User login
Applying lessons from Oprah to your practice
In my last column, I explained how I’m like Tom Brady. I’m not really. Brady is a Super Bowl–winning quarterback worth over $200 million. No, I’m like Oprah. Well, trying anyway.
Brady and Oprah, in addition to being gazillionaires, have in common that they’re arguably the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) in their fields. Watching Oprah interview Meghan Markle and Prince Harry was like watching Tom Brady on the jumbotron – she made it look easy. Her ability to create conversation and coax information from guests is hall-of-fame good. But although they are both admirable, trying to be like Brady is useful only for next Thanksgiving when you’re trying to beat your cousins from Massachusetts in touch football. .
1. Prepare ahead. It’s clear that Oprah has binders of notes about her guests and thoroughly reviewed them before she invites them to sit down. We should do the same. Open the chart and read as much as you can before you open the door. Have important information in your head so you don’t have to break from your interview to refer to it.
2. Sprinkle pleasantry. She’d never start an interview with: So why are you here? Nor should we. Even one nonscripted question or comment can help build a little rapport before getting to the work.
3. Be brief. Oprah gets her question out fast, then gets out of the way. And as a bonus, this is the easiest place to shave a few minutes from your appointments from your own end. Think for a second before you speak and try to find the shortest route to your question. Try to keep your questions to just a sentence or two.
4. Stay on it. Once you’ve discovered something relevant, stay with it, resisting the urge to finish the review of symptoms. This is not just to make a diagnosis, but as importantly, trying to diagnose “the real reason” for the visit. Then, when the question is done, own the transition. Oprah uses: “Let’s move on.” This is a bit abrupt for us, but it can be helpful if used sparingly and gently. I might soften this a little by adding “I want to be sure we have enough time to get through everything for you.”
5. Wait. A few seconds seems an eternity on the air (and in clinic), but sometimes the silent pause is just what’s needed to help the patient expand and share.
6. Be nonjudgmental. Most of us believe we’re pretty good at this, yet, it’s sometimes a blind spot. It’s easy to blame the obese patient for his stasis dermatitis or the hidradenitis patient who hasn’t stop smoking for her cysts. It also helps to be nontransactional. If you make patients feel that you’re asking questions only to extract information, you’ll never reach Oprah level.
7. Be in the moment. It is difficult, but when possible, avoid typing notes while you’re still interviewing. We’re not just there to get the facts, we’re also trying to get the story and that sometimes takes really listening.
I’m no more like Oprah than Brady, of course. But it is more fun to close my eyes and imagine myself being her when I see my next patient. That is, until Thanksgiving. Watch out, Bedards from Attleboro.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
In my last column, I explained how I’m like Tom Brady. I’m not really. Brady is a Super Bowl–winning quarterback worth over $200 million. No, I’m like Oprah. Well, trying anyway.
Brady and Oprah, in addition to being gazillionaires, have in common that they’re arguably the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) in their fields. Watching Oprah interview Meghan Markle and Prince Harry was like watching Tom Brady on the jumbotron – she made it look easy. Her ability to create conversation and coax information from guests is hall-of-fame good. But although they are both admirable, trying to be like Brady is useful only for next Thanksgiving when you’re trying to beat your cousins from Massachusetts in touch football. .
1. Prepare ahead. It’s clear that Oprah has binders of notes about her guests and thoroughly reviewed them before she invites them to sit down. We should do the same. Open the chart and read as much as you can before you open the door. Have important information in your head so you don’t have to break from your interview to refer to it.
2. Sprinkle pleasantry. She’d never start an interview with: So why are you here? Nor should we. Even one nonscripted question or comment can help build a little rapport before getting to the work.
3. Be brief. Oprah gets her question out fast, then gets out of the way. And as a bonus, this is the easiest place to shave a few minutes from your appointments from your own end. Think for a second before you speak and try to find the shortest route to your question. Try to keep your questions to just a sentence or two.
4. Stay on it. Once you’ve discovered something relevant, stay with it, resisting the urge to finish the review of symptoms. This is not just to make a diagnosis, but as importantly, trying to diagnose “the real reason” for the visit. Then, when the question is done, own the transition. Oprah uses: “Let’s move on.” This is a bit abrupt for us, but it can be helpful if used sparingly and gently. I might soften this a little by adding “I want to be sure we have enough time to get through everything for you.”
5. Wait. A few seconds seems an eternity on the air (and in clinic), but sometimes the silent pause is just what’s needed to help the patient expand and share.
6. Be nonjudgmental. Most of us believe we’re pretty good at this, yet, it’s sometimes a blind spot. It’s easy to blame the obese patient for his stasis dermatitis or the hidradenitis patient who hasn’t stop smoking for her cysts. It also helps to be nontransactional. If you make patients feel that you’re asking questions only to extract information, you’ll never reach Oprah level.
7. Be in the moment. It is difficult, but when possible, avoid typing notes while you’re still interviewing. We’re not just there to get the facts, we’re also trying to get the story and that sometimes takes really listening.
I’m no more like Oprah than Brady, of course. But it is more fun to close my eyes and imagine myself being her when I see my next patient. That is, until Thanksgiving. Watch out, Bedards from Attleboro.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
In my last column, I explained how I’m like Tom Brady. I’m not really. Brady is a Super Bowl–winning quarterback worth over $200 million. No, I’m like Oprah. Well, trying anyway.
Brady and Oprah, in addition to being gazillionaires, have in common that they’re arguably the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) in their fields. Watching Oprah interview Meghan Markle and Prince Harry was like watching Tom Brady on the jumbotron – she made it look easy. Her ability to create conversation and coax information from guests is hall-of-fame good. But although they are both admirable, trying to be like Brady is useful only for next Thanksgiving when you’re trying to beat your cousins from Massachusetts in touch football. .
1. Prepare ahead. It’s clear that Oprah has binders of notes about her guests and thoroughly reviewed them before she invites them to sit down. We should do the same. Open the chart and read as much as you can before you open the door. Have important information in your head so you don’t have to break from your interview to refer to it.
2. Sprinkle pleasantry. She’d never start an interview with: So why are you here? Nor should we. Even one nonscripted question or comment can help build a little rapport before getting to the work.
3. Be brief. Oprah gets her question out fast, then gets out of the way. And as a bonus, this is the easiest place to shave a few minutes from your appointments from your own end. Think for a second before you speak and try to find the shortest route to your question. Try to keep your questions to just a sentence or two.
4. Stay on it. Once you’ve discovered something relevant, stay with it, resisting the urge to finish the review of symptoms. This is not just to make a diagnosis, but as importantly, trying to diagnose “the real reason” for the visit. Then, when the question is done, own the transition. Oprah uses: “Let’s move on.” This is a bit abrupt for us, but it can be helpful if used sparingly and gently. I might soften this a little by adding “I want to be sure we have enough time to get through everything for you.”
5. Wait. A few seconds seems an eternity on the air (and in clinic), but sometimes the silent pause is just what’s needed to help the patient expand and share.
6. Be nonjudgmental. Most of us believe we’re pretty good at this, yet, it’s sometimes a blind spot. It’s easy to blame the obese patient for his stasis dermatitis or the hidradenitis patient who hasn’t stop smoking for her cysts. It also helps to be nontransactional. If you make patients feel that you’re asking questions only to extract information, you’ll never reach Oprah level.
7. Be in the moment. It is difficult, but when possible, avoid typing notes while you’re still interviewing. We’re not just there to get the facts, we’re also trying to get the story and that sometimes takes really listening.
I’m no more like Oprah than Brady, of course. But it is more fun to close my eyes and imagine myself being her when I see my next patient. That is, until Thanksgiving. Watch out, Bedards from Attleboro.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
School refusal and COVID-19: The pediatrician's role
Hooray for back to school! But not for everyone. ... what to do with those who have trouble transitioning back?
As we have now passed a year since COVID-19–related shutdowns were implemented throughout the United States; and with returns to in-person schooling continuing to vary based on location, many of us either in our personal lives, or through conversations with patients and families, are experiencing a yearning for the “good old days” of fully in-person schooling. As the place where children and adolescents spend a good portion of their waking hours, school is integral to not just children’s academic development, but to emotional and social development as well. One interesting phenomenon I’ve seen working with many children and families is that the strong desire to go back to school is not universal. Some of my patients are perfectly happy to be doing “remote schooling”, as it reduces the stress that they were experiencing in this setting before the pandemic.1 These families find themselves wondering – how will I get my child to return to school? As we (hopefully) turn the corner toward a return to normalcy, I believe many of us may find ourselves counseling families on whether a return to in-person schooling is in their child’s best interest. Even when a family decides it is best for their child to return, we might encounter scenarios in which children and adolescents outright refuse to go to school, or engage in avoidant behavior, which is broadly known as “school refusal.” Discussion of a treatment approach to this often challenging clinical scenario is warranted.
The first step in addressing the issue is defining it. School refusal is not a “diagnosis” in psychiatric lexicon, rather it describes a behavior which may be a symptom or manifestation of any number of underlying factors. One helpful definition proposed is (a) missing 25% of total school time for at least 2 weeks or (b) experiencing difficulty attending school such that there is significant interference in the child’s or family’s daily routine for at least 2 weeks, or (c) missing at least 10 days of school over a period of 15 weeks.2 The common thread of this, and any other definition, is sustained absenteeism or avoidance with significant impact to education, family life, or both. It is estimated that the prevalence of this phenomenon is between 1% and 2% of school-aged children.
Next to consider is what might be prompting or underlying the behavior. A comprehensive evaluation approach should include consideration of environmental factors such as bullying and learning difficulties, as well as presence of an anxiety or depressive disorder. Awareness of whether the child/adolescent has a 504 plan or individualized education program (IEP) is vital, as these can be marshaled for additional support. Family factors, including parental illness (medical and/or psychiatric), should also be considered. As school avoidance behaviors often include somatic symptoms of anxiety such as palpitations, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain; a rule out of medical etiology is recommended, as well as a caution to consider both medical and behavioral factors simultaneously, as focus on either separately can lead to missing the other.
Separation anxiety and social anxiety disorders are two specific conditions that may manifest in school refusal and should be evaluated for specifically. Separation anxiety is characterized by developmentally inappropriate, excessive worry or distress associated with separation from a primary caregiver or major attachment figure. Social anxiety is characterized by excessive fear or worry about being negatively evaluated by others in social situations.3 One publicly available tool that can be helpful for screening for a variety of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents is the SCARED.4 The PHQ-9 Adolescent5 is one such screening instrument for depression, which can be a driving factor or co-occur in children with school refusal.
When it comes to treatment, the best evidence out there is for a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)–based approach motivated toward a return to the school setting as soon as possible.6,7 This will involve looking at how thoughts, behaviors, and feelings are interacting with each other in the clinical scenario and how these might be challenged or changed in a positive manner. Coping and problem-solving skills are often incorporated. This approach may also involve gradual exposure to the anxiety-producing situation in a hierarchical fashion starting with less anxiety-provoking scenarios and moving toward increasingly challenging ones. CBT for school refusal is likely most effective when including both school and family involvement to ensure consistency across settings. Making sure that there are not inadvertent reinforcing factors motivating staying home (for instance unrestricted access to electronic devices) is an important step to consider. If anxiety or depression is moderately to severely impairing – which is frequently the case when school refusal comes to clinical attention, consider use of medication as part of the treatment strategy. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class are the most commonly used medications and deserve strong consideration.
To summarize, school refusal can occur for a variety of reasons. Early identification and comprehensive treatment taking into account child and family preference and using a multimodal approach to encourage and support a quick return to the school environment is considered best practice.
Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. See, for example: www.npr.org/2021/03/08/971457441/as-many-parents-fret-over-remote-learning-some-find-their-kids-are-thriving.
2. Kearney CA. Educ Psychol Rev. 2008;20:257-82.
3. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
4. Available at: www.pediatricbipolar.pitt.edu/resources/instruments.
5. Available at: www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/member_resources/toolbox_for_clinical_practice_and_outcomes/symptoms/GLAD-PC_PHQ-9.pdf.
6. Elliott JG and Place M. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60(1):4-15.
7. Prabhuswamy M. J Paed Child Health. 2018;54(10):1117-20.
Hooray for back to school! But not for everyone. ... what to do with those who have trouble transitioning back?
As we have now passed a year since COVID-19–related shutdowns were implemented throughout the United States; and with returns to in-person schooling continuing to vary based on location, many of us either in our personal lives, or through conversations with patients and families, are experiencing a yearning for the “good old days” of fully in-person schooling. As the place where children and adolescents spend a good portion of their waking hours, school is integral to not just children’s academic development, but to emotional and social development as well. One interesting phenomenon I’ve seen working with many children and families is that the strong desire to go back to school is not universal. Some of my patients are perfectly happy to be doing “remote schooling”, as it reduces the stress that they were experiencing in this setting before the pandemic.1 These families find themselves wondering – how will I get my child to return to school? As we (hopefully) turn the corner toward a return to normalcy, I believe many of us may find ourselves counseling families on whether a return to in-person schooling is in their child’s best interest. Even when a family decides it is best for their child to return, we might encounter scenarios in which children and adolescents outright refuse to go to school, or engage in avoidant behavior, which is broadly known as “school refusal.” Discussion of a treatment approach to this often challenging clinical scenario is warranted.
The first step in addressing the issue is defining it. School refusal is not a “diagnosis” in psychiatric lexicon, rather it describes a behavior which may be a symptom or manifestation of any number of underlying factors. One helpful definition proposed is (a) missing 25% of total school time for at least 2 weeks or (b) experiencing difficulty attending school such that there is significant interference in the child’s or family’s daily routine for at least 2 weeks, or (c) missing at least 10 days of school over a period of 15 weeks.2 The common thread of this, and any other definition, is sustained absenteeism or avoidance with significant impact to education, family life, or both. It is estimated that the prevalence of this phenomenon is between 1% and 2% of school-aged children.
Next to consider is what might be prompting or underlying the behavior. A comprehensive evaluation approach should include consideration of environmental factors such as bullying and learning difficulties, as well as presence of an anxiety or depressive disorder. Awareness of whether the child/adolescent has a 504 plan or individualized education program (IEP) is vital, as these can be marshaled for additional support. Family factors, including parental illness (medical and/or psychiatric), should also be considered. As school avoidance behaviors often include somatic symptoms of anxiety such as palpitations, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain; a rule out of medical etiology is recommended, as well as a caution to consider both medical and behavioral factors simultaneously, as focus on either separately can lead to missing the other.
Separation anxiety and social anxiety disorders are two specific conditions that may manifest in school refusal and should be evaluated for specifically. Separation anxiety is characterized by developmentally inappropriate, excessive worry or distress associated with separation from a primary caregiver or major attachment figure. Social anxiety is characterized by excessive fear or worry about being negatively evaluated by others in social situations.3 One publicly available tool that can be helpful for screening for a variety of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents is the SCARED.4 The PHQ-9 Adolescent5 is one such screening instrument for depression, which can be a driving factor or co-occur in children with school refusal.
When it comes to treatment, the best evidence out there is for a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)–based approach motivated toward a return to the school setting as soon as possible.6,7 This will involve looking at how thoughts, behaviors, and feelings are interacting with each other in the clinical scenario and how these might be challenged or changed in a positive manner. Coping and problem-solving skills are often incorporated. This approach may also involve gradual exposure to the anxiety-producing situation in a hierarchical fashion starting with less anxiety-provoking scenarios and moving toward increasingly challenging ones. CBT for school refusal is likely most effective when including both school and family involvement to ensure consistency across settings. Making sure that there are not inadvertent reinforcing factors motivating staying home (for instance unrestricted access to electronic devices) is an important step to consider. If anxiety or depression is moderately to severely impairing – which is frequently the case when school refusal comes to clinical attention, consider use of medication as part of the treatment strategy. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class are the most commonly used medications and deserve strong consideration.
To summarize, school refusal can occur for a variety of reasons. Early identification and comprehensive treatment taking into account child and family preference and using a multimodal approach to encourage and support a quick return to the school environment is considered best practice.
Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. See, for example: www.npr.org/2021/03/08/971457441/as-many-parents-fret-over-remote-learning-some-find-their-kids-are-thriving.
2. Kearney CA. Educ Psychol Rev. 2008;20:257-82.
3. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
4. Available at: www.pediatricbipolar.pitt.edu/resources/instruments.
5. Available at: www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/member_resources/toolbox_for_clinical_practice_and_outcomes/symptoms/GLAD-PC_PHQ-9.pdf.
6. Elliott JG and Place M. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60(1):4-15.
7. Prabhuswamy M. J Paed Child Health. 2018;54(10):1117-20.
Hooray for back to school! But not for everyone. ... what to do with those who have trouble transitioning back?
As we have now passed a year since COVID-19–related shutdowns were implemented throughout the United States; and with returns to in-person schooling continuing to vary based on location, many of us either in our personal lives, or through conversations with patients and families, are experiencing a yearning for the “good old days” of fully in-person schooling. As the place where children and adolescents spend a good portion of their waking hours, school is integral to not just children’s academic development, but to emotional and social development as well. One interesting phenomenon I’ve seen working with many children and families is that the strong desire to go back to school is not universal. Some of my patients are perfectly happy to be doing “remote schooling”, as it reduces the stress that they were experiencing in this setting before the pandemic.1 These families find themselves wondering – how will I get my child to return to school? As we (hopefully) turn the corner toward a return to normalcy, I believe many of us may find ourselves counseling families on whether a return to in-person schooling is in their child’s best interest. Even when a family decides it is best for their child to return, we might encounter scenarios in which children and adolescents outright refuse to go to school, or engage in avoidant behavior, which is broadly known as “school refusal.” Discussion of a treatment approach to this often challenging clinical scenario is warranted.
The first step in addressing the issue is defining it. School refusal is not a “diagnosis” in psychiatric lexicon, rather it describes a behavior which may be a symptom or manifestation of any number of underlying factors. One helpful definition proposed is (a) missing 25% of total school time for at least 2 weeks or (b) experiencing difficulty attending school such that there is significant interference in the child’s or family’s daily routine for at least 2 weeks, or (c) missing at least 10 days of school over a period of 15 weeks.2 The common thread of this, and any other definition, is sustained absenteeism or avoidance with significant impact to education, family life, or both. It is estimated that the prevalence of this phenomenon is between 1% and 2% of school-aged children.
Next to consider is what might be prompting or underlying the behavior. A comprehensive evaluation approach should include consideration of environmental factors such as bullying and learning difficulties, as well as presence of an anxiety or depressive disorder. Awareness of whether the child/adolescent has a 504 plan or individualized education program (IEP) is vital, as these can be marshaled for additional support. Family factors, including parental illness (medical and/or psychiatric), should also be considered. As school avoidance behaviors often include somatic symptoms of anxiety such as palpitations, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain; a rule out of medical etiology is recommended, as well as a caution to consider both medical and behavioral factors simultaneously, as focus on either separately can lead to missing the other.
Separation anxiety and social anxiety disorders are two specific conditions that may manifest in school refusal and should be evaluated for specifically. Separation anxiety is characterized by developmentally inappropriate, excessive worry or distress associated with separation from a primary caregiver or major attachment figure. Social anxiety is characterized by excessive fear or worry about being negatively evaluated by others in social situations.3 One publicly available tool that can be helpful for screening for a variety of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents is the SCARED.4 The PHQ-9 Adolescent5 is one such screening instrument for depression, which can be a driving factor or co-occur in children with school refusal.
When it comes to treatment, the best evidence out there is for a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)–based approach motivated toward a return to the school setting as soon as possible.6,7 This will involve looking at how thoughts, behaviors, and feelings are interacting with each other in the clinical scenario and how these might be challenged or changed in a positive manner. Coping and problem-solving skills are often incorporated. This approach may also involve gradual exposure to the anxiety-producing situation in a hierarchical fashion starting with less anxiety-provoking scenarios and moving toward increasingly challenging ones. CBT for school refusal is likely most effective when including both school and family involvement to ensure consistency across settings. Making sure that there are not inadvertent reinforcing factors motivating staying home (for instance unrestricted access to electronic devices) is an important step to consider. If anxiety or depression is moderately to severely impairing – which is frequently the case when school refusal comes to clinical attention, consider use of medication as part of the treatment strategy. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class are the most commonly used medications and deserve strong consideration.
To summarize, school refusal can occur for a variety of reasons. Early identification and comprehensive treatment taking into account child and family preference and using a multimodal approach to encourage and support a quick return to the school environment is considered best practice.
Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. See, for example: www.npr.org/2021/03/08/971457441/as-many-parents-fret-over-remote-learning-some-find-their-kids-are-thriving.
2. Kearney CA. Educ Psychol Rev. 2008;20:257-82.
3. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
4. Available at: www.pediatricbipolar.pitt.edu/resources/instruments.
5. Available at: www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/member_resources/toolbox_for_clinical_practice_and_outcomes/symptoms/GLAD-PC_PHQ-9.pdf.
6. Elliott JG and Place M. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60(1):4-15.
7. Prabhuswamy M. J Paed Child Health. 2018;54(10):1117-20.
Office etiquette: Answering patient phone calls
In my office, one of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a dramatic increase in telephone traffic. I’m sure there are multiple reasons for this, but a major one is calls from patients who remain reluctant to visit our office in person.
Our veteran front-office staff members were adept at handling phone traffic at any level, but most of them retired because of the pandemic. The young folks who replaced them have struggled at times. You would think that millennials, who spend so much time on phones, would have little to learn in that department – until you remember that Twitter, Twitch, and TikTok do not demand polished interpersonal skills.
To address this issue, I have a memo in my office, which I have written, that establishes clear rules for proper professional telephone etiquette. If you want to adapt it for your own office, feel free to do so:
1. You only have one chance to make a first impression. The way we answer it determines, to a significant extent, how the community thinks of us, as people and as health care providers.
2. Answer all incoming calls before the third ring.
3. Answer warmly, enthusiastically, and professionally. Since the caller cannot see you, your voice is the only impression of our office a first-time caller will get.
4. Identify yourself and our office immediately. “Good morning, Doctor Eastern’s office. This is _____. How may I help you?” No one should ever have to ask what office they have reached, or to whom they are speaking.
5. Speak softly. This is to ensure confidentiality (more on that next), and because most people find loud telephone voices unpleasant.
6. Maintaining patient confidentiality is a top priority. It makes patients feel secure about being treated in our office, and it is also the law. Keep in mind that patients and others in the office may be able to overhear your phone conversations. Keep your voice down; never use the phone’s hands-free “speaker” function.
Be cautious about all information that is given over the phone. Don’t disclose any personal information unless you are absolutely certain you are talking to the correct patient. If the caller is not the patient, never discuss personal information without the patient’s permission.
7. Adopt a positive vocabulary – one that focuses on helping people. For example, rather than saying, “I don’t know,” say, “Let me find out for you,” or “I’ll find out who can help you with that.”
8. Offer to take a message if the caller has a question or issue you cannot address. Assure the patient that the appropriate staffer will call back later that day. That way, office workflow is not interrupted, and the patient still receives a prompt (and correct) answer.
9. All messages left overnight with the answering service must be returned as early as possible the very next business day. This is a top priority each morning. Few things annoy callers trying to reach their doctors more than unreturned calls. If the office will be closed for a holiday, or a response will be delayed for any other reason, make sure the service knows, and passes it on to patients.
10. Everyone in the office must answer calls when necessary. If you notice that a phone is ringing and the receptionists are swamped, please answer it; an incoming call must never go unanswered.
11. If the phone rings while you are dealing with a patient in person, the patient in front of you is your first priority. Put the caller on hold, but always ask permission before doing so, and wait for an answer. Never leave a caller on hold for more than a minute or two unless absolutely unavoidable.
12. NEVER answer, “Doctor’s office, please hold.” To a patient, that is even worse than not answering at all. No matter how often your hold message tells callers how important they are, they know they are being ignored. Such encounters never end well: Those who wait will be grumpy and rude when you get back to them; those who hang up will be even more grumpy and rude when they call back. Worst of all are those who don’t call back and seek care elsewhere – often leaving a nasty comment on social media besides.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
In my office, one of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a dramatic increase in telephone traffic. I’m sure there are multiple reasons for this, but a major one is calls from patients who remain reluctant to visit our office in person.
Our veteran front-office staff members were adept at handling phone traffic at any level, but most of them retired because of the pandemic. The young folks who replaced them have struggled at times. You would think that millennials, who spend so much time on phones, would have little to learn in that department – until you remember that Twitter, Twitch, and TikTok do not demand polished interpersonal skills.
To address this issue, I have a memo in my office, which I have written, that establishes clear rules for proper professional telephone etiquette. If you want to adapt it for your own office, feel free to do so:
1. You only have one chance to make a first impression. The way we answer it determines, to a significant extent, how the community thinks of us, as people and as health care providers.
2. Answer all incoming calls before the third ring.
3. Answer warmly, enthusiastically, and professionally. Since the caller cannot see you, your voice is the only impression of our office a first-time caller will get.
4. Identify yourself and our office immediately. “Good morning, Doctor Eastern’s office. This is _____. How may I help you?” No one should ever have to ask what office they have reached, or to whom they are speaking.
5. Speak softly. This is to ensure confidentiality (more on that next), and because most people find loud telephone voices unpleasant.
6. Maintaining patient confidentiality is a top priority. It makes patients feel secure about being treated in our office, and it is also the law. Keep in mind that patients and others in the office may be able to overhear your phone conversations. Keep your voice down; never use the phone’s hands-free “speaker” function.
Be cautious about all information that is given over the phone. Don’t disclose any personal information unless you are absolutely certain you are talking to the correct patient. If the caller is not the patient, never discuss personal information without the patient’s permission.
7. Adopt a positive vocabulary – one that focuses on helping people. For example, rather than saying, “I don’t know,” say, “Let me find out for you,” or “I’ll find out who can help you with that.”
8. Offer to take a message if the caller has a question or issue you cannot address. Assure the patient that the appropriate staffer will call back later that day. That way, office workflow is not interrupted, and the patient still receives a prompt (and correct) answer.
9. All messages left overnight with the answering service must be returned as early as possible the very next business day. This is a top priority each morning. Few things annoy callers trying to reach their doctors more than unreturned calls. If the office will be closed for a holiday, or a response will be delayed for any other reason, make sure the service knows, and passes it on to patients.
10. Everyone in the office must answer calls when necessary. If you notice that a phone is ringing and the receptionists are swamped, please answer it; an incoming call must never go unanswered.
11. If the phone rings while you are dealing with a patient in person, the patient in front of you is your first priority. Put the caller on hold, but always ask permission before doing so, and wait for an answer. Never leave a caller on hold for more than a minute or two unless absolutely unavoidable.
12. NEVER answer, “Doctor’s office, please hold.” To a patient, that is even worse than not answering at all. No matter how often your hold message tells callers how important they are, they know they are being ignored. Such encounters never end well: Those who wait will be grumpy and rude when you get back to them; those who hang up will be even more grumpy and rude when they call back. Worst of all are those who don’t call back and seek care elsewhere – often leaving a nasty comment on social media besides.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
In my office, one of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a dramatic increase in telephone traffic. I’m sure there are multiple reasons for this, but a major one is calls from patients who remain reluctant to visit our office in person.
Our veteran front-office staff members were adept at handling phone traffic at any level, but most of them retired because of the pandemic. The young folks who replaced them have struggled at times. You would think that millennials, who spend so much time on phones, would have little to learn in that department – until you remember that Twitter, Twitch, and TikTok do not demand polished interpersonal skills.
To address this issue, I have a memo in my office, which I have written, that establishes clear rules for proper professional telephone etiquette. If you want to adapt it for your own office, feel free to do so:
1. You only have one chance to make a first impression. The way we answer it determines, to a significant extent, how the community thinks of us, as people and as health care providers.
2. Answer all incoming calls before the third ring.
3. Answer warmly, enthusiastically, and professionally. Since the caller cannot see you, your voice is the only impression of our office a first-time caller will get.
4. Identify yourself and our office immediately. “Good morning, Doctor Eastern’s office. This is _____. How may I help you?” No one should ever have to ask what office they have reached, or to whom they are speaking.
5. Speak softly. This is to ensure confidentiality (more on that next), and because most people find loud telephone voices unpleasant.
6. Maintaining patient confidentiality is a top priority. It makes patients feel secure about being treated in our office, and it is also the law. Keep in mind that patients and others in the office may be able to overhear your phone conversations. Keep your voice down; never use the phone’s hands-free “speaker” function.
Be cautious about all information that is given over the phone. Don’t disclose any personal information unless you are absolutely certain you are talking to the correct patient. If the caller is not the patient, never discuss personal information without the patient’s permission.
7. Adopt a positive vocabulary – one that focuses on helping people. For example, rather than saying, “I don’t know,” say, “Let me find out for you,” or “I’ll find out who can help you with that.”
8. Offer to take a message if the caller has a question or issue you cannot address. Assure the patient that the appropriate staffer will call back later that day. That way, office workflow is not interrupted, and the patient still receives a prompt (and correct) answer.
9. All messages left overnight with the answering service must be returned as early as possible the very next business day. This is a top priority each morning. Few things annoy callers trying to reach their doctors more than unreturned calls. If the office will be closed for a holiday, or a response will be delayed for any other reason, make sure the service knows, and passes it on to patients.
10. Everyone in the office must answer calls when necessary. If you notice that a phone is ringing and the receptionists are swamped, please answer it; an incoming call must never go unanswered.
11. If the phone rings while you are dealing with a patient in person, the patient in front of you is your first priority. Put the caller on hold, but always ask permission before doing so, and wait for an answer. Never leave a caller on hold for more than a minute or two unless absolutely unavoidable.
12. NEVER answer, “Doctor’s office, please hold.” To a patient, that is even worse than not answering at all. No matter how often your hold message tells callers how important they are, they know they are being ignored. Such encounters never end well: Those who wait will be grumpy and rude when you get back to them; those who hang up will be even more grumpy and rude when they call back. Worst of all are those who don’t call back and seek care elsewhere – often leaving a nasty comment on social media besides.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
Reinstating in-person mifepristone administration requirements is harmful to patients and providers
In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.
On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)
From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.
In-person requirement re-instated
On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”1 No other justices joined his opinion.
A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.2 Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.
This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.
Looking toward the future
In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.
Take action
- Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
- Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
- Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA
- FDA v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 592 US __ (2021)(Roberts, CJ, concurring).
- FDA v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 592 US __ (2021)(Sotomayor, J, dissenting).
- COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker. Accessed March 9, 2021.
- Fulcer IR, Neill S, Bharadwa S, et al. State and federal abortion restrictions increase risk of COVID-19 exposure by mandating unnecessary clinic visits. Contraception. 2020;102:385-391.
In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.
On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)
From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.
In-person requirement re-instated
On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”1 No other justices joined his opinion.
A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.2 Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.
This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.
Looking toward the future
In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.
Take action
- Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
- Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
- Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA
In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.
On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)
From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.
In-person requirement re-instated
On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”1 No other justices joined his opinion.
A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.2 Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.
This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.
Looking toward the future
In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.
Take action
- Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
- Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
- Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA
- FDA v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 592 US __ (2021)(Roberts, CJ, concurring).
- FDA v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 592 US __ (2021)(Sotomayor, J, dissenting).
- COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker. Accessed March 9, 2021.
- Fulcer IR, Neill S, Bharadwa S, et al. State and federal abortion restrictions increase risk of COVID-19 exposure by mandating unnecessary clinic visits. Contraception. 2020;102:385-391.
- FDA v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 592 US __ (2021)(Roberts, CJ, concurring).
- FDA v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 592 US __ (2021)(Sotomayor, J, dissenting).
- COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker. Accessed March 9, 2021.
- Fulcer IR, Neill S, Bharadwa S, et al. State and federal abortion restrictions increase risk of COVID-19 exposure by mandating unnecessary clinic visits. Contraception. 2020;102:385-391.
An 80-year-old patient presents with an asymptomatic firm pink plaque on his shoulder
Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that arises from melanocytes. According to the American Cancer Society, about 106,110 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States in 2021.The risk for developing melanoma increases with age. There are multiple clinical forms of cutaneous melanoma. The four main types are superficial spreading melanoma, nodular melanoma, melanoma in situ (lentigo maligna), and acral lentiginous melanoma. Rare variants include amelanotic melanoma, nevoid melanoma, spitzoid melanoma, and desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Melanoma can also rarely affect parts of the eye and mucosa.
, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. It typically presents as a subtle pigmented, pink, red, or skin colored patch, papule or plaque on sun-exposed skin (head and neck most frequently). Chronic UV exposure has been linked to DM. It may be mistaken for a scar or dermatofibroma. DM tends to grow locally and has less risk for nodal metastasis.1
Histologic diagnosis may be challenging. Two histologic variants in desmoplastic melanoma have been described: pure and mixed, depending on the degree of desmoplasia and cellularity present in the tumor.1 Pure DM tends to have a less aggressive course. Melanocytes can appear spindled in a fibrotic stroma. Patchy lymphocyte aggregates may be seen. Perineural invasion is more common in desmoplastic melanoma. Histologically, the differential includes spindle cell carcinoma and sarcoma. Immunostaining is helpful in differentiation.
Our patient had no lymphadenopathy on physical examination. Biopsy revealed a desmoplastic melanoma, 3.6 mm in depth, no ulceration, no regression, mitotic rate 1/mm2. He was referred to surgical oncology. The patient underwent wide excision. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was deferred.
It is imperative for dermatologists to be cognizant of this challenging subtype of melanoma when evaluating patients.
This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Chen L et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 May;68(5):825-33.
Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that arises from melanocytes. According to the American Cancer Society, about 106,110 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States in 2021.The risk for developing melanoma increases with age. There are multiple clinical forms of cutaneous melanoma. The four main types are superficial spreading melanoma, nodular melanoma, melanoma in situ (lentigo maligna), and acral lentiginous melanoma. Rare variants include amelanotic melanoma, nevoid melanoma, spitzoid melanoma, and desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Melanoma can also rarely affect parts of the eye and mucosa.
, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. It typically presents as a subtle pigmented, pink, red, or skin colored patch, papule or plaque on sun-exposed skin (head and neck most frequently). Chronic UV exposure has been linked to DM. It may be mistaken for a scar or dermatofibroma. DM tends to grow locally and has less risk for nodal metastasis.1
Histologic diagnosis may be challenging. Two histologic variants in desmoplastic melanoma have been described: pure and mixed, depending on the degree of desmoplasia and cellularity present in the tumor.1 Pure DM tends to have a less aggressive course. Melanocytes can appear spindled in a fibrotic stroma. Patchy lymphocyte aggregates may be seen. Perineural invasion is more common in desmoplastic melanoma. Histologically, the differential includes spindle cell carcinoma and sarcoma. Immunostaining is helpful in differentiation.
Our patient had no lymphadenopathy on physical examination. Biopsy revealed a desmoplastic melanoma, 3.6 mm in depth, no ulceration, no regression, mitotic rate 1/mm2. He was referred to surgical oncology. The patient underwent wide excision. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was deferred.
It is imperative for dermatologists to be cognizant of this challenging subtype of melanoma when evaluating patients.
This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Chen L et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 May;68(5):825-33.
Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that arises from melanocytes. According to the American Cancer Society, about 106,110 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States in 2021.The risk for developing melanoma increases with age. There are multiple clinical forms of cutaneous melanoma. The four main types are superficial spreading melanoma, nodular melanoma, melanoma in situ (lentigo maligna), and acral lentiginous melanoma. Rare variants include amelanotic melanoma, nevoid melanoma, spitzoid melanoma, and desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Melanoma can also rarely affect parts of the eye and mucosa.
, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. It typically presents as a subtle pigmented, pink, red, or skin colored patch, papule or plaque on sun-exposed skin (head and neck most frequently). Chronic UV exposure has been linked to DM. It may be mistaken for a scar or dermatofibroma. DM tends to grow locally and has less risk for nodal metastasis.1
Histologic diagnosis may be challenging. Two histologic variants in desmoplastic melanoma have been described: pure and mixed, depending on the degree of desmoplasia and cellularity present in the tumor.1 Pure DM tends to have a less aggressive course. Melanocytes can appear spindled in a fibrotic stroma. Patchy lymphocyte aggregates may be seen. Perineural invasion is more common in desmoplastic melanoma. Histologically, the differential includes spindle cell carcinoma and sarcoma. Immunostaining is helpful in differentiation.
Our patient had no lymphadenopathy on physical examination. Biopsy revealed a desmoplastic melanoma, 3.6 mm in depth, no ulceration, no regression, mitotic rate 1/mm2. He was referred to surgical oncology. The patient underwent wide excision. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was deferred.
It is imperative for dermatologists to be cognizant of this challenging subtype of melanoma when evaluating patients.
This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Chen L et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 May;68(5):825-33.
We’re all vaccinated: Can we go back to the office (unmasked) now?
Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!
It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.
I have been vaccinated and many of my patients have also been vaccinated. I began to wonder if it was safe to start seeing patients in person; could I see fully vaccinated patients, unmasked and without temperature checks and sanitizing? I started asking this question in February, and the response I got then was that it was too soon to tell; we did not have any data on whether vaccinated people could transmit the novel coronavirus. Two vaccinated people might be at risk of transmitting the virus and then infecting others, and the question of whether the vaccines would protect against illness caused by variants remained. Preliminary data out of Israel indicated that the vaccine did reduce transmission, but no one was saying that it was fine to see patients without masks, and video-conferencing remained the safest option.
On Monday, March 8, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released long-awaited interim public health guidelines for fully vaccinated people. The guidelines allowed for two vaccinated people to be in a room together unmasked, and for a fully-vaccinated person to be in a room unmasked with an unvaccinated person who did not have risk factors for becoming severely ill with COVID. Was this the green light that psychiatrists were waiting for? Was there new data about transmission, or was this part of the CDC’s effort to make vaccines more desirable?
Michael Chang, MD, is a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We spoke 2 days after the CDC interim guidelines were released. Dr. Chang was optimistic.
“, including data about variants and about transmission. At some point, however, the risk is low enough, and we should probably start thinking about going back to in-person visits,” Dr. Chang said. He said he personally would feel safe meeting unmasked with a vaccinated patient, but noted that his institution still requires doctors to wear masks. “Most vaccinations reduce transmission of illness,” Dr. Chang said, “but SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us in many ways.”
Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, distributes a newsletter, “Your Local Epidemiologist,” where she discusses data pertaining to the pandemic. In her newsletter dated March 14, 2021, Dr. Jetelina wrote, “There are now 7 sub-studies/press releases that confirm a 50-95% reduced transmission after vaccination. This is a big range, which is typical for such drastically different scientific studies. Variability is likely due to different sample sizes, locations, vaccines, genetics, cultures, etc. It will be a while until we know the ‘true’ percentage for each vaccine.”
Leslie Walker, MD, is a fully vaccinated psychiatrist in private practice in Shaker Heights, Ohio. She has recently started seeing fully vaccinated patients in person.
“So far it’s only 1 or 2 patients a day. I’m leaving it up to the patient. If they prefer masks, we stay masked. I may reverse course, depending on what information comes out.” She went on to note, “There are benefits to being able to see someone’s full facial expressions and whether they match someone’s words and body language, so the benefit of “unmasking” extends beyond comfort and convenience and must be balanced against the theoretical risk of COVID exposure in the room.”
While the CDC has now said it is safe to meet, the state health departments also have guidelines for medical practices, and everyone is still worried about vulnerable people in their households and potential spread to the community at large.
In Maryland, where I work, Aliya Jones, MD, MBA, is the head of the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) for the Maryland Department of Health. “It remains risky to not wear masks, however, the risk is low when both individuals are vaccinated,” Dr. Jones wrote. “BHA is not recommending that providers see clients without both parties wearing a mask. All of our general practice recommendations for infection control are unchanged. People should be screened before entering clinical practices and persons who are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not, should not be seen face-to-face, except in cases of an emergency, in which case additional precautions should be taken.”
So is it safe for a fully-vaccinated psychiatrist to have a session with a fully-vaccinated patient sitting 8 feet apart without masks? I’m left with the idea that it is for those two people, but when it comes to unvaccinated people in their households, we want more certainty than we currently have. The messaging remains unclear. The CDC’s interim guidelines offer hope for a future, but the science is still catching up, and to feel safe enough, we may want to wait a little longer for more definitive data – or herd immunity – before we reveal our smiles.
Dr. Miller is a 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, both in Baltimore.
Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!
It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.
I have been vaccinated and many of my patients have also been vaccinated. I began to wonder if it was safe to start seeing patients in person; could I see fully vaccinated patients, unmasked and without temperature checks and sanitizing? I started asking this question in February, and the response I got then was that it was too soon to tell; we did not have any data on whether vaccinated people could transmit the novel coronavirus. Two vaccinated people might be at risk of transmitting the virus and then infecting others, and the question of whether the vaccines would protect against illness caused by variants remained. Preliminary data out of Israel indicated that the vaccine did reduce transmission, but no one was saying that it was fine to see patients without masks, and video-conferencing remained the safest option.
On Monday, March 8, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released long-awaited interim public health guidelines for fully vaccinated people. The guidelines allowed for two vaccinated people to be in a room together unmasked, and for a fully-vaccinated person to be in a room unmasked with an unvaccinated person who did not have risk factors for becoming severely ill with COVID. Was this the green light that psychiatrists were waiting for? Was there new data about transmission, or was this part of the CDC’s effort to make vaccines more desirable?
Michael Chang, MD, is a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We spoke 2 days after the CDC interim guidelines were released. Dr. Chang was optimistic.
“, including data about variants and about transmission. At some point, however, the risk is low enough, and we should probably start thinking about going back to in-person visits,” Dr. Chang said. He said he personally would feel safe meeting unmasked with a vaccinated patient, but noted that his institution still requires doctors to wear masks. “Most vaccinations reduce transmission of illness,” Dr. Chang said, “but SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us in many ways.”
Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, distributes a newsletter, “Your Local Epidemiologist,” where she discusses data pertaining to the pandemic. In her newsletter dated March 14, 2021, Dr. Jetelina wrote, “There are now 7 sub-studies/press releases that confirm a 50-95% reduced transmission after vaccination. This is a big range, which is typical for such drastically different scientific studies. Variability is likely due to different sample sizes, locations, vaccines, genetics, cultures, etc. It will be a while until we know the ‘true’ percentage for each vaccine.”
Leslie Walker, MD, is a fully vaccinated psychiatrist in private practice in Shaker Heights, Ohio. She has recently started seeing fully vaccinated patients in person.
“So far it’s only 1 or 2 patients a day. I’m leaving it up to the patient. If they prefer masks, we stay masked. I may reverse course, depending on what information comes out.” She went on to note, “There are benefits to being able to see someone’s full facial expressions and whether they match someone’s words and body language, so the benefit of “unmasking” extends beyond comfort and convenience and must be balanced against the theoretical risk of COVID exposure in the room.”
While the CDC has now said it is safe to meet, the state health departments also have guidelines for medical practices, and everyone is still worried about vulnerable people in their households and potential spread to the community at large.
In Maryland, where I work, Aliya Jones, MD, MBA, is the head of the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) for the Maryland Department of Health. “It remains risky to not wear masks, however, the risk is low when both individuals are vaccinated,” Dr. Jones wrote. “BHA is not recommending that providers see clients without both parties wearing a mask. All of our general practice recommendations for infection control are unchanged. People should be screened before entering clinical practices and persons who are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not, should not be seen face-to-face, except in cases of an emergency, in which case additional precautions should be taken.”
So is it safe for a fully-vaccinated psychiatrist to have a session with a fully-vaccinated patient sitting 8 feet apart without masks? I’m left with the idea that it is for those two people, but when it comes to unvaccinated people in their households, we want more certainty than we currently have. The messaging remains unclear. The CDC’s interim guidelines offer hope for a future, but the science is still catching up, and to feel safe enough, we may want to wait a little longer for more definitive data – or herd immunity – before we reveal our smiles.
Dr. Miller is a 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, both in Baltimore.
Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!
It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.
I have been vaccinated and many of my patients have also been vaccinated. I began to wonder if it was safe to start seeing patients in person; could I see fully vaccinated patients, unmasked and without temperature checks and sanitizing? I started asking this question in February, and the response I got then was that it was too soon to tell; we did not have any data on whether vaccinated people could transmit the novel coronavirus. Two vaccinated people might be at risk of transmitting the virus and then infecting others, and the question of whether the vaccines would protect against illness caused by variants remained. Preliminary data out of Israel indicated that the vaccine did reduce transmission, but no one was saying that it was fine to see patients without masks, and video-conferencing remained the safest option.
On Monday, March 8, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released long-awaited interim public health guidelines for fully vaccinated people. The guidelines allowed for two vaccinated people to be in a room together unmasked, and for a fully-vaccinated person to be in a room unmasked with an unvaccinated person who did not have risk factors for becoming severely ill with COVID. Was this the green light that psychiatrists were waiting for? Was there new data about transmission, or was this part of the CDC’s effort to make vaccines more desirable?
Michael Chang, MD, is a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We spoke 2 days after the CDC interim guidelines were released. Dr. Chang was optimistic.
“, including data about variants and about transmission. At some point, however, the risk is low enough, and we should probably start thinking about going back to in-person visits,” Dr. Chang said. He said he personally would feel safe meeting unmasked with a vaccinated patient, but noted that his institution still requires doctors to wear masks. “Most vaccinations reduce transmission of illness,” Dr. Chang said, “but SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us in many ways.”
Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, distributes a newsletter, “Your Local Epidemiologist,” where she discusses data pertaining to the pandemic. In her newsletter dated March 14, 2021, Dr. Jetelina wrote, “There are now 7 sub-studies/press releases that confirm a 50-95% reduced transmission after vaccination. This is a big range, which is typical for such drastically different scientific studies. Variability is likely due to different sample sizes, locations, vaccines, genetics, cultures, etc. It will be a while until we know the ‘true’ percentage for each vaccine.”
Leslie Walker, MD, is a fully vaccinated psychiatrist in private practice in Shaker Heights, Ohio. She has recently started seeing fully vaccinated patients in person.
“So far it’s only 1 or 2 patients a day. I’m leaving it up to the patient. If they prefer masks, we stay masked. I may reverse course, depending on what information comes out.” She went on to note, “There are benefits to being able to see someone’s full facial expressions and whether they match someone’s words and body language, so the benefit of “unmasking” extends beyond comfort and convenience and must be balanced against the theoretical risk of COVID exposure in the room.”
While the CDC has now said it is safe to meet, the state health departments also have guidelines for medical practices, and everyone is still worried about vulnerable people in their households and potential spread to the community at large.
In Maryland, where I work, Aliya Jones, MD, MBA, is the head of the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) for the Maryland Department of Health. “It remains risky to not wear masks, however, the risk is low when both individuals are vaccinated,” Dr. Jones wrote. “BHA is not recommending that providers see clients without both parties wearing a mask. All of our general practice recommendations for infection control are unchanged. People should be screened before entering clinical practices and persons who are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not, should not be seen face-to-face, except in cases of an emergency, in which case additional precautions should be taken.”
So is it safe for a fully-vaccinated psychiatrist to have a session with a fully-vaccinated patient sitting 8 feet apart without masks? I’m left with the idea that it is for those two people, but when it comes to unvaccinated people in their households, we want more certainty than we currently have. The messaging remains unclear. The CDC’s interim guidelines offer hope for a future, but the science is still catching up, and to feel safe enough, we may want to wait a little longer for more definitive data – or herd immunity – before we reveal our smiles.
Dr. Miller is a 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, both in Baltimore.
The siesta solution
Are you a napper? Unless you’re retired that may sound like a ridiculous question. When could you possibly fit in the time to doze off for even 20 minutes? I suspect there may be one or two of you who, although you are still working, have found a way to schedule a nap into your schedules. The rest of us must wait until we no longer have clinical responsibilities.
In my experience, you regular nappers seem to be the lucky few who have discovered the art of nodding off after lunch and waking up refreshed and ready to take on a full afternoon of patients. We in the unlucky majority may have tried taking a nap but run the risk of its flowing into a deep slumber the length of which we can’t control. Or, more likely, we find that we wake feeling groggy and disoriented and, even worse, the daytime nod off has messed up our nighttime schedule.
Well, it turns out the ability to take daytime naps and reap their cardiometabolic benefits is not just luck but has a significant genetic component. Investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have recently published a study in which they report finding more than a score of gene regions that determine a person’s propensity to take daytime naps.. The researchers have also unearthed preliminary evidence supporting a link between daytime napping and cardiometabolic health. My mother began napping when my sister and I were infants and never gave it up. Unfortunately, I seem to have ended up on the wrong side of the genomic shuffle.
Although this new research is interesting, I don’t think the investigators have enough information to answer one of the questions that every pediatrician fields multiple times each week. “When should my toddler grow out of his afternoon nap?” Although it looks like we may be getting closer to a gene-based answer, I have always couched my reply in terms of behavior modification and the fostering of habit-forming associations.
As a child begins to transition from multiple short naps interspersed with feedings to a pattern of two distinct naps, I suggest to parents that they begin to think of the afternoon nap as a siesta. In other words, the nap is something that always comes immediately after lunch with no intervening shenanigans. No playtime, no Teletubbies videos, no quick trips to the grocery store, nothing, nada, zip.
At least for me, lunch has always been soporific. And I suspect we will learn eventually that association cuts across the entire genetic landscape to one degree or another. It makes sense to take advantage of that association and remove all other distractions. For some parents, that means creating the illusion that they too are taking a siesta: No TV, no phone calls. Imagine that the whole household has suddenly moved to Spain for the next hour or two. If you’ve ever been a tourist in rural Spain and tried to do anything, buy anything, or visit a museum between 2 and 4 p.m. you’ve got the idea.
When the child is young he or she will probably fall asleep as long as his parents have been reasonably successful at maintaining sleep hygiene practices. As the child is gaining more stamina and gives up the morning nap, the siesta will remain as a quiet time because that’s the way it’s always been in the household. The child may sleep or play quietly, or be read a sleep-inducing story because no other options will be available until some predetermined time. An hour is usually reasonable. If sleep hasn’t overtaken them, an earlier bedtime will probably be in order. The child will outgrow the napping part of the siesta when his or her sleep need is gone. But, the siesta/quiet time can remain as an option until all-day school intervenes. This scheme works if you can get parents to appropriately prioritize their child’s sleep needs. That’s not always an easy sell.
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.
Are you a napper? Unless you’re retired that may sound like a ridiculous question. When could you possibly fit in the time to doze off for even 20 minutes? I suspect there may be one or two of you who, although you are still working, have found a way to schedule a nap into your schedules. The rest of us must wait until we no longer have clinical responsibilities.
In my experience, you regular nappers seem to be the lucky few who have discovered the art of nodding off after lunch and waking up refreshed and ready to take on a full afternoon of patients. We in the unlucky majority may have tried taking a nap but run the risk of its flowing into a deep slumber the length of which we can’t control. Or, more likely, we find that we wake feeling groggy and disoriented and, even worse, the daytime nod off has messed up our nighttime schedule.
Well, it turns out the ability to take daytime naps and reap their cardiometabolic benefits is not just luck but has a significant genetic component. Investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have recently published a study in which they report finding more than a score of gene regions that determine a person’s propensity to take daytime naps.. The researchers have also unearthed preliminary evidence supporting a link between daytime napping and cardiometabolic health. My mother began napping when my sister and I were infants and never gave it up. Unfortunately, I seem to have ended up on the wrong side of the genomic shuffle.
Although this new research is interesting, I don’t think the investigators have enough information to answer one of the questions that every pediatrician fields multiple times each week. “When should my toddler grow out of his afternoon nap?” Although it looks like we may be getting closer to a gene-based answer, I have always couched my reply in terms of behavior modification and the fostering of habit-forming associations.
As a child begins to transition from multiple short naps interspersed with feedings to a pattern of two distinct naps, I suggest to parents that they begin to think of the afternoon nap as a siesta. In other words, the nap is something that always comes immediately after lunch with no intervening shenanigans. No playtime, no Teletubbies videos, no quick trips to the grocery store, nothing, nada, zip.
At least for me, lunch has always been soporific. And I suspect we will learn eventually that association cuts across the entire genetic landscape to one degree or another. It makes sense to take advantage of that association and remove all other distractions. For some parents, that means creating the illusion that they too are taking a siesta: No TV, no phone calls. Imagine that the whole household has suddenly moved to Spain for the next hour or two. If you’ve ever been a tourist in rural Spain and tried to do anything, buy anything, or visit a museum between 2 and 4 p.m. you’ve got the idea.
When the child is young he or she will probably fall asleep as long as his parents have been reasonably successful at maintaining sleep hygiene practices. As the child is gaining more stamina and gives up the morning nap, the siesta will remain as a quiet time because that’s the way it’s always been in the household. The child may sleep or play quietly, or be read a sleep-inducing story because no other options will be available until some predetermined time. An hour is usually reasonable. If sleep hasn’t overtaken them, an earlier bedtime will probably be in order. The child will outgrow the napping part of the siesta when his or her sleep need is gone. But, the siesta/quiet time can remain as an option until all-day school intervenes. This scheme works if you can get parents to appropriately prioritize their child’s sleep needs. That’s not always an easy sell.
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.
Are you a napper? Unless you’re retired that may sound like a ridiculous question. When could you possibly fit in the time to doze off for even 20 minutes? I suspect there may be one or two of you who, although you are still working, have found a way to schedule a nap into your schedules. The rest of us must wait until we no longer have clinical responsibilities.
In my experience, you regular nappers seem to be the lucky few who have discovered the art of nodding off after lunch and waking up refreshed and ready to take on a full afternoon of patients. We in the unlucky majority may have tried taking a nap but run the risk of its flowing into a deep slumber the length of which we can’t control. Or, more likely, we find that we wake feeling groggy and disoriented and, even worse, the daytime nod off has messed up our nighttime schedule.
Well, it turns out the ability to take daytime naps and reap their cardiometabolic benefits is not just luck but has a significant genetic component. Investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have recently published a study in which they report finding more than a score of gene regions that determine a person’s propensity to take daytime naps.. The researchers have also unearthed preliminary evidence supporting a link between daytime napping and cardiometabolic health. My mother began napping when my sister and I were infants and never gave it up. Unfortunately, I seem to have ended up on the wrong side of the genomic shuffle.
Although this new research is interesting, I don’t think the investigators have enough information to answer one of the questions that every pediatrician fields multiple times each week. “When should my toddler grow out of his afternoon nap?” Although it looks like we may be getting closer to a gene-based answer, I have always couched my reply in terms of behavior modification and the fostering of habit-forming associations.
As a child begins to transition from multiple short naps interspersed with feedings to a pattern of two distinct naps, I suggest to parents that they begin to think of the afternoon nap as a siesta. In other words, the nap is something that always comes immediately after lunch with no intervening shenanigans. No playtime, no Teletubbies videos, no quick trips to the grocery store, nothing, nada, zip.
At least for me, lunch has always been soporific. And I suspect we will learn eventually that association cuts across the entire genetic landscape to one degree or another. It makes sense to take advantage of that association and remove all other distractions. For some parents, that means creating the illusion that they too are taking a siesta: No TV, no phone calls. Imagine that the whole household has suddenly moved to Spain for the next hour or two. If you’ve ever been a tourist in rural Spain and tried to do anything, buy anything, or visit a museum between 2 and 4 p.m. you’ve got the idea.
When the child is young he or she will probably fall asleep as long as his parents have been reasonably successful at maintaining sleep hygiene practices. As the child is gaining more stamina and gives up the morning nap, the siesta will remain as a quiet time because that’s the way it’s always been in the household. The child may sleep or play quietly, or be read a sleep-inducing story because no other options will be available until some predetermined time. An hour is usually reasonable. If sleep hasn’t overtaken them, an earlier bedtime will probably be in order. The child will outgrow the napping part of the siesta when his or her sleep need is gone. But, the siesta/quiet time can remain as an option until all-day school intervenes. This scheme works if you can get parents to appropriately prioritize their child’s sleep needs. That’s not always an easy sell.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
The Zoom effect on cosmetic procedures
As clinics were allowed to reopen under local government guidelines several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many cosmetic dermatologists and aesthetic surgeons had no idea what our schedules would be like. .
While scheduled appointments, no shows, cancellations, and rebookings seem to wax and wane with surges in COVID-19 cases locally and with associated media coverage, there appear to be several reasons why demand has increased. Because people are wearing masks, they can easily hide signs of recovery or “something new” in their appearance. Patients aren’t typically around as many people and have more time to recover in private. There is also the positive effect a procedure can have on mood and self-esteem during what has been a difficult year. And people have had more time to read beauty and self-care articles, as well as advertisements for skin and hair care on social media.
The Zoom effect
One reason I did not anticipate is the Zoom effect. I don’t intend to single out Zoom – as there are other videoconferencing options available – but it seems to be the one patients bring up the most. Virtual meetings, conferences, and social events, and video calls with loved ones have become a part of daily routines for many, who are now seeing themselves on camera during these interactions as they never did before. It has created a strange new phenomenon.
Patients have literally said to me “I don’t like the way I look on Zoom” and ask about options to improve what they are seeing. They are often surprised to see that their appearance on virtual meetings, for example, does not reflect the way they feel inside, or how they think they should look. Even medical dermatology patients who have had no interest in cosmetic procedures previously have been coming in for this specific reason – both female and male patients.
Since photography is a hobby, I counsel patients that lighting and shadows play a huge role in how they appear on screen. Depending on the lighting, camera angle, and camera quality, suboptimal lighting can highlight shadows and wrinkles not normally seen in natural or optimal light. In a recent interview on KCRW, the Los Angeles NPR affiliate station, the founding director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab (VHIL) at Stanford University highlighted work on the effect that Zoom and virtual interactions have had on people during the COVID-19 pandemic. He notes that during a normal in-person meeting or conference, attention is usually on the person speaking, but now with everyone on camera at once, people have the pressure and subsequent feelings of exhaustion (a different type of exhaustion than being there in person) of being seen at all times. To address “Zoom Fatigue,” the VHIL’s recommendations include turning off the camera periodically, or changing the settings so your image is not seen. Another option is to use background filters, including some face filters (a cat for example), which Zoom has created to ease some of the stress of these meetings.
Back to the actual in-person office visits: In my experience, all cosmetic procedures across the board, including injectables, skin resurfacing, and lasers have increased. In Dr. Talakoub’s practice, she has noted a tenfold increase in the use of deoxycholic acid (Kybella) and neck procedures attributed to the unflattering angle of the neck as people look down on their computer screens.There has also been an increase in the use of other injectables, such as Botox of the glabella to address scowling at the screen, facial fillers to address the dark shadows cast on the tear troughs, and lip fillers (noted to be 10-20 times higher) because of masks that can hide healing downtime. Similarly, increased use of Coolsculpting has been noted, as some patients have the flexibility of being able to take their Zoom meetings during the procedure, when they otherwise may not have had the time. Some patients have told me that the appointment with me is the only visit they’ve made outside of their home during the pandemic. Once the consultations or procedures are completed, patients often show gratitude and their self-esteem is increased. Some patients have said they even feel better and more productive at work, or note more positive interactions with their loved ones after the work has been done, likely because they feel better about themselves.There have been discussions about the benefits people have in being able to use Zoom and other videoconferencing platforms to gather and create, as well as see people and communicate in a way that can sometimes be more effective than a phone call. As physicians, these virtual tools have also allowed us to provide telehealth visits, a flexible, safe, and comfortable option for both the patient and practitioner. If done in a safe place, the ability to see each other without wearing a mask is also a nice treat.
The gratification and improvement in psyche that patients experience after our visits during this unprecedented, challenging time has been evident. Perhaps it’s the social interaction with their trusted physician, the outcome of the procedure itself, or a combination of both, which has a net positive effect on the physician-patient relationship.
While cosmetic procedures are appropriately deemed elective by hospital facilities and practitioners and should be of lower importance with regard to use of available facilities and PPE than those related to COVID-19 and other life-threatening scenarios, the longevity of this pandemic has surprisingly highlighted the numerous ways in which cosmetic visits can help patients, and the importance of being able to be there for patients – in a safe manner for all involved.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
As clinics were allowed to reopen under local government guidelines several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many cosmetic dermatologists and aesthetic surgeons had no idea what our schedules would be like. .
While scheduled appointments, no shows, cancellations, and rebookings seem to wax and wane with surges in COVID-19 cases locally and with associated media coverage, there appear to be several reasons why demand has increased. Because people are wearing masks, they can easily hide signs of recovery or “something new” in their appearance. Patients aren’t typically around as many people and have more time to recover in private. There is also the positive effect a procedure can have on mood and self-esteem during what has been a difficult year. And people have had more time to read beauty and self-care articles, as well as advertisements for skin and hair care on social media.
The Zoom effect
One reason I did not anticipate is the Zoom effect. I don’t intend to single out Zoom – as there are other videoconferencing options available – but it seems to be the one patients bring up the most. Virtual meetings, conferences, and social events, and video calls with loved ones have become a part of daily routines for many, who are now seeing themselves on camera during these interactions as they never did before. It has created a strange new phenomenon.
Patients have literally said to me “I don’t like the way I look on Zoom” and ask about options to improve what they are seeing. They are often surprised to see that their appearance on virtual meetings, for example, does not reflect the way they feel inside, or how they think they should look. Even medical dermatology patients who have had no interest in cosmetic procedures previously have been coming in for this specific reason – both female and male patients.
Since photography is a hobby, I counsel patients that lighting and shadows play a huge role in how they appear on screen. Depending on the lighting, camera angle, and camera quality, suboptimal lighting can highlight shadows and wrinkles not normally seen in natural or optimal light. In a recent interview on KCRW, the Los Angeles NPR affiliate station, the founding director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab (VHIL) at Stanford University highlighted work on the effect that Zoom and virtual interactions have had on people during the COVID-19 pandemic. He notes that during a normal in-person meeting or conference, attention is usually on the person speaking, but now with everyone on camera at once, people have the pressure and subsequent feelings of exhaustion (a different type of exhaustion than being there in person) of being seen at all times. To address “Zoom Fatigue,” the VHIL’s recommendations include turning off the camera periodically, or changing the settings so your image is not seen. Another option is to use background filters, including some face filters (a cat for example), which Zoom has created to ease some of the stress of these meetings.
Back to the actual in-person office visits: In my experience, all cosmetic procedures across the board, including injectables, skin resurfacing, and lasers have increased. In Dr. Talakoub’s practice, she has noted a tenfold increase in the use of deoxycholic acid (Kybella) and neck procedures attributed to the unflattering angle of the neck as people look down on their computer screens.There has also been an increase in the use of other injectables, such as Botox of the glabella to address scowling at the screen, facial fillers to address the dark shadows cast on the tear troughs, and lip fillers (noted to be 10-20 times higher) because of masks that can hide healing downtime. Similarly, increased use of Coolsculpting has been noted, as some patients have the flexibility of being able to take their Zoom meetings during the procedure, when they otherwise may not have had the time. Some patients have told me that the appointment with me is the only visit they’ve made outside of their home during the pandemic. Once the consultations or procedures are completed, patients often show gratitude and their self-esteem is increased. Some patients have said they even feel better and more productive at work, or note more positive interactions with their loved ones after the work has been done, likely because they feel better about themselves.There have been discussions about the benefits people have in being able to use Zoom and other videoconferencing platforms to gather and create, as well as see people and communicate in a way that can sometimes be more effective than a phone call. As physicians, these virtual tools have also allowed us to provide telehealth visits, a flexible, safe, and comfortable option for both the patient and practitioner. If done in a safe place, the ability to see each other without wearing a mask is also a nice treat.
The gratification and improvement in psyche that patients experience after our visits during this unprecedented, challenging time has been evident. Perhaps it’s the social interaction with their trusted physician, the outcome of the procedure itself, or a combination of both, which has a net positive effect on the physician-patient relationship.
While cosmetic procedures are appropriately deemed elective by hospital facilities and practitioners and should be of lower importance with regard to use of available facilities and PPE than those related to COVID-19 and other life-threatening scenarios, the longevity of this pandemic has surprisingly highlighted the numerous ways in which cosmetic visits can help patients, and the importance of being able to be there for patients – in a safe manner for all involved.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
As clinics were allowed to reopen under local government guidelines several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many cosmetic dermatologists and aesthetic surgeons had no idea what our schedules would be like. .
While scheduled appointments, no shows, cancellations, and rebookings seem to wax and wane with surges in COVID-19 cases locally and with associated media coverage, there appear to be several reasons why demand has increased. Because people are wearing masks, they can easily hide signs of recovery or “something new” in their appearance. Patients aren’t typically around as many people and have more time to recover in private. There is also the positive effect a procedure can have on mood and self-esteem during what has been a difficult year. And people have had more time to read beauty and self-care articles, as well as advertisements for skin and hair care on social media.
The Zoom effect
One reason I did not anticipate is the Zoom effect. I don’t intend to single out Zoom – as there are other videoconferencing options available – but it seems to be the one patients bring up the most. Virtual meetings, conferences, and social events, and video calls with loved ones have become a part of daily routines for many, who are now seeing themselves on camera during these interactions as they never did before. It has created a strange new phenomenon.
Patients have literally said to me “I don’t like the way I look on Zoom” and ask about options to improve what they are seeing. They are often surprised to see that their appearance on virtual meetings, for example, does not reflect the way they feel inside, or how they think they should look. Even medical dermatology patients who have had no interest in cosmetic procedures previously have been coming in for this specific reason – both female and male patients.
Since photography is a hobby, I counsel patients that lighting and shadows play a huge role in how they appear on screen. Depending on the lighting, camera angle, and camera quality, suboptimal lighting can highlight shadows and wrinkles not normally seen in natural or optimal light. In a recent interview on KCRW, the Los Angeles NPR affiliate station, the founding director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab (VHIL) at Stanford University highlighted work on the effect that Zoom and virtual interactions have had on people during the COVID-19 pandemic. He notes that during a normal in-person meeting or conference, attention is usually on the person speaking, but now with everyone on camera at once, people have the pressure and subsequent feelings of exhaustion (a different type of exhaustion than being there in person) of being seen at all times. To address “Zoom Fatigue,” the VHIL’s recommendations include turning off the camera periodically, or changing the settings so your image is not seen. Another option is to use background filters, including some face filters (a cat for example), which Zoom has created to ease some of the stress of these meetings.
Back to the actual in-person office visits: In my experience, all cosmetic procedures across the board, including injectables, skin resurfacing, and lasers have increased. In Dr. Talakoub’s practice, she has noted a tenfold increase in the use of deoxycholic acid (Kybella) and neck procedures attributed to the unflattering angle of the neck as people look down on their computer screens.There has also been an increase in the use of other injectables, such as Botox of the glabella to address scowling at the screen, facial fillers to address the dark shadows cast on the tear troughs, and lip fillers (noted to be 10-20 times higher) because of masks that can hide healing downtime. Similarly, increased use of Coolsculpting has been noted, as some patients have the flexibility of being able to take their Zoom meetings during the procedure, when they otherwise may not have had the time. Some patients have told me that the appointment with me is the only visit they’ve made outside of their home during the pandemic. Once the consultations or procedures are completed, patients often show gratitude and their self-esteem is increased. Some patients have said they even feel better and more productive at work, or note more positive interactions with their loved ones after the work has been done, likely because they feel better about themselves.There have been discussions about the benefits people have in being able to use Zoom and other videoconferencing platforms to gather and create, as well as see people and communicate in a way that can sometimes be more effective than a phone call. As physicians, these virtual tools have also allowed us to provide telehealth visits, a flexible, safe, and comfortable option for both the patient and practitioner. If done in a safe place, the ability to see each other without wearing a mask is also a nice treat.
The gratification and improvement in psyche that patients experience after our visits during this unprecedented, challenging time has been evident. Perhaps it’s the social interaction with their trusted physician, the outcome of the procedure itself, or a combination of both, which has a net positive effect on the physician-patient relationship.
While cosmetic procedures are appropriately deemed elective by hospital facilities and practitioners and should be of lower importance with regard to use of available facilities and PPE than those related to COVID-19 and other life-threatening scenarios, the longevity of this pandemic has surprisingly highlighted the numerous ways in which cosmetic visits can help patients, and the importance of being able to be there for patients – in a safe manner for all involved.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Point-Counterpoint: The future of rheumatology is sub-subspecialization
Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD
The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.
The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.
The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.
Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.
“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.
The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD
Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.
We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?
Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.
Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.
The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.
Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD
The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.
The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.
The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.
Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.
“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.
The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD
Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.
We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?
Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.
Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.
The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.
Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD
The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.
The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.
The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.
Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.
“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.
The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD
Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.
We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?
Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.
Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.
The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.
FROM RWCS 2021
The cutaneous benefits of bee venom, Part II: Acupuncture, wound healing, and various potential indications
A wide range of products derived from bees, including honey, propolis, bee pollen, bee bread, royal jelly, beeswax, and bee venom, have been used since ancient times for medical purposes.1 Specifically, bee venom has been used in traditional medicine to treat multiple disorders, including arthritis, cancer, pain, rheumatism, and skin diseases.2,3 The primary active constituent of bee venom is melittin, an amphiphilic peptide containing 26 amino acid residues and known to impart anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, analgesic, and anticancer effects.4-7 Additional anti-inflammatory compounds found in bee venom include adolapin, apamin, and phospholipase A2; melittin and phospholipase A2 are also capable of delivering pro-inflammatory activity.8,9
The anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties of bee venom have been cited as justification for its use as a cosmetic ingredient.10 In experimental studies, antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects have been reported.11 Bee venom phospholipase A2 has also demonstrated notable success in vitro and in vivo in conferring immunomodulatory effects and is a key component in past and continuing use of bee venom therapy for immune-related disorders, such as arthritis.12
A recent review of the biomedical literature by Nguyen et al. reveals that bee venom is one of the key ingredients in the booming Korean cosmeceuticals industry.13 Kim et al. reviewed the therapeutic applications of bee venom in 2019, noting that anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, antifibrotic, antimicrobial, and anticancer properties have been cited in experimental and clinical reports, with cutaneous treatments ranging from acne, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis to melanoma, morphea, photoaging, psoriasis, vitiligo, wounds, and wrinkles.14 This column focuses on the use of bee venom in acupuncture and wound healing, as well as some other potential applications of this bee product used for millennia.
Acupuncture
Bee venom acupuncture entails the application of bee venom to the tips of acupuncture needles, which are then applied to acupoints on the skin. Cherniack and Govorushko state that several small studies in humans show that bee venom acupuncture has been used effectively to treat various musculoskeletal and neurological conditions.8
In 2016, Sur et al. explored the effects of bee venom acupuncture on atopic dermatitis in a mouse model with lesions induced by trimellitic anhydride. Bee venom treatment was found to significantly ease inflammation, lesion thickness, and lymph node weight. Suppression of T-cell proliferation and infiltration, Th1 and Th2 cytokine synthesis, and interleukin (IL)-4 and immunoglobulin E (IgE) production was also noted.15
A case report by Hwang and Kim in 2018 described the successful use of bee venom acupuncture in the treatment of a 64-year-old Korean woman with circumscribed morphea resulting from systemic sclerosis. Subcutaneous bee venom acupuncture along the margins resolved pruritus through 2 months of follow-up.11
Wound healing
A study by Hozzein et al. in 2018 on protecting functional macrophages from apoptosis and improving Nrf2, Ang-1, and Tie-2 signaling in diabetic wound healing in mice revealed that bee venom supports immune function, thus promoting healing from diabetic wounds.(16) Previously, this team had shown that bee venom facilitates wound healing in diabetic mice by inhibiting the activation of transcription factor-3 and inducible nitric oxide synthase-mediated stress.17
In early 2020, Nakashima et al. reported their results showing that bee venom-derived phospholipase A2 augmented poly(I:C)-induced activation in human keratinocytes, suggesting that it could play a role in wound healing promotion through enhanced TLR3 responses.18
Alopecia
A 2016 study on the effect of bee venom on alopecia in C57BL/6 mice by Park et al. showed that the bee toxin dose-dependently stimulated proliferation of several growth factors, including fibroblast growth factors 2 and 7, as compared with the control group. Bee venom also suppressed transition from the anagen to catagen phases, nurtured hair growth, and presented the potential as a strong 5α-reductase inhibitor.19
Anticancer and anti-arthritic activity
In 2007, Son et al. reported that the various peptides (melittin, apamin, adolapin, the mast-cell-degranulating peptide), enzymes (i.e., phospholipase A2), as well as biologically active amines (i.e., histamine and epinephrine) and nonpeptide components in bee venom are thought to account for multiple pharmaceutical properties that yield anti-arthritis, antinociceptive, and anticancer effects.2
In 2019, Lim et al. determined that bee venom and melittin inhibited the growth and migration of melanoma cells (B16F10, A375SM, and SK-MEL-28) by downregulating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK signaling pathways. They concluded that melittin has the potential for use in preventing and treating malignant melanoma.4
Phototoxicity
Heo et al. conducted phototoxicity and skin sensitization studies of bee venom, as well as a bee venom from which they removed phospholipase A2, and determined that both were nonphototoxic substances and did not act as sensitizers.20
Han et al. assessed the skin safety of bee venom on tests in healthy male Hartley guinea pigs in 2017 and found that bee venom application engendered no toxic reactions, including any signs of cutaneous phototoxicity or skin photosensitization, and is likely safe for inclusion as a topical skin care ingredient.10
Antiwrinkle activity
Han et al. also evaluated the beneficial effects of bee venom serum on facial wrinkles in a small study on humans (22 South Korean women between 30 and 49 years old), finding clinical improvements as seen through reductions in wrinkle count, average wrinkle depth, and total wrinkle area. The authors, noting that this was the first clinical study to assess the results of using bee venom cosmetics on facial skin, also cited the relative safety of the product, which presents nominal irritation potential, and acknowledged its present use in the cosmetics industry.21
Conclusion
Bees play a critical role in the web of life as they pollinate approximately one-third of our food. Perhaps counterintuitively, given our awareness of the painful and potentially serious reactions to bee stings, bee venom has also been found to deliver multiple salutary effects. More research is necessary to ascertain the viability of using bee venom as a reliable treatment for the various cutaneous conditions for which it demonstrates potential benefits. Current evidence presents justification for further investigation.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Kurek-Górecka A et al. Molecules. 2020 Jan 28;25(3):556.
2. Son DJ et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;115(2):246-70.
3. Lee G, Bae H. Molecules. 2016 May 11;21(5):616.
4. Lim HN et al. Molecules. 2019 Mar 7;24(5):929.
5. Gu H et al. Mol Med Rep. 2018 Oct;18(4):3711-8. 6. You CE et al. Ann Dermatol. 2016 Oct;28(5):593-9. 7. An HJ et al. Int J Mol Med. 2014 Nov;34(5):1341-8. 8. Cherniack EP, Govorushko S. Toxicon. 2018 Nov;154:74-8. 9. Cornara L et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 28;8:412.
10. Han SM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Dec;16(4):e68-e75.
11. Hwang JH, Kim KH. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(49):e13404. 12. Lee G, Bae H. Toxins (Basel). 2016 Feb 22;8(2):48. 13. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):1555-69.
14. Kim H et al. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Jun 27:11(7):374.
15. Sur B et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Jan 29;16:38. 16. Hozzein WN et al. Mol Immunol. 2018 Nov;103:322-35. 17. Badr G et al. J Cell Physiol. 2016 Oct;231(10):2159-71. 18. Nakashima A et al. Int Immunol. 2020 May 30;32(6):371-83. 19. Park S et al. Biol Pharm Bull. 2016 Jun 1;39(6):1060-8.
20. Heo Y et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:157367. 21. Han SM et al. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Oct 1;10:1587-92.
A wide range of products derived from bees, including honey, propolis, bee pollen, bee bread, royal jelly, beeswax, and bee venom, have been used since ancient times for medical purposes.1 Specifically, bee venom has been used in traditional medicine to treat multiple disorders, including arthritis, cancer, pain, rheumatism, and skin diseases.2,3 The primary active constituent of bee venom is melittin, an amphiphilic peptide containing 26 amino acid residues and known to impart anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, analgesic, and anticancer effects.4-7 Additional anti-inflammatory compounds found in bee venom include adolapin, apamin, and phospholipase A2; melittin and phospholipase A2 are also capable of delivering pro-inflammatory activity.8,9
The anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties of bee venom have been cited as justification for its use as a cosmetic ingredient.10 In experimental studies, antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects have been reported.11 Bee venom phospholipase A2 has also demonstrated notable success in vitro and in vivo in conferring immunomodulatory effects and is a key component in past and continuing use of bee venom therapy for immune-related disorders, such as arthritis.12
A recent review of the biomedical literature by Nguyen et al. reveals that bee venom is one of the key ingredients in the booming Korean cosmeceuticals industry.13 Kim et al. reviewed the therapeutic applications of bee venom in 2019, noting that anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, antifibrotic, antimicrobial, and anticancer properties have been cited in experimental and clinical reports, with cutaneous treatments ranging from acne, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis to melanoma, morphea, photoaging, psoriasis, vitiligo, wounds, and wrinkles.14 This column focuses on the use of bee venom in acupuncture and wound healing, as well as some other potential applications of this bee product used for millennia.
Acupuncture
Bee venom acupuncture entails the application of bee venom to the tips of acupuncture needles, which are then applied to acupoints on the skin. Cherniack and Govorushko state that several small studies in humans show that bee venom acupuncture has been used effectively to treat various musculoskeletal and neurological conditions.8
In 2016, Sur et al. explored the effects of bee venom acupuncture on atopic dermatitis in a mouse model with lesions induced by trimellitic anhydride. Bee venom treatment was found to significantly ease inflammation, lesion thickness, and lymph node weight. Suppression of T-cell proliferation and infiltration, Th1 and Th2 cytokine synthesis, and interleukin (IL)-4 and immunoglobulin E (IgE) production was also noted.15
A case report by Hwang and Kim in 2018 described the successful use of bee venom acupuncture in the treatment of a 64-year-old Korean woman with circumscribed morphea resulting from systemic sclerosis. Subcutaneous bee venom acupuncture along the margins resolved pruritus through 2 months of follow-up.11
Wound healing
A study by Hozzein et al. in 2018 on protecting functional macrophages from apoptosis and improving Nrf2, Ang-1, and Tie-2 signaling in diabetic wound healing in mice revealed that bee venom supports immune function, thus promoting healing from diabetic wounds.(16) Previously, this team had shown that bee venom facilitates wound healing in diabetic mice by inhibiting the activation of transcription factor-3 and inducible nitric oxide synthase-mediated stress.17
In early 2020, Nakashima et al. reported their results showing that bee venom-derived phospholipase A2 augmented poly(I:C)-induced activation in human keratinocytes, suggesting that it could play a role in wound healing promotion through enhanced TLR3 responses.18
Alopecia
A 2016 study on the effect of bee venom on alopecia in C57BL/6 mice by Park et al. showed that the bee toxin dose-dependently stimulated proliferation of several growth factors, including fibroblast growth factors 2 and 7, as compared with the control group. Bee venom also suppressed transition from the anagen to catagen phases, nurtured hair growth, and presented the potential as a strong 5α-reductase inhibitor.19
Anticancer and anti-arthritic activity
In 2007, Son et al. reported that the various peptides (melittin, apamin, adolapin, the mast-cell-degranulating peptide), enzymes (i.e., phospholipase A2), as well as biologically active amines (i.e., histamine and epinephrine) and nonpeptide components in bee venom are thought to account for multiple pharmaceutical properties that yield anti-arthritis, antinociceptive, and anticancer effects.2
In 2019, Lim et al. determined that bee venom and melittin inhibited the growth and migration of melanoma cells (B16F10, A375SM, and SK-MEL-28) by downregulating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK signaling pathways. They concluded that melittin has the potential for use in preventing and treating malignant melanoma.4
Phototoxicity
Heo et al. conducted phototoxicity and skin sensitization studies of bee venom, as well as a bee venom from which they removed phospholipase A2, and determined that both were nonphototoxic substances and did not act as sensitizers.20
Han et al. assessed the skin safety of bee venom on tests in healthy male Hartley guinea pigs in 2017 and found that bee venom application engendered no toxic reactions, including any signs of cutaneous phototoxicity or skin photosensitization, and is likely safe for inclusion as a topical skin care ingredient.10
Antiwrinkle activity
Han et al. also evaluated the beneficial effects of bee venom serum on facial wrinkles in a small study on humans (22 South Korean women between 30 and 49 years old), finding clinical improvements as seen through reductions in wrinkle count, average wrinkle depth, and total wrinkle area. The authors, noting that this was the first clinical study to assess the results of using bee venom cosmetics on facial skin, also cited the relative safety of the product, which presents nominal irritation potential, and acknowledged its present use in the cosmetics industry.21
Conclusion
Bees play a critical role in the web of life as they pollinate approximately one-third of our food. Perhaps counterintuitively, given our awareness of the painful and potentially serious reactions to bee stings, bee venom has also been found to deliver multiple salutary effects. More research is necessary to ascertain the viability of using bee venom as a reliable treatment for the various cutaneous conditions for which it demonstrates potential benefits. Current evidence presents justification for further investigation.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Kurek-Górecka A et al. Molecules. 2020 Jan 28;25(3):556.
2. Son DJ et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;115(2):246-70.
3. Lee G, Bae H. Molecules. 2016 May 11;21(5):616.
4. Lim HN et al. Molecules. 2019 Mar 7;24(5):929.
5. Gu H et al. Mol Med Rep. 2018 Oct;18(4):3711-8. 6. You CE et al. Ann Dermatol. 2016 Oct;28(5):593-9. 7. An HJ et al. Int J Mol Med. 2014 Nov;34(5):1341-8. 8. Cherniack EP, Govorushko S. Toxicon. 2018 Nov;154:74-8. 9. Cornara L et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 28;8:412.
10. Han SM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Dec;16(4):e68-e75.
11. Hwang JH, Kim KH. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(49):e13404. 12. Lee G, Bae H. Toxins (Basel). 2016 Feb 22;8(2):48. 13. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):1555-69.
14. Kim H et al. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Jun 27:11(7):374.
15. Sur B et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Jan 29;16:38. 16. Hozzein WN et al. Mol Immunol. 2018 Nov;103:322-35. 17. Badr G et al. J Cell Physiol. 2016 Oct;231(10):2159-71. 18. Nakashima A et al. Int Immunol. 2020 May 30;32(6):371-83. 19. Park S et al. Biol Pharm Bull. 2016 Jun 1;39(6):1060-8.
20. Heo Y et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:157367. 21. Han SM et al. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Oct 1;10:1587-92.
A wide range of products derived from bees, including honey, propolis, bee pollen, bee bread, royal jelly, beeswax, and bee venom, have been used since ancient times for medical purposes.1 Specifically, bee venom has been used in traditional medicine to treat multiple disorders, including arthritis, cancer, pain, rheumatism, and skin diseases.2,3 The primary active constituent of bee venom is melittin, an amphiphilic peptide containing 26 amino acid residues and known to impart anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, analgesic, and anticancer effects.4-7 Additional anti-inflammatory compounds found in bee venom include adolapin, apamin, and phospholipase A2; melittin and phospholipase A2 are also capable of delivering pro-inflammatory activity.8,9
The anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties of bee venom have been cited as justification for its use as a cosmetic ingredient.10 In experimental studies, antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects have been reported.11 Bee venom phospholipase A2 has also demonstrated notable success in vitro and in vivo in conferring immunomodulatory effects and is a key component in past and continuing use of bee venom therapy for immune-related disorders, such as arthritis.12
A recent review of the biomedical literature by Nguyen et al. reveals that bee venom is one of the key ingredients in the booming Korean cosmeceuticals industry.13 Kim et al. reviewed the therapeutic applications of bee venom in 2019, noting that anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, antifibrotic, antimicrobial, and anticancer properties have been cited in experimental and clinical reports, with cutaneous treatments ranging from acne, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis to melanoma, morphea, photoaging, psoriasis, vitiligo, wounds, and wrinkles.14 This column focuses on the use of bee venom in acupuncture and wound healing, as well as some other potential applications of this bee product used for millennia.
Acupuncture
Bee venom acupuncture entails the application of bee venom to the tips of acupuncture needles, which are then applied to acupoints on the skin. Cherniack and Govorushko state that several small studies in humans show that bee venom acupuncture has been used effectively to treat various musculoskeletal and neurological conditions.8
In 2016, Sur et al. explored the effects of bee venom acupuncture on atopic dermatitis in a mouse model with lesions induced by trimellitic anhydride. Bee venom treatment was found to significantly ease inflammation, lesion thickness, and lymph node weight. Suppression of T-cell proliferation and infiltration, Th1 and Th2 cytokine synthesis, and interleukin (IL)-4 and immunoglobulin E (IgE) production was also noted.15
A case report by Hwang and Kim in 2018 described the successful use of bee venom acupuncture in the treatment of a 64-year-old Korean woman with circumscribed morphea resulting from systemic sclerosis. Subcutaneous bee venom acupuncture along the margins resolved pruritus through 2 months of follow-up.11
Wound healing
A study by Hozzein et al. in 2018 on protecting functional macrophages from apoptosis and improving Nrf2, Ang-1, and Tie-2 signaling in diabetic wound healing in mice revealed that bee venom supports immune function, thus promoting healing from diabetic wounds.(16) Previously, this team had shown that bee venom facilitates wound healing in diabetic mice by inhibiting the activation of transcription factor-3 and inducible nitric oxide synthase-mediated stress.17
In early 2020, Nakashima et al. reported their results showing that bee venom-derived phospholipase A2 augmented poly(I:C)-induced activation in human keratinocytes, suggesting that it could play a role in wound healing promotion through enhanced TLR3 responses.18
Alopecia
A 2016 study on the effect of bee venom on alopecia in C57BL/6 mice by Park et al. showed that the bee toxin dose-dependently stimulated proliferation of several growth factors, including fibroblast growth factors 2 and 7, as compared with the control group. Bee venom also suppressed transition from the anagen to catagen phases, nurtured hair growth, and presented the potential as a strong 5α-reductase inhibitor.19
Anticancer and anti-arthritic activity
In 2007, Son et al. reported that the various peptides (melittin, apamin, adolapin, the mast-cell-degranulating peptide), enzymes (i.e., phospholipase A2), as well as biologically active amines (i.e., histamine and epinephrine) and nonpeptide components in bee venom are thought to account for multiple pharmaceutical properties that yield anti-arthritis, antinociceptive, and anticancer effects.2
In 2019, Lim et al. determined that bee venom and melittin inhibited the growth and migration of melanoma cells (B16F10, A375SM, and SK-MEL-28) by downregulating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK signaling pathways. They concluded that melittin has the potential for use in preventing and treating malignant melanoma.4
Phototoxicity
Heo et al. conducted phototoxicity and skin sensitization studies of bee venom, as well as a bee venom from which they removed phospholipase A2, and determined that both were nonphototoxic substances and did not act as sensitizers.20
Han et al. assessed the skin safety of bee venom on tests in healthy male Hartley guinea pigs in 2017 and found that bee venom application engendered no toxic reactions, including any signs of cutaneous phototoxicity or skin photosensitization, and is likely safe for inclusion as a topical skin care ingredient.10
Antiwrinkle activity
Han et al. also evaluated the beneficial effects of bee venom serum on facial wrinkles in a small study on humans (22 South Korean women between 30 and 49 years old), finding clinical improvements as seen through reductions in wrinkle count, average wrinkle depth, and total wrinkle area. The authors, noting that this was the first clinical study to assess the results of using bee venom cosmetics on facial skin, also cited the relative safety of the product, which presents nominal irritation potential, and acknowledged its present use in the cosmetics industry.21
Conclusion
Bees play a critical role in the web of life as they pollinate approximately one-third of our food. Perhaps counterintuitively, given our awareness of the painful and potentially serious reactions to bee stings, bee venom has also been found to deliver multiple salutary effects. More research is necessary to ascertain the viability of using bee venom as a reliable treatment for the various cutaneous conditions for which it demonstrates potential benefits. Current evidence presents justification for further investigation.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Kurek-Górecka A et al. Molecules. 2020 Jan 28;25(3):556.
2. Son DJ et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Aug;115(2):246-70.
3. Lee G, Bae H. Molecules. 2016 May 11;21(5):616.
4. Lim HN et al. Molecules. 2019 Mar 7;24(5):929.
5. Gu H et al. Mol Med Rep. 2018 Oct;18(4):3711-8. 6. You CE et al. Ann Dermatol. 2016 Oct;28(5):593-9. 7. An HJ et al. Int J Mol Med. 2014 Nov;34(5):1341-8. 8. Cherniack EP, Govorushko S. Toxicon. 2018 Nov;154:74-8. 9. Cornara L et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 28;8:412.
10. Han SM et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Dec;16(4):e68-e75.
11. Hwang JH, Kim KH. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(49):e13404. 12. Lee G, Bae H. Toxins (Basel). 2016 Feb 22;8(2):48. 13. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):1555-69.
14. Kim H et al. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Jun 27:11(7):374.
15. Sur B et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Jan 29;16:38. 16. Hozzein WN et al. Mol Immunol. 2018 Nov;103:322-35. 17. Badr G et al. J Cell Physiol. 2016 Oct;231(10):2159-71. 18. Nakashima A et al. Int Immunol. 2020 May 30;32(6):371-83. 19. Park S et al. Biol Pharm Bull. 2016 Jun 1;39(6):1060-8.
20. Heo Y et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:157367. 21. Han SM et al. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Oct 1;10:1587-92.