the fly.

There is abundant evidence that commuting also can have a negative effect on the physical and mental health of workers. (“The astonishing human potential wasted on commutes.” The Washington Post .Christopher Ingraham. 2016 Feb 25). Watching my father walk into the house after an hour-long train ride out of the city and listening to him grumble created an image that influenced every decision I made about where my wife and I would live and work.

Did I benefit from the luxury of growing up in a small suburban community? Of course I did and I shall be forever grateful for the sacrifice my father made to allow that to happen. But, I promised myself that, while I would make sacrifices for my family, a long or unpleasant commute was not going to be on that list. For a few years I tolerated a 10- to 12-minute car commute (three stoplights) but asked to dissolve the partnership because even that 9-mile ride was too much for me and instead spent the bulk of my 40-year career a 10-minute bike ride from my office and the two hospitals. It meant we didn’t have a view of the ocean or a gentleman’s farm but we had an extra hour together as a family and I arrived at work and at home happy.

The pandemic has been a wake-up call for many of the fortunate folks who have found that they can work from home, eliminating what may have been a time-gobbling commute that was creating more stress than they may have realized. Even if telemedicine continues to maintain some postpandemic presence, I suspect that most physicians will continue to be faced with the challenge of traveling to an office or hospital.

If work is losing some of its luster and/or you are arriving home grumpy from a long day in the office, it is easy to blame an insensitive office administrator or the clunky electronic medical record system ... they deserve it. But, it may be the journey and not just the destination that is the contributing to the problem. I realize that rethinking the decision about where one lives can be painful and the options may be limited. However, I hope that at least some of you can rethink the role your journey is playing in your life.

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.

Burnout is seldom the result of a single factor. It is more often a tragic case of death by a thousand cuts: a balky user-unfriendly electronic medical record system, administrative pressure to see more patients and the resulting frustration of not being able to provide the care you feel they deserve, an overemphasis on documentation or you won’t get paid, the dark cloud of malpractice always overhead, and of course the difficult balance between family responsibilities and work. It often boils down to feeling that there aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything done and still have time to recharge your physical and psychological batteries.

A recent report in the Harvard Business School newsletter, Working Knowledge (“Commuting Hurts Productivity and Your Best Talent Suffers Most.” Lane Lambert. 2021 Mar 30) describes an interesting study by Andy Wu, assistant professor of business administration, in which he discovered that, for every 10 kilometers of commuting distance, there was a decrease in the productivity of high-tech inventors as measured by the number of patents registered by their companies. The quality of their inventions declined even more (7%) for each additional 10 kilometers of commute.

You might question the relevance of these findings with your work in an outpatient clinic, but a conscientious physician is also an inventor and a creator. Every patient, even those with what sounds like a routine complaint, presents a novel collection of management challenges. The best physicians treat their profession as an art and must be invent solutions on the fly.

There is abundant evidence that commuting also can have a negative effect on the physical and mental health of workers. (“The astonishing human potential wasted on commutes.” The Washington Post .Christopher Ingraham. 2016 Feb 25). Watching my father walk into the house after an hour-long train ride out of the city and listening to him grumble created an image that influenced every decision I made about where my wife and I would live and work.

Did I benefit from the luxury of growing up in a small suburban community? Of course I did and I shall be forever grateful for the sacrifice my father made to allow that to happen. But, I promised myself that, while I would make sacrifices for my family, a long or unpleasant commute was not going to be on that list. For a few years I tolerated a 10- to 12-minute car commute (three stoplights) but asked to dissolve the partnership because even that 9-mile ride was too much for me and instead spent the bulk of my 40-year career a 10-minute bike ride from my office and the two hospitals. It meant we didn’t have a view of the ocean or a gentleman’s farm but we had an extra hour together as a family and I arrived at work and at home happy.

The pandemic has been a wake-up call for many of the fortunate folks who have found that they can work from home, eliminating what may have been a time-gobbling commute that was creating more stress than they may have realized. Even if telemedicine continues to maintain some postpandemic presence, I suspect that most physicians will continue to be faced with the challenge of traveling to an office or hospital.

If work is losing some of its luster and/or you are arriving home grumpy from a long day in the office, it is easy to blame an insensitive office administrator or the clunky electronic medical record system ... they deserve it. But, it may be the journey and not just the destination that is the contributing to the problem. I realize that rethinking the decision about where one lives can be painful and the options may be limited. However, I hope that at least some of you can rethink the role your journey is playing in your life.

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.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact letters@currentpsychiatry.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore inequalities in health care.¹ In a letter recently published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Nadkarni et al² addressed the reality that there is not equal access to quality care (in this case, telepsychiatry). They reported challenges in converting their psychiatry ambulatory care center to a virtual platform at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

Previously, I had reported in Current Psychiatry that patients at our small community mental health clinic outside Baltimore have much less audiovisual capability (they were able to receive telepsychiatry services via phone only, and not via video conferencing on a computer, smartphone, or tablet).³ Of 100 consecutive patients, we used telepsychiatry for 82 (18 were seen in person, including 14 who were seen for administration of long-acting injectable medications). Of the 82 patients receiving telepsychiatry from our facility, only 9 had video conferencing sessions (10.9%).

I repeated the survey approximately 3 months later. Preliminary data of these 125 total patients showed a slightly higher percentage (12.6%) had video conferencing sessions.

Factors associated with limited access to technology

Similar to what was reported by Nadkarni et al,² in our extremely vulnerable population, socioeconomic factors affect access. Our patients are low income, and often do not own computers or smart phones. Nearly all our patients receive medical assistance and/or Medicare. Our patients are more likely to be members of a racial minority group—4 times the national average. Our patients are older.⁴ Patient age varies from 16 to 83 years; the mean age is 54, and the median age is 56. Educational level is low. Nearly all of our patients who participate in video conferencing sessions are female. Approximately 15 of our patients have comorbid intellectual and developmental disabilities diagnoses, and at least that many have subsyndromal symptoms. Constantino et al⁵ commented on the multiple negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including “frank disparities in access” to technology as well as gaps left by relying exclusively on telehealth.

Among our patients, being low income, a member of a racial minority group, older, less educated, male, and developmentally and/or intellectually disabled are risk factors for less access to video conferencing.³ Nadkarni et al² also noted less broadband access for rural residents and less access and lack of digital health literacy in patients with limited English proficiency.

As Nadkarni et al² suggested, we did contact our legislators, and emergency rules are continuing. For now, we are managing fiscally. Although that certainly is important, it does not address the issue of inequality.

Continue to: With this information...

With this information, we are strongly encouraging our patients to participate in video conferencing sessions. We suspect that for some patients, the possibility of them participating in video conferencing sessions is greater than they have acknowledged. We are stepping up education and support, both informally through the patient’s family and friends, and more formally through case managers who “lend” patients a device during home visits.

In summary, this inequality in access to the technology needed for telepsychiatry will loom even more prominently as we all move forward, both clinically and in policymaking.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact letters@currentpsychiatry.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore inequalities in health care.¹ In a letter recently published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Nadkarni et al² addressed the reality that there is not equal access to quality care (in this case, telepsychiatry). They reported challenges in converting their psychiatry ambulatory care center to a virtual platform at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

Previously, I had reported in Current Psychiatry that patients at our small community mental health clinic outside Baltimore have much less audiovisual capability (they were able to receive telepsychiatry services via phone only, and not via video conferencing on a computer, smartphone, or tablet).³ Of 100 consecutive patients, we used telepsychiatry for 82 (18 were seen in person, including 14 who were seen for administration of long-acting injectable medications). Of the 82 patients receiving telepsychiatry from our facility, only 9 had video conferencing sessions (10.9%).

I repeated the survey approximately 3 months later. Preliminary data of these 125 total patients showed a slightly higher percentage (12.6%) had video conferencing sessions.

Factors associated with limited access to technology

Similar to what was reported by Nadkarni et al,² in our extremely vulnerable population, socioeconomic factors affect access. Our patients are low income, and often do not own computers or smart phones. Nearly all our patients receive medical assistance and/or Medicare. Our patients are more likely to be members of a racial minority group—4 times the national average. Our patients are older.⁴ Patient age varies from 16 to 83 years; the mean age is 54, and the median age is 56. Educational level is low. Nearly all of our patients who participate in video conferencing sessions are female. Approximately 15 of our patients have comorbid intellectual and developmental disabilities diagnoses, and at least that many have subsyndromal symptoms. Constantino et al⁵ commented on the multiple negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including “frank disparities in access” to technology as well as gaps left by relying exclusively on telehealth.

Among our patients, being low income, a member of a racial minority group, older, less educated, male, and developmentally and/or intellectually disabled are risk factors for less access to video conferencing.³ Nadkarni et al² also noted less broadband access for rural residents and less access and lack of digital health literacy in patients with limited English proficiency.

As Nadkarni et al² suggested, we did contact our legislators, and emergency rules are continuing. For now, we are managing fiscally. Although that certainly is important, it does not address the issue of inequality.

Continue to: With this information...

With this information, we are strongly encouraging our patients to participate in video conferencing sessions. We suspect that for some patients, the possibility of them participating in video conferencing sessions is greater than they have acknowledged. We are stepping up education and support, both informally through the patient’s family and friends, and more formally through case managers who “lend” patients a device during home visits.

In summary, this inequality in access to the technology needed for telepsychiatry will loom even more prominently as we all move forward, both clinically and in policymaking.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact letters@currentpsychiatry.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore inequalities in health care.¹ In a letter recently published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Nadkarni et al² addressed the reality that there is not equal access to quality care (in this case, telepsychiatry). They reported challenges in converting their psychiatry ambulatory care center to a virtual platform at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

Previously, I had reported in Current Psychiatry that patients at our small community mental health clinic outside Baltimore have much less audiovisual capability (they were able to receive telepsychiatry services via phone only, and not via video conferencing on a computer, smartphone, or tablet).³ Of 100 consecutive patients, we used telepsychiatry for 82 (18 were seen in person, including 14 who were seen for administration of long-acting injectable medications). Of the 82 patients receiving telepsychiatry from our facility, only 9 had video conferencing sessions (10.9%).

I repeated the survey approximately 3 months later. Preliminary data of these 125 total patients showed a slightly higher percentage (12.6%) had video conferencing sessions.

Factors associated with limited access to technology

Similar to what was reported by Nadkarni et al,² in our extremely vulnerable population, socioeconomic factors affect access. Our patients are low income, and often do not own computers or smart phones. Nearly all our patients receive medical assistance and/or Medicare. Our patients are more likely to be members of a racial minority group—4 times the national average. Our patients are older.⁴ Patient age varies from 16 to 83 years; the mean age is 54, and the median age is 56. Educational level is low. Nearly all of our patients who participate in video conferencing sessions are female. Approximately 15 of our patients have comorbid intellectual and developmental disabilities diagnoses, and at least that many have subsyndromal symptoms. Constantino et al⁵ commented on the multiple negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including “frank disparities in access” to technology as well as gaps left by relying exclusively on telehealth.

Among our patients, being low income, a member of a racial minority group, older, less educated, male, and developmentally and/or intellectually disabled are risk factors for less access to video conferencing.³ Nadkarni et al² also noted less broadband access for rural residents and less access and lack of digital health literacy in patients with limited English proficiency.

As Nadkarni et al² suggested, we did contact our legislators, and emergency rules are continuing. For now, we are managing fiscally. Although that certainly is important, it does not address the issue of inequality.

Continue to: With this information...

With this information, we are strongly encouraging our patients to participate in video conferencing sessions. We suspect that for some patients, the possibility of them participating in video conferencing sessions is greater than they have acknowledged. We are stepping up education and support, both informally through the patient’s family and friends, and more formally through case managers who “lend” patients a device during home visits.

In summary, this inequality in access to the technology needed for telepsychiatry will loom even more prominently as we all move forward, both clinically and in policymaking.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his bold article, “Treatment resistance is a myth!” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, March 2021, p. 14-16,28). “Treatment resistance” has become an overused catchphrase, largely for commercial purposes, that sends a distorted view to the public that current psychiatric treatments are ineffective. We have proven, safe, and effective treatments as covered in the article. So, instead of “treatment resistance,” we should be publicizing that “treatment works!” to encourage people to seek help for mental disorders and addictions.

Stanley N. Caroff, MD
Professor of Psychiatry
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I thought Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial on treatment resistance was excellent. In my experience, bipolar depression often is not diagnosed in patients with long-standing depression. These patients do worse on antidepressants, which is interpreted by the clinician as treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. The other issue for me is that individuals with bipolar disorder with psychotic features are often diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizo­affective disorder and never receive a trial of lithium, which could alter the course of their illness in a dramatic fashion. For me, the under­utilization of lithium is a real quality problem in our field. Keep up the good work!

Bruce J. Schwartz, MD
Deputy Chairman & Professor of PsychiatryMontefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine
New York, New York

 

 

Are psychiatric advances still science fiction?

I read with great enthusiasm Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Today’s psychiatric neuroscience advances were science fiction during my residency” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, April 2021, p. 5-7,12,24) and I, too, can see how our field has come a long way since my days of residency. However, as I read the article, I could not stop thinking about how many of the advances Dr. Nasrallah mentioned are still science fiction for the communities I work with.

I have spent all my professional life serving in the public sector, mainly in New York, and can tell you that many of the brain exploration methods, methodologies, and clinical advances mentioned in this article unfortunately are still a dream for us. Still, we remain hopeful that someday those transformative advances will come to us, too, especially as the technology innovates and improves!

Vania Castillo, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Thank you for your comments. Please remember that every single treatment you are currently using in the public mental health system was a research discovery at one point in the past, and it took many years to bring it to clinical practice. Translating basic neuroscience discoveries, such as the ones I mentioned in my editorial, into clinical practice not only takes time to develop and get approved for use, but also requires substantial funding and a cadre of psychiatric physician-scientists, both of which are in short supply.

“Warp speed” COVID-19 vaccine development was possible only because the deadly pandemic became such an urgent national crisis that the government opened its coffers and diverted billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies, with a massive infrastructure of human talent and biotechnology, making this veritable “moonshot” a reality in 1 year instead of many. Regrettably, even though neuropsychiatric disorders are a serious societal plague that causes disability and early mortality from suicide, homicide, substance use, cardiovascular risk, and accelerated aging, they do not command the urgency of an infectious viral pandemic that rapidly killed millions and shut down societies all over the world.

You probably heard the saying “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” I believe we are more than one step—maybe more than 100 steps—toward the type of breakthroughs that we all crave for our long-suffering psychiatric patients. I am grateful for the medical advances we have made over the past 10 to 15 years, such as neuromodulation, rapid-acting parenteral antidepressants, nondopaminergic antipsychotics, therapeutic hallucinogens, early recognition and intervention, and many promising neurobiologic leads and novel therapeutic targets for the brain disorders we deal with every day.

The brain is the most complex, challenging, and physically inaccessible organ to explore and treat. In medicine, we can do heart, lung, liver, and kidney biopsies, but it is far too dangerous to do brain biopsies that would help uncover the molecular and cellular underpinnings of neuropsychiatric disorders. Yet thankfully, our knowledge of the brain structure and function in health and disease has grown by >100,000% over the past few decades compared to the preceding millennia of dark ignorance. Someday, we shall overcome.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his bold article, “Treatment resistance is a myth!” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, March 2021, p. 14-16,28). “Treatment resistance” has become an overused catchphrase, largely for commercial purposes, that sends a distorted view to the public that current psychiatric treatments are ineffective. We have proven, safe, and effective treatments as covered in the article. So, instead of “treatment resistance,” we should be publicizing that “treatment works!” to encourage people to seek help for mental disorders and addictions.

Stanley N. Caroff, MD
Professor of Psychiatry
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I thought Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial on treatment resistance was excellent. In my experience, bipolar depression often is not diagnosed in patients with long-standing depression. These patients do worse on antidepressants, which is interpreted by the clinician as treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. The other issue for me is that individuals with bipolar disorder with psychotic features are often diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizo­affective disorder and never receive a trial of lithium, which could alter the course of their illness in a dramatic fashion. For me, the under­utilization of lithium is a real quality problem in our field. Keep up the good work!

Bruce J. Schwartz, MD
Deputy Chairman & Professor of PsychiatryMontefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine
New York, New York

 

 

Are psychiatric advances still science fiction?

I read with great enthusiasm Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Today’s psychiatric neuroscience advances were science fiction during my residency” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, April 2021, p. 5-7,12,24) and I, too, can see how our field has come a long way since my days of residency. However, as I read the article, I could not stop thinking about how many of the advances Dr. Nasrallah mentioned are still science fiction for the communities I work with.

I have spent all my professional life serving in the public sector, mainly in New York, and can tell you that many of the brain exploration methods, methodologies, and clinical advances mentioned in this article unfortunately are still a dream for us. Still, we remain hopeful that someday those transformative advances will come to us, too, especially as the technology innovates and improves!

Vania Castillo, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Thank you for your comments. Please remember that every single treatment you are currently using in the public mental health system was a research discovery at one point in the past, and it took many years to bring it to clinical practice. Translating basic neuroscience discoveries, such as the ones I mentioned in my editorial, into clinical practice not only takes time to develop and get approved for use, but also requires substantial funding and a cadre of psychiatric physician-scientists, both of which are in short supply.

“Warp speed” COVID-19 vaccine development was possible only because the deadly pandemic became such an urgent national crisis that the government opened its coffers and diverted billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies, with a massive infrastructure of human talent and biotechnology, making this veritable “moonshot” a reality in 1 year instead of many. Regrettably, even though neuropsychiatric disorders are a serious societal plague that causes disability and early mortality from suicide, homicide, substance use, cardiovascular risk, and accelerated aging, they do not command the urgency of an infectious viral pandemic that rapidly killed millions and shut down societies all over the world.

You probably heard the saying “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” I believe we are more than one step—maybe more than 100 steps—toward the type of breakthroughs that we all crave for our long-suffering psychiatric patients. I am grateful for the medical advances we have made over the past 10 to 15 years, such as neuromodulation, rapid-acting parenteral antidepressants, nondopaminergic antipsychotics, therapeutic hallucinogens, early recognition and intervention, and many promising neurobiologic leads and novel therapeutic targets for the brain disorders we deal with every day.

The brain is the most complex, challenging, and physically inaccessible organ to explore and treat. In medicine, we can do heart, lung, liver, and kidney biopsies, but it is far too dangerous to do brain biopsies that would help uncover the molecular and cellular underpinnings of neuropsychiatric disorders. Yet thankfully, our knowledge of the brain structure and function in health and disease has grown by >100,000% over the past few decades compared to the preceding millennia of dark ignorance. Someday, we shall overcome.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his bold article, “Treatment resistance is a myth!” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, March 2021, p. 14-16,28). “Treatment resistance” has become an overused catchphrase, largely for commercial purposes, that sends a distorted view to the public that current psychiatric treatments are ineffective. We have proven, safe, and effective treatments as covered in the article. So, instead of “treatment resistance,” we should be publicizing that “treatment works!” to encourage people to seek help for mental disorders and addictions.

Stanley N. Caroff, MD
Professor of Psychiatry
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I thought Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial on treatment resistance was excellent. In my experience, bipolar depression often is not diagnosed in patients with long-standing depression. These patients do worse on antidepressants, which is interpreted by the clinician as treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. The other issue for me is that individuals with bipolar disorder with psychotic features are often diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizo­affective disorder and never receive a trial of lithium, which could alter the course of their illness in a dramatic fashion. For me, the under­utilization of lithium is a real quality problem in our field. Keep up the good work!

Bruce J. Schwartz, MD
Deputy Chairman & Professor of PsychiatryMontefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine
New York, New York

 

 

Are psychiatric advances still science fiction?

I read with great enthusiasm Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Today’s psychiatric neuroscience advances were science fiction during my residency” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, April 2021, p. 5-7,12,24) and I, too, can see how our field has come a long way since my days of residency. However, as I read the article, I could not stop thinking about how many of the advances Dr. Nasrallah mentioned are still science fiction for the communities I work with.

I have spent all my professional life serving in the public sector, mainly in New York, and can tell you that many of the brain exploration methods, methodologies, and clinical advances mentioned in this article unfortunately are still a dream for us. Still, we remain hopeful that someday those transformative advances will come to us, too, especially as the technology innovates and improves!

Vania Castillo, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Thank you for your comments. Please remember that every single treatment you are currently using in the public mental health system was a research discovery at one point in the past, and it took many years to bring it to clinical practice. Translating basic neuroscience discoveries, such as the ones I mentioned in my editorial, into clinical practice not only takes time to develop and get approved for use, but also requires substantial funding and a cadre of psychiatric physician-scientists, both of which are in short supply.

“Warp speed” COVID-19 vaccine development was possible only because the deadly pandemic became such an urgent national crisis that the government opened its coffers and diverted billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies, with a massive infrastructure of human talent and biotechnology, making this veritable “moonshot” a reality in 1 year instead of many. Regrettably, even though neuropsychiatric disorders are a serious societal plague that causes disability and early mortality from suicide, homicide, substance use, cardiovascular risk, and accelerated aging, they do not command the urgency of an infectious viral pandemic that rapidly killed millions and shut down societies all over the world.

You probably heard the saying “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” I believe we are more than one step—maybe more than 100 steps—toward the type of breakthroughs that we all crave for our long-suffering psychiatric patients. I am grateful for the medical advances we have made over the past 10 to 15 years, such as neuromodulation, rapid-acting parenteral antidepressants, nondopaminergic antipsychotics, therapeutic hallucinogens, early recognition and intervention, and many promising neurobiologic leads and novel therapeutic targets for the brain disorders we deal with every day.

The brain is the most complex, challenging, and physically inaccessible organ to explore and treat. In medicine, we can do heart, lung, liver, and kidney biopsies, but it is far too dangerous to do brain biopsies that would help uncover the molecular and cellular underpinnings of neuropsychiatric disorders. Yet thankfully, our knowledge of the brain structure and function in health and disease has grown by >100,000% over the past few decades compared to the preceding millennia of dark ignorance. Someday, we shall overcome.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.