This icon represents the patient’s case. Each paragraph that follows represents the discussant’s thoughts.

An 81-year-old woman with a remote history of left proximal femoral fracture (status post–open reduction and internal fixation) acutely developed severe pain in her left lateral thigh while at her home. A few days prior to her left thigh pain, the patient had routine blood work done. Her lab results (prior to the onset of her symptoms) revealed that her hemoglobin decreased from 10 g/dL, noted 9 months earlier, to 6.6 g/dL. Her primary care physician, who was planning to see the patient for her next regularly scheduled follow-up, was made aware of the patient’s decline in hemoglobin prior to the planned visit. The primary care physician called the patient to inform her about her concerning lab findings and coincidentally became aware of the acute, new-onset left thigh pain. The primary care physician requested that the patient be taken by her daughter to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation.

The acute decrease in hemoglobin carries a broad differential and may or may not be related to the subsequent development of thigh pain. The presentation of an acute onset of pain in the thigh within the context of this patient’s age and gender suggests a femur fracture; this can be osteoporosis-related or a pathologic fracture associated with malignancy. Several malignancies are plausible, including multiple myeloma (given the anemia) or breast cancer. The proximal part of long bones is the most common site of pathologic fractures, and the femur accounts for half of these cases. Plain radiographs would be appropriate initial imaging and may be followed by either a computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

In the ED, she denied any recent trauma, hemoptysis, recent dark or bloody stools, vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain, or history of gastric ulcers. She had not experienced any similar episodes of thigh pain in the past. She had a history of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2 with diabetic retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy, osteoporosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and internal hemorrhoids. Her medications included apixaban, metoprolol succinate, metformin, losartan, sitagliptin, calcium, vitamin D, alendronate, and fish oil. She had mild tenderness to palpation of her thigh, but her exam was otherwise normal. Radiography of the left hip and pelvis showed no acute fracture (Figure 1). An upper and lower endoscopy 3 years prior to her presentation revealed internal hemorrhoids.

The patient is taking apixaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor. The absence of other obvious sources of bleeding suggests that the cause of anemia and pain is most likely bleeding into the anterior thigh compartment, exacerbated by the underlying anticoagulation. Since there was no trauma preceding this episode, the differential diagnosis must be expanded to include other, less common sources of bleeding, including a vascular anomaly such as a pseudoaneurysm or arteriovenous malformation. While the radiographs were normal, a CT scan or MRI may allow for identification of a fracture, other bone lesion, and/or hematoma.

A complete blood count revealed a hemoglobin of 6.6 g/dL (normal, 11.5-14.1 g/dL) with a mean corpuscular volume of 62 fL (normal, 79-96 fL). A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast (Figure 2) was obtained to evaluate for intra-abdominal hemorrhage and retroperitoneal hematoma; it showed mild abdominal and pelvic ascites, a small right pleural effusion with compressive atelectasis, and generalized anasarca, but no evidence of bleeding. She was administered 2 units of packed red blood cells. Apixaban was held and 40 mg intravenous pantoprazole twice daily was started. Her iron level was 12 µg/dL (normal, 50-170 µg/dL); total iron-binding capacity (TIBC) was 431 µg/dL (normal, 179-378 µg/dL); and ferritin level was 19 ng/mL (normal, 10-204 ng/mL). Her basic metabolic panel, liver enzymes, international normalized ratio, partial thromboplastin time, and folate were normal. Serum vitamin B₁₂ level was 277 pg/mL (normal, 213-816 pg/mL), and the reticulocyte count was 1.7%.

Myopathies can be hereditary or acquired. Hereditary myopathies include congenital myopathies, muscular dystrophies, channelopathies, primary metabolic myopathies, and mitochondrial myopathies. Acquired myopathies include infectious myopathies, inflammatory myopathies, endocrine myopathies, secondary metabolic myopathies, and drug-induced and toxic myopathies. The findings of hemorrhagic myositis and skin edema are very intriguing, especially given their localized features. An overt femur fracture was previously ruled out, and an anterior thigh compartment syndrome was considered less likely after orthopedic surgery consultation. There is no description of the patient taking medications that could cause myopathy (such as statins), and there are also no clinical features suggestive of primary inflammatory myopathy, such as dermatomyositis. Increased suspicion of a focal inflammatory process such as localized scleroderma with regional inflammatory myopathy or another focal myopathy must be considered. The next diagnostic steps would include measuring the creatine kinase level, as well as obtaining an MRI of the leg to assess the nature and extent of the myopathy.

Multidisciplinary involvement, including hematology, rheumatology, and surgery, aided in narrowing the differential diagnosis. On hospital day 10, an MRI of the left thigh was performed for suspicion of diabetic myonecrosis (Figure 4). The MRI revealed a 10 cm × 3.6 cm × 22 cm intramuscular hematoma in the belly of the vastus lateralis muscle with associated soft tissue swelling, overlying subcutaneous edema, and skin thickening that was suggestive of hemorrhagic diabetic myonecrosis with some atypical features. A rheumatology consult was requested to evaluate for possible vasculitis in the left lower extremity, and vasculitis was not considered likely. The diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis with associated intramuscular hemorrhage secondary to apixaban was made after careful reconsideration of the clinical presentation, imaging and laboratory data, and overall picture. Based on the clinical findings, imaging results, and exclusion of alternative causative pathologies of thigh swelling, no biopsy was performed, as it was not considered necessary to make the diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis. The patient was discharged on hospital day 11 and was doing well. She followed up with her primary care doctor and has regained normal function of her leg.

Diabetic myonecrosis, or diabetic muscle infarction, is an uncommon nontraumatic myopathy that occurs in patients with diabetes who develop acute, focal muscle pain without recent trauma. In this case, the muscle infarction was further complicated by hemorrhagic transformation. Diabetic myonecrosis is relatively uncommon and a diagnosis made by combining history, examination, and laboratory findings and excluding other alternative conditions.

A clear schema for approaching the patient with acute, nontraumatic myopathies is important in avoiding diagnostic error. One effective schema is to divide myopathy into infectious and noninfectious categories. Causes of infectious myopathy include bacterial infections (eg, pyomyositis), inflammatory damage to muscles associated with viruses (eg, influenza), as well as rarer causes. Bacterial processes tend to be relatively focal and affect a specific muscle group or anatomic compartment, while viral causes are often more diffuse and occur in the context of a systemic viral syndrome. Bacterial causes range in severity, and life-threatening conditions, such as necrotizing soft tissue infection, must be considered. In this case, bacterial causes were less likely given the patient’s lack of fever, leukocytosis, and systemic signs of infection.^1,2 However, these findings are not uniformly sensitive, and clinicians should not exclude potentially life- or limb-threatening infections without thorough evaluation. For example, pyomyositis may present without fever in the subacute stage, without leukocytosis if the patient is immunocompromised, and without overt pus if the infection is not in the suppurative stage.³ Viral causes were made less likely in this patient given the lack of a current or recent systemic viral syndrome.

Once infectious etiologies are deemed unlikely, noninfectious etiologies for nontraumatic myopathies should be considered. Some causes of noninfectious myopathy present with the muscle symptoms as a predominant feature, while others present in the context of another illness such as cancer, metabolic disorders, or other systemic disorders. Many noninfectious causes of myopathy associated with systemic illnesses have diffuse or relatively diffuse symptoms, with pain and/or weakness in multiple muscle groups, often in a bilateral distribution. Such examples include dermatomyositis and polymyositis as well as myositis associated with other rheumatologic conditions. Nontraumatic rhabdomyolysis is diffuse and can occur in association with medications and/or genetic conditions.

Angervall and Stener⁴ first described diabetic myonecrosis in 1965 as tumoriform focal muscular degeneration due to diabetic microangiopathy. The most commonly affected muscle groups in diabetic myonecrosis are the anterior thigh, calf, and posterior thigh, followed by muscles in the upper extremities.⁵ Patients with diabetic myonecrosis have an overall mean age at presentation of 44.6 years; affected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus present at a mean age nearly 20 years younger than those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (35.9 years vs 52.2 years, respectively).⁶ Patients tend to have a long (often >15 years) history of diabetes with microvascular complications such as retinopathy (reported in 71%), nephropathy (reported in 57%), and/or neuropathy (reported in 55%).⁷

The mainstay of the diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis is a thorough history and physical examination and imaging. Routine laboratory evaluation is relatively unhelpful in diagnosing diabetic myonecrosis, but appropriate imaging can provide valuable supportive information. A CT scan and MRI are both helpful in excluding other etiologies as well as identifying features consistent with diabetic myonecrosis. A CT scan can help exclude a localized abscess, tumor, or bone destruction and, in affected patients, may show increased subcutaneous attenuation and increased muscle size with decreased attenuation secondary to edema.² However, a CT scan may not give optimal assessment of muscle tissue, and therefore MRI may need to be considered. MRI T2 images have a sensitivity nearing 90% for detecting myonecrosis.¹ The diagnostic value of MRI often obviates the need for muscle biopsy.

Spontaneous infarction with hemorrhagic features seen on imaging can be explained by a combination of damage from atherosclerotic or microvascular disease, an activated coagulation cascade, and an impaired fibrinolytic pathway.⁸ Hemorrhagic conversion in diabetic myonecrosis appears to be uncommon.⁹ In our case, we suspect that it developed because of the combination of bleeding risk from apixaban and the underlying mechanisms of diabetic myonecrosis.

The treatment of diabetic myonecrosis is mainly supportive, with an emphasis on rest, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, antiplatelet agents, and strict glycemic control.¹⁰ There is conflicting information about the value of limb immobilization versus active physical therapy as appropriate treatment modalities.¹¹ Patients who present with clinical concern for sepsis or compartment syndrome require consultation for consideration of acute surgical intervention.¹⁰ The short-term prognosis is promising with supportive therapy, but the condition may recur.¹² The recurrence rate may be as high as 40%, with a 2-year mortality of 10%.¹³ Ultimately, patients need to be followed closely in the outpatient setting to reduce the risk of recurrence.

In this patient, the simultaneous occurrence of focal pain and acute blood loss anemia led to a diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis that was complicated by hemorrhagic conversion, a truly painful coincidence. The patient underwent a thorough evaluation for acute blood loss before the diagnosis was ultimately made. Clinicians should consider diabetic myonecrosis in patients with diabetes who present with acute muscle pain but no evidence of infection.

• Diabetic myonecrosis is an underrecognized entity and should be included in the differential diagnosis for patients with diabetes who present with acute muscle pain and no history of trauma.
• Imaging with CT and/or MRI of the affected region is the mainstay of diagnosis; treatment is predicated on severity and risk factors and can range from conservative therapy to operative intervention.
• Although the prognosis is good in these patients, careful outpatient follow-up is necessary to oversee their recovery to help reduce the risk of recurrence.

The authors thank Dr Vijay Singh for his radiology input on image selection for this manuscript.

This icon represents the patient’s case. Each paragraph that follows represents the discussant’s thoughts.

An 81-year-old woman with a remote history of left proximal femoral fracture (status post–open reduction and internal fixation) acutely developed severe pain in her left lateral thigh while at her home. A few days prior to her left thigh pain, the patient had routine blood work done. Her lab results (prior to the onset of her symptoms) revealed that her hemoglobin decreased from 10 g/dL, noted 9 months earlier, to 6.6 g/dL. Her primary care physician, who was planning to see the patient for her next regularly scheduled follow-up, was made aware of the patient’s decline in hemoglobin prior to the planned visit. The primary care physician called the patient to inform her about her concerning lab findings and coincidentally became aware of the acute, new-onset left thigh pain. The primary care physician requested that the patient be taken by her daughter to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation.

The acute decrease in hemoglobin carries a broad differential and may or may not be related to the subsequent development of thigh pain. The presentation of an acute onset of pain in the thigh within the context of this patient’s age and gender suggests a femur fracture; this can be osteoporosis-related or a pathologic fracture associated with malignancy. Several malignancies are plausible, including multiple myeloma (given the anemia) or breast cancer. The proximal part of long bones is the most common site of pathologic fractures, and the femur accounts for half of these cases. Plain radiographs would be appropriate initial imaging and may be followed by either a computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

In the ED, she denied any recent trauma, hemoptysis, recent dark or bloody stools, vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain, or history of gastric ulcers. She had not experienced any similar episodes of thigh pain in the past. She had a history of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2 with diabetic retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy, osteoporosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and internal hemorrhoids. Her medications included apixaban, metoprolol succinate, metformin, losartan, sitagliptin, calcium, vitamin D, alendronate, and fish oil. She had mild tenderness to palpation of her thigh, but her exam was otherwise normal. Radiography of the left hip and pelvis showed no acute fracture (Figure 1). An upper and lower endoscopy 3 years prior to her presentation revealed internal hemorrhoids.

The patient is taking apixaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor. The absence of other obvious sources of bleeding suggests that the cause of anemia and pain is most likely bleeding into the anterior thigh compartment, exacerbated by the underlying anticoagulation. Since there was no trauma preceding this episode, the differential diagnosis must be expanded to include other, less common sources of bleeding, including a vascular anomaly such as a pseudoaneurysm or arteriovenous malformation. While the radiographs were normal, a CT scan or MRI may allow for identification of a fracture, other bone lesion, and/or hematoma.

A complete blood count revealed a hemoglobin of 6.6 g/dL (normal, 11.5-14.1 g/dL) with a mean corpuscular volume of 62 fL (normal, 79-96 fL). A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast (Figure 2) was obtained to evaluate for intra-abdominal hemorrhage and retroperitoneal hematoma; it showed mild abdominal and pelvic ascites, a small right pleural effusion with compressive atelectasis, and generalized anasarca, but no evidence of bleeding. She was administered 2 units of packed red blood cells. Apixaban was held and 40 mg intravenous pantoprazole twice daily was started. Her iron level was 12 µg/dL (normal, 50-170 µg/dL); total iron-binding capacity (TIBC) was 431 µg/dL (normal, 179-378 µg/dL); and ferritin level was 19 ng/mL (normal, 10-204 ng/mL). Her basic metabolic panel, liver enzymes, international normalized ratio, partial thromboplastin time, and folate were normal. Serum vitamin B₁₂ level was 277 pg/mL (normal, 213-816 pg/mL), and the reticulocyte count was 1.7%.

Myopathies can be hereditary or acquired. Hereditary myopathies include congenital myopathies, muscular dystrophies, channelopathies, primary metabolic myopathies, and mitochondrial myopathies. Acquired myopathies include infectious myopathies, inflammatory myopathies, endocrine myopathies, secondary metabolic myopathies, and drug-induced and toxic myopathies. The findings of hemorrhagic myositis and skin edema are very intriguing, especially given their localized features. An overt femur fracture was previously ruled out, and an anterior thigh compartment syndrome was considered less likely after orthopedic surgery consultation. There is no description of the patient taking medications that could cause myopathy (such as statins), and there are also no clinical features suggestive of primary inflammatory myopathy, such as dermatomyositis. Increased suspicion of a focal inflammatory process such as localized scleroderma with regional inflammatory myopathy or another focal myopathy must be considered. The next diagnostic steps would include measuring the creatine kinase level, as well as obtaining an MRI of the leg to assess the nature and extent of the myopathy.

Multidisciplinary involvement, including hematology, rheumatology, and surgery, aided in narrowing the differential diagnosis. On hospital day 10, an MRI of the left thigh was performed for suspicion of diabetic myonecrosis (Figure 4). The MRI revealed a 10 cm × 3.6 cm × 22 cm intramuscular hematoma in the belly of the vastus lateralis muscle with associated soft tissue swelling, overlying subcutaneous edema, and skin thickening that was suggestive of hemorrhagic diabetic myonecrosis with some atypical features. A rheumatology consult was requested to evaluate for possible vasculitis in the left lower extremity, and vasculitis was not considered likely. The diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis with associated intramuscular hemorrhage secondary to apixaban was made after careful reconsideration of the clinical presentation, imaging and laboratory data, and overall picture. Based on the clinical findings, imaging results, and exclusion of alternative causative pathologies of thigh swelling, no biopsy was performed, as it was not considered necessary to make the diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis. The patient was discharged on hospital day 11 and was doing well. She followed up with her primary care doctor and has regained normal function of her leg.

Diabetic myonecrosis, or diabetic muscle infarction, is an uncommon nontraumatic myopathy that occurs in patients with diabetes who develop acute, focal muscle pain without recent trauma. In this case, the muscle infarction was further complicated by hemorrhagic transformation. Diabetic myonecrosis is relatively uncommon and a diagnosis made by combining history, examination, and laboratory findings and excluding other alternative conditions.

A clear schema for approaching the patient with acute, nontraumatic myopathies is important in avoiding diagnostic error. One effective schema is to divide myopathy into infectious and noninfectious categories. Causes of infectious myopathy include bacterial infections (eg, pyomyositis), inflammatory damage to muscles associated with viruses (eg, influenza), as well as rarer causes. Bacterial processes tend to be relatively focal and affect a specific muscle group or anatomic compartment, while viral causes are often more diffuse and occur in the context of a systemic viral syndrome. Bacterial causes range in severity, and life-threatening conditions, such as necrotizing soft tissue infection, must be considered. In this case, bacterial causes were less likely given the patient’s lack of fever, leukocytosis, and systemic signs of infection.^1,2 However, these findings are not uniformly sensitive, and clinicians should not exclude potentially life- or limb-threatening infections without thorough evaluation. For example, pyomyositis may present without fever in the subacute stage, without leukocytosis if the patient is immunocompromised, and without overt pus if the infection is not in the suppurative stage.³ Viral causes were made less likely in this patient given the lack of a current or recent systemic viral syndrome.

Once infectious etiologies are deemed unlikely, noninfectious etiologies for nontraumatic myopathies should be considered. Some causes of noninfectious myopathy present with the muscle symptoms as a predominant feature, while others present in the context of another illness such as cancer, metabolic disorders, or other systemic disorders. Many noninfectious causes of myopathy associated with systemic illnesses have diffuse or relatively diffuse symptoms, with pain and/or weakness in multiple muscle groups, often in a bilateral distribution. Such examples include dermatomyositis and polymyositis as well as myositis associated with other rheumatologic conditions. Nontraumatic rhabdomyolysis is diffuse and can occur in association with medications and/or genetic conditions.

Angervall and Stener⁴ first described diabetic myonecrosis in 1965 as tumoriform focal muscular degeneration due to diabetic microangiopathy. The most commonly affected muscle groups in diabetic myonecrosis are the anterior thigh, calf, and posterior thigh, followed by muscles in the upper extremities.⁵ Patients with diabetic myonecrosis have an overall mean age at presentation of 44.6 years; affected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus present at a mean age nearly 20 years younger than those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (35.9 years vs 52.2 years, respectively).⁶ Patients tend to have a long (often >15 years) history of diabetes with microvascular complications such as retinopathy (reported in 71%), nephropathy (reported in 57%), and/or neuropathy (reported in 55%).⁷

The mainstay of the diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis is a thorough history and physical examination and imaging. Routine laboratory evaluation is relatively unhelpful in diagnosing diabetic myonecrosis, but appropriate imaging can provide valuable supportive information. A CT scan and MRI are both helpful in excluding other etiologies as well as identifying features consistent with diabetic myonecrosis. A CT scan can help exclude a localized abscess, tumor, or bone destruction and, in affected patients, may show increased subcutaneous attenuation and increased muscle size with decreased attenuation secondary to edema.² However, a CT scan may not give optimal assessment of muscle tissue, and therefore MRI may need to be considered. MRI T2 images have a sensitivity nearing 90% for detecting myonecrosis.¹ The diagnostic value of MRI often obviates the need for muscle biopsy.

Spontaneous infarction with hemorrhagic features seen on imaging can be explained by a combination of damage from atherosclerotic or microvascular disease, an activated coagulation cascade, and an impaired fibrinolytic pathway.⁸ Hemorrhagic conversion in diabetic myonecrosis appears to be uncommon.⁹ In our case, we suspect that it developed because of the combination of bleeding risk from apixaban and the underlying mechanisms of diabetic myonecrosis.

The treatment of diabetic myonecrosis is mainly supportive, with an emphasis on rest, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, antiplatelet agents, and strict glycemic control.¹⁰ There is conflicting information about the value of limb immobilization versus active physical therapy as appropriate treatment modalities.¹¹ Patients who present with clinical concern for sepsis or compartment syndrome require consultation for consideration of acute surgical intervention.¹⁰ The short-term prognosis is promising with supportive therapy, but the condition may recur.¹² The recurrence rate may be as high as 40%, with a 2-year mortality of 10%.¹³ Ultimately, patients need to be followed closely in the outpatient setting to reduce the risk of recurrence.

In this patient, the simultaneous occurrence of focal pain and acute blood loss anemia led to a diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis that was complicated by hemorrhagic conversion, a truly painful coincidence. The patient underwent a thorough evaluation for acute blood loss before the diagnosis was ultimately made. Clinicians should consider diabetic myonecrosis in patients with diabetes who present with acute muscle pain but no evidence of infection.

• Diabetic myonecrosis is an underrecognized entity and should be included in the differential diagnosis for patients with diabetes who present with acute muscle pain and no history of trauma.
• Imaging with CT and/or MRI of the affected region is the mainstay of diagnosis; treatment is predicated on severity and risk factors and can range from conservative therapy to operative intervention.
• Although the prognosis is good in these patients, careful outpatient follow-up is necessary to oversee their recovery to help reduce the risk of recurrence.

The authors thank Dr Vijay Singh for his radiology input on image selection for this manuscript.

This icon represents the patient’s case. Each paragraph that follows represents the discussant’s thoughts.

An 81-year-old woman with a remote history of left proximal femoral fracture (status post–open reduction and internal fixation) acutely developed severe pain in her left lateral thigh while at her home. A few days prior to her left thigh pain, the patient had routine blood work done. Her lab results (prior to the onset of her symptoms) revealed that her hemoglobin decreased from 10 g/dL, noted 9 months earlier, to 6.6 g/dL. Her primary care physician, who was planning to see the patient for her next regularly scheduled follow-up, was made aware of the patient’s decline in hemoglobin prior to the planned visit. The primary care physician called the patient to inform her about her concerning lab findings and coincidentally became aware of the acute, new-onset left thigh pain. The primary care physician requested that the patient be taken by her daughter to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation.

The acute decrease in hemoglobin carries a broad differential and may or may not be related to the subsequent development of thigh pain. The presentation of an acute onset of pain in the thigh within the context of this patient’s age and gender suggests a femur fracture; this can be osteoporosis-related or a pathologic fracture associated with malignancy. Several malignancies are plausible, including multiple myeloma (given the anemia) or breast cancer. The proximal part of long bones is the most common site of pathologic fractures, and the femur accounts for half of these cases. Plain radiographs would be appropriate initial imaging and may be followed by either a computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

In the ED, she denied any recent trauma, hemoptysis, recent dark or bloody stools, vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain, or history of gastric ulcers. She had not experienced any similar episodes of thigh pain in the past. She had a history of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2 with diabetic retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy, osteoporosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and internal hemorrhoids. Her medications included apixaban, metoprolol succinate, metformin, losartan, sitagliptin, calcium, vitamin D, alendronate, and fish oil. She had mild tenderness to palpation of her thigh, but her exam was otherwise normal. Radiography of the left hip and pelvis showed no acute fracture (Figure 1). An upper and lower endoscopy 3 years prior to her presentation revealed internal hemorrhoids.

The patient is taking apixaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor. The absence of other obvious sources of bleeding suggests that the cause of anemia and pain is most likely bleeding into the anterior thigh compartment, exacerbated by the underlying anticoagulation. Since there was no trauma preceding this episode, the differential diagnosis must be expanded to include other, less common sources of bleeding, including a vascular anomaly such as a pseudoaneurysm or arteriovenous malformation. While the radiographs were normal, a CT scan or MRI may allow for identification of a fracture, other bone lesion, and/or hematoma.

A complete blood count revealed a hemoglobin of 6.6 g/dL (normal, 11.5-14.1 g/dL) with a mean corpuscular volume of 62 fL (normal, 79-96 fL). A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast (Figure 2) was obtained to evaluate for intra-abdominal hemorrhage and retroperitoneal hematoma; it showed mild abdominal and pelvic ascites, a small right pleural effusion with compressive atelectasis, and generalized anasarca, but no evidence of bleeding. She was administered 2 units of packed red blood cells. Apixaban was held and 40 mg intravenous pantoprazole twice daily was started. Her iron level was 12 µg/dL (normal, 50-170 µg/dL); total iron-binding capacity (TIBC) was 431 µg/dL (normal, 179-378 µg/dL); and ferritin level was 19 ng/mL (normal, 10-204 ng/mL). Her basic metabolic panel, liver enzymes, international normalized ratio, partial thromboplastin time, and folate were normal. Serum vitamin B₁₂ level was 277 pg/mL (normal, 213-816 pg/mL), and the reticulocyte count was 1.7%.

Myopathies can be hereditary or acquired. Hereditary myopathies include congenital myopathies, muscular dystrophies, channelopathies, primary metabolic myopathies, and mitochondrial myopathies. Acquired myopathies include infectious myopathies, inflammatory myopathies, endocrine myopathies, secondary metabolic myopathies, and drug-induced and toxic myopathies. The findings of hemorrhagic myositis and skin edema are very intriguing, especially given their localized features. An overt femur fracture was previously ruled out, and an anterior thigh compartment syndrome was considered less likely after orthopedic surgery consultation. There is no description of the patient taking medications that could cause myopathy (such as statins), and there are also no clinical features suggestive of primary inflammatory myopathy, such as dermatomyositis. Increased suspicion of a focal inflammatory process such as localized scleroderma with regional inflammatory myopathy or another focal myopathy must be considered. The next diagnostic steps would include measuring the creatine kinase level, as well as obtaining an MRI of the leg to assess the nature and extent of the myopathy.

Multidisciplinary involvement, including hematology, rheumatology, and surgery, aided in narrowing the differential diagnosis. On hospital day 10, an MRI of the left thigh was performed for suspicion of diabetic myonecrosis (Figure 4). The MRI revealed a 10 cm × 3.6 cm × 22 cm intramuscular hematoma in the belly of the vastus lateralis muscle with associated soft tissue swelling, overlying subcutaneous edema, and skin thickening that was suggestive of hemorrhagic diabetic myonecrosis with some atypical features. A rheumatology consult was requested to evaluate for possible vasculitis in the left lower extremity, and vasculitis was not considered likely. The diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis with associated intramuscular hemorrhage secondary to apixaban was made after careful reconsideration of the clinical presentation, imaging and laboratory data, and overall picture. Based on the clinical findings, imaging results, and exclusion of alternative causative pathologies of thigh swelling, no biopsy was performed, as it was not considered necessary to make the diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis. The patient was discharged on hospital day 11 and was doing well. She followed up with her primary care doctor and has regained normal function of her leg.

Diabetic myonecrosis, or diabetic muscle infarction, is an uncommon nontraumatic myopathy that occurs in patients with diabetes who develop acute, focal muscle pain without recent trauma. In this case, the muscle infarction was further complicated by hemorrhagic transformation. Diabetic myonecrosis is relatively uncommon and a diagnosis made by combining history, examination, and laboratory findings and excluding other alternative conditions.

A clear schema for approaching the patient with acute, nontraumatic myopathies is important in avoiding diagnostic error. One effective schema is to divide myopathy into infectious and noninfectious categories. Causes of infectious myopathy include bacterial infections (eg, pyomyositis), inflammatory damage to muscles associated with viruses (eg, influenza), as well as rarer causes. Bacterial processes tend to be relatively focal and affect a specific muscle group or anatomic compartment, while viral causes are often more diffuse and occur in the context of a systemic viral syndrome. Bacterial causes range in severity, and life-threatening conditions, such as necrotizing soft tissue infection, must be considered. In this case, bacterial causes were less likely given the patient’s lack of fever, leukocytosis, and systemic signs of infection.^1,2 However, these findings are not uniformly sensitive, and clinicians should not exclude potentially life- or limb-threatening infections without thorough evaluation. For example, pyomyositis may present without fever in the subacute stage, without leukocytosis if the patient is immunocompromised, and without overt pus if the infection is not in the suppurative stage.³ Viral causes were made less likely in this patient given the lack of a current or recent systemic viral syndrome.

Once infectious etiologies are deemed unlikely, noninfectious etiologies for nontraumatic myopathies should be considered. Some causes of noninfectious myopathy present with the muscle symptoms as a predominant feature, while others present in the context of another illness such as cancer, metabolic disorders, or other systemic disorders. Many noninfectious causes of myopathy associated with systemic illnesses have diffuse or relatively diffuse symptoms, with pain and/or weakness in multiple muscle groups, often in a bilateral distribution. Such examples include dermatomyositis and polymyositis as well as myositis associated with other rheumatologic conditions. Nontraumatic rhabdomyolysis is diffuse and can occur in association with medications and/or genetic conditions.

Angervall and Stener⁴ first described diabetic myonecrosis in 1965 as tumoriform focal muscular degeneration due to diabetic microangiopathy. The most commonly affected muscle groups in diabetic myonecrosis are the anterior thigh, calf, and posterior thigh, followed by muscles in the upper extremities.⁵ Patients with diabetic myonecrosis have an overall mean age at presentation of 44.6 years; affected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus present at a mean age nearly 20 years younger than those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (35.9 years vs 52.2 years, respectively).⁶ Patients tend to have a long (often >15 years) history of diabetes with microvascular complications such as retinopathy (reported in 71%), nephropathy (reported in 57%), and/or neuropathy (reported in 55%).⁷

The mainstay of the diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis is a thorough history and physical examination and imaging. Routine laboratory evaluation is relatively unhelpful in diagnosing diabetic myonecrosis, but appropriate imaging can provide valuable supportive information. A CT scan and MRI are both helpful in excluding other etiologies as well as identifying features consistent with diabetic myonecrosis. A CT scan can help exclude a localized abscess, tumor, or bone destruction and, in affected patients, may show increased subcutaneous attenuation and increased muscle size with decreased attenuation secondary to edema.² However, a CT scan may not give optimal assessment of muscle tissue, and therefore MRI may need to be considered. MRI T2 images have a sensitivity nearing 90% for detecting myonecrosis.¹ The diagnostic value of MRI often obviates the need for muscle biopsy.

Spontaneous infarction with hemorrhagic features seen on imaging can be explained by a combination of damage from atherosclerotic or microvascular disease, an activated coagulation cascade, and an impaired fibrinolytic pathway.⁸ Hemorrhagic conversion in diabetic myonecrosis appears to be uncommon.⁹ In our case, we suspect that it developed because of the combination of bleeding risk from apixaban and the underlying mechanisms of diabetic myonecrosis.

The treatment of diabetic myonecrosis is mainly supportive, with an emphasis on rest, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, antiplatelet agents, and strict glycemic control.¹⁰ There is conflicting information about the value of limb immobilization versus active physical therapy as appropriate treatment modalities.¹¹ Patients who present with clinical concern for sepsis or compartment syndrome require consultation for consideration of acute surgical intervention.¹⁰ The short-term prognosis is promising with supportive therapy, but the condition may recur.¹² The recurrence rate may be as high as 40%, with a 2-year mortality of 10%.¹³ Ultimately, patients need to be followed closely in the outpatient setting to reduce the risk of recurrence.

In this patient, the simultaneous occurrence of focal pain and acute blood loss anemia led to a diagnosis of diabetic myonecrosis that was complicated by hemorrhagic conversion, a truly painful coincidence. The patient underwent a thorough evaluation for acute blood loss before the diagnosis was ultimately made. Clinicians should consider diabetic myonecrosis in patients with diabetes who present with acute muscle pain but no evidence of infection.

• Diabetic myonecrosis is an underrecognized entity and should be included in the differential diagnosis for patients with diabetes who present with acute muscle pain and no history of trauma.
• Imaging with CT and/or MRI of the affected region is the mainstay of diagnosis; treatment is predicated on severity and risk factors and can range from conservative therapy to operative intervention.
• Although the prognosis is good in these patients, careful outpatient follow-up is necessary to oversee their recovery to help reduce the risk of recurrence.

The authors thank Dr Vijay Singh for his radiology input on image selection for this manuscript.

The police shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Wisconsin man, during an arrest in August 2020, led to more protests in a summer filled with calls against the unequal application of police force. Outrage grew as it was revealed that Blake, paralyzed from his waist down and not yet convicted of a crime, was still handcuffed to his hospital bed while receiving treatment.¹ To many this seemed unusually cruel, but to those tasked with caring for incarcerated patients, it is all too familiar. Given the high rates of incarceration in the United States and the increased medical needs of this population, caring for those in custody is unavoidable for many physicians and hospitals. Though safety should be paramount, the universal application of metal handcuffs or leg cuffs by law enforcement officials, a process known as shackling, can lead to a variety of harms and should be abandoned.

The United States incarcerates more individuals both in total numbers and per capita than any other country in the world. This is currently believed to be more than two million people on any given day or more than 650 persons per 100,000 population.² Incarceration occurs in jails, which are locally run facilities holding individuals on short sentences or those not yet convicted who are unable to afford bail before their trials (pretrial), or prisons, which are state and federally run facilities that house those with long sentences. When an incarcerated person experiences a medical emergency requiring hospitalization, they are either treated in the correctional facility or transferred to a local hospital for a higher level of care. Some hospitals are equipped with security measures similar to those of a correctional facility, with secure floors or wings dedicated solely to the care of the incarcerated. Secure units are more commonly seen in hospitals associated with prisons rather than local jails. Other hospitals house incarcerated patients in the same rooms as the public population, and thus movement is restricted by other means.³ Most commonly, this is done with a hard metal shackle resembling a handcuff with one end attached to the leg or wrist and the other end attached to the bed. Some agencies require more restraints, often requiring the use of wrist cuffs and leg cuffs concurrently for the entire duration of a patient’s hospitalization.⁴ In our experience, agencies apply these restraints universally, regardless of age, illness, mobility, or pretrial status.

Restraint practices are rooted in a concern for practitioner and public safety and bear merit. A patient from a correctional facility is usually guarded by just one officer in lieu of the multiple security measures at a jail or prison facility. Nonsecured hospitals have become sites of multiple escapes by incarcerated inpatients, given the lack of secured doors and the multiple movements during the admission and discharge processes.⁵ Furthermore, violence against hospital staff is now a focus issue in many hospitals and is no longer accepted as just “part of the job.” In several high-profile incidents, incarcerated inpatients have harmed staff, including one at our own institution, when an incarcerated patient held a makeshift weapon to a student’s throat.⁶

The use of shackles during hospital visits has been challenged in US courts and routinely upheld. In one case, an incarcerated patient with renal failure received injuries after his leg edema was so severe that “at one point the shackles themselves were barely visible.”⁷ Though he was injured, the shackles were determined to have served a penological purpose outside of punishment, such as preventing escape, and the injuries were the result of the patient’s guards not following protocol. British courts have taken a different stance, ruling for an incarcerated patient who challenged the use of cuffs during three outpatient appointments and one inpatient admission.⁸ While the cuffs in the outpatient setting were deemed acceptable (as they were removed during the medical visit itself), they remained during the duration of the inpatient stay. This was deemed in violation of Title I/Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Dignity/The right to integrity of the person. One area in US healthcare where shackling has been roundly condemned is the peripartum shackling of pregnant women. Though courts have had a mixed record to challenges, activism and advocacy have led to the banning of the practice in 23 states, though in most states significant exemptions exist.⁹ Through the First Step Act of 2018, the federal government banned peripartum shackling for all federal prisoners, but as most incarcerations are under state or local control, a considerable number of incarcerated pregnant women can legally be shackled during their deliveries.

Legal and safety concerns aside, the shackling of incarcerated patients carries enormous risk. The use of medical restraints in hospitals has decreased over the past few decades, given their proven harms in increasing falls, exacerbating delirium, and increasing the risk of in-hospital death.¹⁰ There is no reason to believe that trading a soft medical restraint for a metal leg or wrist cuff would not confer the same risk. Additionally, metal law enforcement cuffs are not designed with patient safety in mind and have been known to cause specific nerve injuries, or handcuff neuropathy. This can occur when placement is too tight or when a patient struggles against them, as could happen with an agitated or delirious patient. The bar for removal, even briefly for an exam, is also much higher than that of a medical restraint, leading to a greater likelihood that certain aspects of the physical exam, such as gait or strength assessment, may not be adequately performed. In one small survey, British physicians reported often performing an exam while the patient was cuffed and with a guard in the room, despite country guidelines against both practices.¹¹

Additionally, marginalized communities are disproportionately incarcerated and have a fraught and tenuous relationship with the healthcare system. Black patients routinely report greater mistrust than White patients in the outcomes of care and the motivations of physicians, in large part due to past and current discrimination and the medical community’s history of experimentation.¹² A shackled patient may view a treating physician and hospital as complicit with the practice, rather than seeing the practice as something outside of their control. If a patient’s sole interaction with inpatient medicine involves shackling, it risks damaging whatever fragile physician-patient relationship may exist and could delay or limit care even further.

While the universal application of metal handcuffs or leg cuffs ensures low rates of escape or attacks on workers, it does so at the expense of vulnerable individuals. We have cared for an incarcerated elderly woman arrested for multiple traffic violations, a man with severe autism who slipped through the cracks of mental health diversion protocols and ended up in jail, and an arrested delirious man with severe alcohol withdrawal, all shackled with hard shackles on the wrists, legs, or in the final case, both. Safety and the rights of the vulnerable are not mutually exclusive, and we feel the following measures can protect both.

First, the universal application of shackles in the hospitalized incarcerated patient should end. If no alternative security measures are available for high-risk patients, correctional facilities must document their necessity as physicians and nurses are required to do for medical restraints. Hospitals should have processes in place for providers who feel unsafe with an unshackled patient or think a patient is unnecessarily shackled, and collegial discussions about shackling with law enforcement should be the norm. If safe to do so, shackles should routinely be removed for physical exams without question. Since law enforcement officials, rather than the hospitals, make the rules for shackling, this will take some degree of physician and administrative advocacy at the hospital level and legislative advocacy at the local and state levels.

Second, vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, those experiencing a mental health crisis, or others at risk for in-hospital delirium, should never be restrained with hard law enforcement cuffs. Restraint procedures should follow standard medical restraint procedures, and soft restraints should be used if at all possible. Given the high rates of psychiatric illness amongst the incarcerated and the role jails play in filling gaps in psychiatric care, medical admissions for those with mental illness are not rare occasions.

Finally, hospitals routinely taking care of an incarcerated population should seek to build secure units, a move that would dramatically reduce the need for shackling. In several cities, the primary referral hospitals for some of the largest jails in the country do not have units with the proper security to allow for freedom of movement, and thus, shackling persists. Creating secure units will take significant investment on the part of hospital and local authorities, but there is potential for decreasing costs due to consolidating supervision, which would lead to better patient outcomes given the above risks.

Advocating for the health of the incarcerated, even those who have not yet been convicted, is typically not a high priority for the general public. As inpatient physicians, we see the impact universal shackling has on some of our most vulnerable patients and should be their voice where they have none. Advocating for and implementing the above procedures will be a step toward improving patient care while maintaining safety.

The police shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Wisconsin man, during an arrest in August 2020, led to more protests in a summer filled with calls against the unequal application of police force. Outrage grew as it was revealed that Blake, paralyzed from his waist down and not yet convicted of a crime, was still handcuffed to his hospital bed while receiving treatment.¹ To many this seemed unusually cruel, but to those tasked with caring for incarcerated patients, it is all too familiar. Given the high rates of incarceration in the United States and the increased medical needs of this population, caring for those in custody is unavoidable for many physicians and hospitals. Though safety should be paramount, the universal application of metal handcuffs or leg cuffs by law enforcement officials, a process known as shackling, can lead to a variety of harms and should be abandoned.

The United States incarcerates more individuals both in total numbers and per capita than any other country in the world. This is currently believed to be more than two million people on any given day or more than 650 persons per 100,000 population.² Incarceration occurs in jails, which are locally run facilities holding individuals on short sentences or those not yet convicted who are unable to afford bail before their trials (pretrial), or prisons, which are state and federally run facilities that house those with long sentences. When an incarcerated person experiences a medical emergency requiring hospitalization, they are either treated in the correctional facility or transferred to a local hospital for a higher level of care. Some hospitals are equipped with security measures similar to those of a correctional facility, with secure floors or wings dedicated solely to the care of the incarcerated. Secure units are more commonly seen in hospitals associated with prisons rather than local jails. Other hospitals house incarcerated patients in the same rooms as the public population, and thus movement is restricted by other means.³ Most commonly, this is done with a hard metal shackle resembling a handcuff with one end attached to the leg or wrist and the other end attached to the bed. Some agencies require more restraints, often requiring the use of wrist cuffs and leg cuffs concurrently for the entire duration of a patient’s hospitalization.⁴ In our experience, agencies apply these restraints universally, regardless of age, illness, mobility, or pretrial status.

Restraint practices are rooted in a concern for practitioner and public safety and bear merit. A patient from a correctional facility is usually guarded by just one officer in lieu of the multiple security measures at a jail or prison facility. Nonsecured hospitals have become sites of multiple escapes by incarcerated inpatients, given the lack of secured doors and the multiple movements during the admission and discharge processes.⁵ Furthermore, violence against hospital staff is now a focus issue in many hospitals and is no longer accepted as just “part of the job.” In several high-profile incidents, incarcerated inpatients have harmed staff, including one at our own institution, when an incarcerated patient held a makeshift weapon to a student’s throat.⁶

The use of shackles during hospital visits has been challenged in US courts and routinely upheld. In one case, an incarcerated patient with renal failure received injuries after his leg edema was so severe that “at one point the shackles themselves were barely visible.”⁷ Though he was injured, the shackles were determined to have served a penological purpose outside of punishment, such as preventing escape, and the injuries were the result of the patient’s guards not following protocol. British courts have taken a different stance, ruling for an incarcerated patient who challenged the use of cuffs during three outpatient appointments and one inpatient admission.⁸ While the cuffs in the outpatient setting were deemed acceptable (as they were removed during the medical visit itself), they remained during the duration of the inpatient stay. This was deemed in violation of Title I/Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Dignity/The right to integrity of the person. One area in US healthcare where shackling has been roundly condemned is the peripartum shackling of pregnant women. Though courts have had a mixed record to challenges, activism and advocacy have led to the banning of the practice in 23 states, though in most states significant exemptions exist.⁹ Through the First Step Act of 2018, the federal government banned peripartum shackling for all federal prisoners, but as most incarcerations are under state or local control, a considerable number of incarcerated pregnant women can legally be shackled during their deliveries.

Legal and safety concerns aside, the shackling of incarcerated patients carries enormous risk. The use of medical restraints in hospitals has decreased over the past few decades, given their proven harms in increasing falls, exacerbating delirium, and increasing the risk of in-hospital death.¹⁰ There is no reason to believe that trading a soft medical restraint for a metal leg or wrist cuff would not confer the same risk. Additionally, metal law enforcement cuffs are not designed with patient safety in mind and have been known to cause specific nerve injuries, or handcuff neuropathy. This can occur when placement is too tight or when a patient struggles against them, as could happen with an agitated or delirious patient. The bar for removal, even briefly for an exam, is also much higher than that of a medical restraint, leading to a greater likelihood that certain aspects of the physical exam, such as gait or strength assessment, may not be adequately performed. In one small survey, British physicians reported often performing an exam while the patient was cuffed and with a guard in the room, despite country guidelines against both practices.¹¹

Additionally, marginalized communities are disproportionately incarcerated and have a fraught and tenuous relationship with the healthcare system. Black patients routinely report greater mistrust than White patients in the outcomes of care and the motivations of physicians, in large part due to past and current discrimination and the medical community’s history of experimentation.¹² A shackled patient may view a treating physician and hospital as complicit with the practice, rather than seeing the practice as something outside of their control. If a patient’s sole interaction with inpatient medicine involves shackling, it risks damaging whatever fragile physician-patient relationship may exist and could delay or limit care even further.

While the universal application of metal handcuffs or leg cuffs ensures low rates of escape or attacks on workers, it does so at the expense of vulnerable individuals. We have cared for an incarcerated elderly woman arrested for multiple traffic violations, a man with severe autism who slipped through the cracks of mental health diversion protocols and ended up in jail, and an arrested delirious man with severe alcohol withdrawal, all shackled with hard shackles on the wrists, legs, or in the final case, both. Safety and the rights of the vulnerable are not mutually exclusive, and we feel the following measures can protect both.

First, the universal application of shackles in the hospitalized incarcerated patient should end. If no alternative security measures are available for high-risk patients, correctional facilities must document their necessity as physicians and nurses are required to do for medical restraints. Hospitals should have processes in place for providers who feel unsafe with an unshackled patient or think a patient is unnecessarily shackled, and collegial discussions about shackling with law enforcement should be the norm. If safe to do so, shackles should routinely be removed for physical exams without question. Since law enforcement officials, rather than the hospitals, make the rules for shackling, this will take some degree of physician and administrative advocacy at the hospital level and legislative advocacy at the local and state levels.

Second, vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, those experiencing a mental health crisis, or others at risk for in-hospital delirium, should never be restrained with hard law enforcement cuffs. Restraint procedures should follow standard medical restraint procedures, and soft restraints should be used if at all possible. Given the high rates of psychiatric illness amongst the incarcerated and the role jails play in filling gaps in psychiatric care, medical admissions for those with mental illness are not rare occasions.

Finally, hospitals routinely taking care of an incarcerated population should seek to build secure units, a move that would dramatically reduce the need for shackling. In several cities, the primary referral hospitals for some of the largest jails in the country do not have units with the proper security to allow for freedom of movement, and thus, shackling persists. Creating secure units will take significant investment on the part of hospital and local authorities, but there is potential for decreasing costs due to consolidating supervision, which would lead to better patient outcomes given the above risks.

Advocating for the health of the incarcerated, even those who have not yet been convicted, is typically not a high priority for the general public. As inpatient physicians, we see the impact universal shackling has on some of our most vulnerable patients and should be their voice where they have none. Advocating for and implementing the above procedures will be a step toward improving patient care while maintaining safety.

The police shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Wisconsin man, during an arrest in August 2020, led to more protests in a summer filled with calls against the unequal application of police force. Outrage grew as it was revealed that Blake, paralyzed from his waist down and not yet convicted of a crime, was still handcuffed to his hospital bed while receiving treatment.¹ To many this seemed unusually cruel, but to those tasked with caring for incarcerated patients, it is all too familiar. Given the high rates of incarceration in the United States and the increased medical needs of this population, caring for those in custody is unavoidable for many physicians and hospitals. Though safety should be paramount, the universal application of metal handcuffs or leg cuffs by law enforcement officials, a process known as shackling, can lead to a variety of harms and should be abandoned.

The United States incarcerates more individuals both in total numbers and per capita than any other country in the world. This is currently believed to be more than two million people on any given day or more than 650 persons per 100,000 population.² Incarceration occurs in jails, which are locally run facilities holding individuals on short sentences or those not yet convicted who are unable to afford bail before their trials (pretrial), or prisons, which are state and federally run facilities that house those with long sentences. When an incarcerated person experiences a medical emergency requiring hospitalization, they are either treated in the correctional facility or transferred to a local hospital for a higher level of care. Some hospitals are equipped with security measures similar to those of a correctional facility, with secure floors or wings dedicated solely to the care of the incarcerated. Secure units are more commonly seen in hospitals associated with prisons rather than local jails. Other hospitals house incarcerated patients in the same rooms as the public population, and thus movement is restricted by other means.³ Most commonly, this is done with a hard metal shackle resembling a handcuff with one end attached to the leg or wrist and the other end attached to the bed. Some agencies require more restraints, often requiring the use of wrist cuffs and leg cuffs concurrently for the entire duration of a patient’s hospitalization.⁴ In our experience, agencies apply these restraints universally, regardless of age, illness, mobility, or pretrial status.

Restraint practices are rooted in a concern for practitioner and public safety and bear merit. A patient from a correctional facility is usually guarded by just one officer in lieu of the multiple security measures at a jail or prison facility. Nonsecured hospitals have become sites of multiple escapes by incarcerated inpatients, given the lack of secured doors and the multiple movements during the admission and discharge processes.⁵ Furthermore, violence against hospital staff is now a focus issue in many hospitals and is no longer accepted as just “part of the job.” In several high-profile incidents, incarcerated inpatients have harmed staff, including one at our own institution, when an incarcerated patient held a makeshift weapon to a student’s throat.⁶

The use of shackles during hospital visits has been challenged in US courts and routinely upheld. In one case, an incarcerated patient with renal failure received injuries after his leg edema was so severe that “at one point the shackles themselves were barely visible.”⁷ Though he was injured, the shackles were determined to have served a penological purpose outside of punishment, such as preventing escape, and the injuries were the result of the patient’s guards not following protocol. British courts have taken a different stance, ruling for an incarcerated patient who challenged the use of cuffs during three outpatient appointments and one inpatient admission.⁸ While the cuffs in the outpatient setting were deemed acceptable (as they were removed during the medical visit itself), they remained during the duration of the inpatient stay. This was deemed in violation of Title I/Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Dignity/The right to integrity of the person. One area in US healthcare where shackling has been roundly condemned is the peripartum shackling of pregnant women. Though courts have had a mixed record to challenges, activism and advocacy have led to the banning of the practice in 23 states, though in most states significant exemptions exist.⁹ Through the First Step Act of 2018, the federal government banned peripartum shackling for all federal prisoners, but as most incarcerations are under state or local control, a considerable number of incarcerated pregnant women can legally be shackled during their deliveries.

Legal and safety concerns aside, the shackling of incarcerated patients carries enormous risk. The use of medical restraints in hospitals has decreased over the past few decades, given their proven harms in increasing falls, exacerbating delirium, and increasing the risk of in-hospital death.¹⁰ There is no reason to believe that trading a soft medical restraint for a metal leg or wrist cuff would not confer the same risk. Additionally, metal law enforcement cuffs are not designed with patient safety in mind and have been known to cause specific nerve injuries, or handcuff neuropathy. This can occur when placement is too tight or when a patient struggles against them, as could happen with an agitated or delirious patient. The bar for removal, even briefly for an exam, is also much higher than that of a medical restraint, leading to a greater likelihood that certain aspects of the physical exam, such as gait or strength assessment, may not be adequately performed. In one small survey, British physicians reported often performing an exam while the patient was cuffed and with a guard in the room, despite country guidelines against both practices.¹¹

Additionally, marginalized communities are disproportionately incarcerated and have a fraught and tenuous relationship with the healthcare system. Black patients routinely report greater mistrust than White patients in the outcomes of care and the motivations of physicians, in large part due to past and current discrimination and the medical community’s history of experimentation.¹² A shackled patient may view a treating physician and hospital as complicit with the practice, rather than seeing the practice as something outside of their control. If a patient’s sole interaction with inpatient medicine involves shackling, it risks damaging whatever fragile physician-patient relationship may exist and could delay or limit care even further.

While the universal application of metal handcuffs or leg cuffs ensures low rates of escape or attacks on workers, it does so at the expense of vulnerable individuals. We have cared for an incarcerated elderly woman arrested for multiple traffic violations, a man with severe autism who slipped through the cracks of mental health diversion protocols and ended up in jail, and an arrested delirious man with severe alcohol withdrawal, all shackled with hard shackles on the wrists, legs, or in the final case, both. Safety and the rights of the vulnerable are not mutually exclusive, and we feel the following measures can protect both.

First, the universal application of shackles in the hospitalized incarcerated patient should end. If no alternative security measures are available for high-risk patients, correctional facilities must document their necessity as physicians and nurses are required to do for medical restraints. Hospitals should have processes in place for providers who feel unsafe with an unshackled patient or think a patient is unnecessarily shackled, and collegial discussions about shackling with law enforcement should be the norm. If safe to do so, shackles should routinely be removed for physical exams without question. Since law enforcement officials, rather than the hospitals, make the rules for shackling, this will take some degree of physician and administrative advocacy at the hospital level and legislative advocacy at the local and state levels.

Second, vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, those experiencing a mental health crisis, or others at risk for in-hospital delirium, should never be restrained with hard law enforcement cuffs. Restraint procedures should follow standard medical restraint procedures, and soft restraints should be used if at all possible. Given the high rates of psychiatric illness amongst the incarcerated and the role jails play in filling gaps in psychiatric care, medical admissions for those with mental illness are not rare occasions.

Finally, hospitals routinely taking care of an incarcerated population should seek to build secure units, a move that would dramatically reduce the need for shackling. In several cities, the primary referral hospitals for some of the largest jails in the country do not have units with the proper security to allow for freedom of movement, and thus, shackling persists. Creating secure units will take significant investment on the part of hospital and local authorities, but there is potential for decreasing costs due to consolidating supervision, which would lead to better patient outcomes given the above risks.

Advocating for the health of the incarcerated, even those who have not yet been convicted, is typically not a high priority for the general public. As inpatient physicians, we see the impact universal shackling has on some of our most vulnerable patients and should be their voice where they have none. Advocating for and implementing the above procedures will be a step toward improving patient care while maintaining safety.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have issued a new report on medical ethics and professionalism in cardiovascular medicine.

The report addresses a variety of topics including diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; racial, ethnic and gender inequities; conflicts of interest; clinician well-being; data privacy; social justice; and modern health care delivery systems.

The 54-page report is based on the proceedings of the joint 2020 Consensus Conference on Professionalism and Ethics, held Oct. 19 and 20, 2020. It was published online May 11 in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

The 2020 consensus conference on professionalism and ethics came at a time even more fraught than the eras of the three previous meetings on the same topics, held in 1989, 1997, and 2004, the writing group notes.

“We have seen the COVID-19 pandemic challenge the physical and economic health of the entire country, coupled with a series of national tragedies that have awakened the call for social justice,” conference cochair C. Michael Valentine, MD, said in a news release.

“There is no better time than now to review, evaluate, and take a fresh perspective on medical ethics and professionalism,” said Dr. Valentine, professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“We hope this report will provide cardiovascular professionals and health systems with the recommendations and tools they need to address conflicts of interest; racial, ethnic, and gender inequities; and improve diversity, inclusion, and wellness among our workforce,” Dr. Valentine added. “The majority of our members are now employed and must be engaged as the leaders for change in cardiovascular care.”
 

Road map to improve diversity, achieve allyship

The writing committee was made up of a diverse group of cardiologists, internists, and associated health care professionals and laypeople and was organized into five task forces, each addressing a specific topic: conflicts of interest; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; clinician well-being; patient autonomy, privacy, and social justice in health care; and modern health care delivery.

The report serves as a road map to achieve equity, inclusion, and belonging among cardiovascular professionals and calls for ongoing assessment of the professional culture and climate, focused on improving diversity and achieving effective allyship, the writing group says.

The report proposes continuous training to address individual, structural, and systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism.

It offers recommendations for championing equity in patient care that include an annual review of practice records to look for differences in patient treatment by race, ethnicity, zip code, and primary language.

The report calls for a foundation of training in allyship and antiracism as part of medical school course requirements and experiences: A required course on social justice, race, and racism as part of the first-year curriculum; school programs and professional organizations supporting students, trainees, and members in allyship and antiracism action; and facilitating immersion and partnership with surrounding communities.

“As much as 80% of a person’s health is determined by the social and economic conditions of their environment,” consensus cochair Ivor Benjamin, MD, said in the release.

“To achieve social justice and mitigate health disparities, we must go to the margins and shift our discussions to be inclusive of populations such as rural and marginalized groups from the perspective of health equity lens for all,” said Dr. Benjamin, professor of medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The report also highlights the need for psychosocial support of the cardiovascular community and recommends that health care organizations prioritize regular assessment of clinicians’ well-being and engagement.

It also recommends addressing the well-being of trainees in postgraduate training programs and calls for an ombudsman program that allows for confidential reporting of mistreatment and access to support.

The report also highlights additional opportunities to:

• improve the efficiency of health information technology, such as electronic health records, and reduce the administrative burden
• identify and assist clinicians who experience mental health conditions, , or 
• emphasize patient autonomy using shared decision-making and patient-centered care that is supportive of the individual patient’s values
• increase privacy protections for patient data used in research
• maintain integrity as new ways of delivering care, such as telemedicine, team-based care approaches, and physician-owned specialty centers emerge
• perform routine audits of electronic health records to promote optimal patient care, as well as ethical medical practice
• expand and make mandatory the reporting of intellectual or associational interests in addition to relationships with industry

The report’s details and recommendations will be presented and discussed Saturday, May 15, at 8:00 AM ET, during ACC.21. The session is titled Diversity and Equity: The Means to Expand Inclusion and Belonging.

The AHA will present a live webinar and six-episode podcast series (available on demand) to highlight the report’s details, dialogue, and actionable steps for cardiovascular and health care professionals, researchers, and educators.

This research had no commercial funding. The list of 40 volunteer committee members and coauthors, including their disclosures, are listed in the original report.

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

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have issued a new report on medical ethics and professionalism in cardiovascular medicine.

The report addresses a variety of topics including diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; racial, ethnic and gender inequities; conflicts of interest; clinician well-being; data privacy; social justice; and modern health care delivery systems.

The 54-page report is based on the proceedings of the joint 2020 Consensus Conference on Professionalism and Ethics, held Oct. 19 and 20, 2020. It was published online May 11 in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

The 2020 consensus conference on professionalism and ethics came at a time even more fraught than the eras of the three previous meetings on the same topics, held in 1989, 1997, and 2004, the writing group notes.

“We have seen the COVID-19 pandemic challenge the physical and economic health of the entire country, coupled with a series of national tragedies that have awakened the call for social justice,” conference cochair C. Michael Valentine, MD, said in a news release.

“There is no better time than now to review, evaluate, and take a fresh perspective on medical ethics and professionalism,” said Dr. Valentine, professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“We hope this report will provide cardiovascular professionals and health systems with the recommendations and tools they need to address conflicts of interest; racial, ethnic, and gender inequities; and improve diversity, inclusion, and wellness among our workforce,” Dr. Valentine added. “The majority of our members are now employed and must be engaged as the leaders for change in cardiovascular care.”
 

Road map to improve diversity, achieve allyship

The writing committee was made up of a diverse group of cardiologists, internists, and associated health care professionals and laypeople and was organized into five task forces, each addressing a specific topic: conflicts of interest; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; clinician well-being; patient autonomy, privacy, and social justice in health care; and modern health care delivery.

The report serves as a road map to achieve equity, inclusion, and belonging among cardiovascular professionals and calls for ongoing assessment of the professional culture and climate, focused on improving diversity and achieving effective allyship, the writing group says.

The report proposes continuous training to address individual, structural, and systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism.

It offers recommendations for championing equity in patient care that include an annual review of practice records to look for differences in patient treatment by race, ethnicity, zip code, and primary language.

The report calls for a foundation of training in allyship and antiracism as part of medical school course requirements and experiences: A required course on social justice, race, and racism as part of the first-year curriculum; school programs and professional organizations supporting students, trainees, and members in allyship and antiracism action; and facilitating immersion and partnership with surrounding communities.

“As much as 80% of a person’s health is determined by the social and economic conditions of their environment,” consensus cochair Ivor Benjamin, MD, said in the release.

“To achieve social justice and mitigate health disparities, we must go to the margins and shift our discussions to be inclusive of populations such as rural and marginalized groups from the perspective of health equity lens for all,” said Dr. Benjamin, professor of medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The report also highlights the need for psychosocial support of the cardiovascular community and recommends that health care organizations prioritize regular assessment of clinicians’ well-being and engagement.

It also recommends addressing the well-being of trainees in postgraduate training programs and calls for an ombudsman program that allows for confidential reporting of mistreatment and access to support.

The report also highlights additional opportunities to:

• improve the efficiency of health information technology, such as electronic health records, and reduce the administrative burden
• identify and assist clinicians who experience mental health conditions, , or 
• emphasize patient autonomy using shared decision-making and patient-centered care that is supportive of the individual patient’s values
• increase privacy protections for patient data used in research
• maintain integrity as new ways of delivering care, such as telemedicine, team-based care approaches, and physician-owned specialty centers emerge
• perform routine audits of electronic health records to promote optimal patient care, as well as ethical medical practice
• expand and make mandatory the reporting of intellectual or associational interests in addition to relationships with industry

The report’s details and recommendations will be presented and discussed Saturday, May 15, at 8:00 AM ET, during ACC.21. The session is titled Diversity and Equity: The Means to Expand Inclusion and Belonging.

The AHA will present a live webinar and six-episode podcast series (available on demand) to highlight the report’s details, dialogue, and actionable steps for cardiovascular and health care professionals, researchers, and educators.

This research had no commercial funding. The list of 40 volunteer committee members and coauthors, including their disclosures, are listed in the original report.

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

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have issued a new report on medical ethics and professionalism in cardiovascular medicine.

The report addresses a variety of topics including diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; racial, ethnic and gender inequities; conflicts of interest; clinician well-being; data privacy; social justice; and modern health care delivery systems.

The 54-page report is based on the proceedings of the joint 2020 Consensus Conference on Professionalism and Ethics, held Oct. 19 and 20, 2020. It was published online May 11 in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

The 2020 consensus conference on professionalism and ethics came at a time even more fraught than the eras of the three previous meetings on the same topics, held in 1989, 1997, and 2004, the writing group notes.

“We have seen the COVID-19 pandemic challenge the physical and economic health of the entire country, coupled with a series of national tragedies that have awakened the call for social justice,” conference cochair C. Michael Valentine, MD, said in a news release.

“There is no better time than now to review, evaluate, and take a fresh perspective on medical ethics and professionalism,” said Dr. Valentine, professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“We hope this report will provide cardiovascular professionals and health systems with the recommendations and tools they need to address conflicts of interest; racial, ethnic, and gender inequities; and improve diversity, inclusion, and wellness among our workforce,” Dr. Valentine added. “The majority of our members are now employed and must be engaged as the leaders for change in cardiovascular care.”
 

Road map to improve diversity, achieve allyship

The writing committee was made up of a diverse group of cardiologists, internists, and associated health care professionals and laypeople and was organized into five task forces, each addressing a specific topic: conflicts of interest; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; clinician well-being; patient autonomy, privacy, and social justice in health care; and modern health care delivery.

The report serves as a road map to achieve equity, inclusion, and belonging among cardiovascular professionals and calls for ongoing assessment of the professional culture and climate, focused on improving diversity and achieving effective allyship, the writing group says.

The report proposes continuous training to address individual, structural, and systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism.

It offers recommendations for championing equity in patient care that include an annual review of practice records to look for differences in patient treatment by race, ethnicity, zip code, and primary language.

The report calls for a foundation of training in allyship and antiracism as part of medical school course requirements and experiences: A required course on social justice, race, and racism as part of the first-year curriculum; school programs and professional organizations supporting students, trainees, and members in allyship and antiracism action; and facilitating immersion and partnership with surrounding communities.

“As much as 80% of a person’s health is determined by the social and economic conditions of their environment,” consensus cochair Ivor Benjamin, MD, said in the release.

“To achieve social justice and mitigate health disparities, we must go to the margins and shift our discussions to be inclusive of populations such as rural and marginalized groups from the perspective of health equity lens for all,” said Dr. Benjamin, professor of medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The report also highlights the need for psychosocial support of the cardiovascular community and recommends that health care organizations prioritize regular assessment of clinicians’ well-being and engagement.

It also recommends addressing the well-being of trainees in postgraduate training programs and calls for an ombudsman program that allows for confidential reporting of mistreatment and access to support.

The report also highlights additional opportunities to:

• improve the efficiency of health information technology, such as electronic health records, and reduce the administrative burden
• identify and assist clinicians who experience mental health conditions, , or 
• emphasize patient autonomy using shared decision-making and patient-centered care that is supportive of the individual patient’s values
• increase privacy protections for patient data used in research
• maintain integrity as new ways of delivering care, such as telemedicine, team-based care approaches, and physician-owned specialty centers emerge
• perform routine audits of electronic health records to promote optimal patient care, as well as ethical medical practice
• expand and make mandatory the reporting of intellectual or associational interests in addition to relationships with industry

The report’s details and recommendations will be presented and discussed Saturday, May 15, at 8:00 AM ET, during ACC.21. The session is titled Diversity and Equity: The Means to Expand Inclusion and Belonging.

The AHA will present a live webinar and six-episode podcast series (available on demand) to highlight the report’s details, dialogue, and actionable steps for cardiovascular and health care professionals, researchers, and educators.

This research had no commercial funding. The list of 40 volunteer committee members and coauthors, including their disclosures, are listed in the original report.

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

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have a greater than 10% risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, and the use of prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) has been proposed as a preventative measure.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

However, the use of prophylactic HD-MTX did not improve CNS or survival outcomes of patients with high-risk DLBCL, but instead was associated with increased toxicities, according to the results of a retrospective study by Hyehyun Jeong, MD, of University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues.

The researchers evaluated the effects of prophylactic HD-MTX on CNS relapse and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)–treated patients with high-risk DLBCL. The assessment was based on the initial treatment intent (ITT) of the physician on the use of prophylactic HD-MTX.

A total of 5,130 patients were classified into an ITT HD-MTX group and an equal number into a non-ITT HD-MTX group, according to the report, published online in Blood Advances.

Equivalent results

The study showed that the CNS relapse rate was not significantly different between the two groups, with 2-year CNS relapse rates of 12.4% and 13.9%, respectively (P = .96). Three-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates in the ITT HD-MTX and non-ITT HD-MTX groups were 62.4% vs. 64.5% (P = .94) and 71.7% vs. 71.4% (P = .7), respectively. In addition, the propensity score–matched analyses showed no significant differences in the time-to-CNS relapse, progression-free survival, or overall survival, according to the researchers.

One key concern, however, was the increase in toxicity seen in the HD-MTX group. In this study, the ITT HD-MTX group had a statistically higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, a marker for liver damage. In addition, the ITT HD-MTX group tended to have a higher incidence of elevated creatinine levels during treatment compared with the non-ITT HD-MTX group.

The HD-MTX group also showed a more common treatment delay or a dose reduction in R-CHOP, which might be attributable to toxicities related to intercalated HD-MTX treatments between R-CHOP cycles, the researchers suggested, potentially resulting in a reduced dose intensity of R-CHOP that could play a role in the lack of an observed survival benefit with additional HD-MTX.

“Another vital issue to consider is that HD-MTX treatment requires hospitalization because intensive hydration and leucovorin rescue is needed, which increases the medical costs,” the authors added.

“This real-world experience, which is unique in its scope and analytical methods, should provide insightful information on the role of HD-MTX prophylaxis to help guide current practice, given the lack of prospective clinical evidence in this patient population,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have a greater than 10% risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, and the use of prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) has been proposed as a preventative measure.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

However, the use of prophylactic HD-MTX did not improve CNS or survival outcomes of patients with high-risk DLBCL, but instead was associated with increased toxicities, according to the results of a retrospective study by Hyehyun Jeong, MD, of University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues.

The researchers evaluated the effects of prophylactic HD-MTX on CNS relapse and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)–treated patients with high-risk DLBCL. The assessment was based on the initial treatment intent (ITT) of the physician on the use of prophylactic HD-MTX.

A total of 5,130 patients were classified into an ITT HD-MTX group and an equal number into a non-ITT HD-MTX group, according to the report, published online in Blood Advances.

Equivalent results

The study showed that the CNS relapse rate was not significantly different between the two groups, with 2-year CNS relapse rates of 12.4% and 13.9%, respectively (P = .96). Three-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates in the ITT HD-MTX and non-ITT HD-MTX groups were 62.4% vs. 64.5% (P = .94) and 71.7% vs. 71.4% (P = .7), respectively. In addition, the propensity score–matched analyses showed no significant differences in the time-to-CNS relapse, progression-free survival, or overall survival, according to the researchers.

One key concern, however, was the increase in toxicity seen in the HD-MTX group. In this study, the ITT HD-MTX group had a statistically higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, a marker for liver damage. In addition, the ITT HD-MTX group tended to have a higher incidence of elevated creatinine levels during treatment compared with the non-ITT HD-MTX group.

The HD-MTX group also showed a more common treatment delay or a dose reduction in R-CHOP, which might be attributable to toxicities related to intercalated HD-MTX treatments between R-CHOP cycles, the researchers suggested, potentially resulting in a reduced dose intensity of R-CHOP that could play a role in the lack of an observed survival benefit with additional HD-MTX.

“Another vital issue to consider is that HD-MTX treatment requires hospitalization because intensive hydration and leucovorin rescue is needed, which increases the medical costs,” the authors added.

“This real-world experience, which is unique in its scope and analytical methods, should provide insightful information on the role of HD-MTX prophylaxis to help guide current practice, given the lack of prospective clinical evidence in this patient population,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have a greater than 10% risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, and the use of prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) has been proposed as a preventative measure.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

However, the use of prophylactic HD-MTX did not improve CNS or survival outcomes of patients with high-risk DLBCL, but instead was associated with increased toxicities, according to the results of a retrospective study by Hyehyun Jeong, MD, of University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues.

The researchers evaluated the effects of prophylactic HD-MTX on CNS relapse and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)–treated patients with high-risk DLBCL. The assessment was based on the initial treatment intent (ITT) of the physician on the use of prophylactic HD-MTX.

A total of 5,130 patients were classified into an ITT HD-MTX group and an equal number into a non-ITT HD-MTX group, according to the report, published online in Blood Advances.

Equivalent results

The study showed that the CNS relapse rate was not significantly different between the two groups, with 2-year CNS relapse rates of 12.4% and 13.9%, respectively (P = .96). Three-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates in the ITT HD-MTX and non-ITT HD-MTX groups were 62.4% vs. 64.5% (P = .94) and 71.7% vs. 71.4% (P = .7), respectively. In addition, the propensity score–matched analyses showed no significant differences in the time-to-CNS relapse, progression-free survival, or overall survival, according to the researchers.

One key concern, however, was the increase in toxicity seen in the HD-MTX group. In this study, the ITT HD-MTX group had a statistically higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, a marker for liver damage. In addition, the ITT HD-MTX group tended to have a higher incidence of elevated creatinine levels during treatment compared with the non-ITT HD-MTX group.

The HD-MTX group also showed a more common treatment delay or a dose reduction in R-CHOP, which might be attributable to toxicities related to intercalated HD-MTX treatments between R-CHOP cycles, the researchers suggested, potentially resulting in a reduced dose intensity of R-CHOP that could play a role in the lack of an observed survival benefit with additional HD-MTX.

“Another vital issue to consider is that HD-MTX treatment requires hospitalization because intensive hydration and leucovorin rescue is needed, which increases the medical costs,” the authors added.

“This real-world experience, which is unique in its scope and analytical methods, should provide insightful information on the role of HD-MTX prophylaxis to help guide current practice, given the lack of prospective clinical evidence in this patient population,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

Have you ever had a nightmare you’re running late? Recently I dreamt I was seeing patients on a ship, a little cruiser like the ones that give you tours of Boston Harbor, with low ceilings and narrow iron stairs. My nurse stood where what would have been the coffee and danish window. My first patient was a newborn (this was a nightmare, in case you forgot) who was enormous. She had a big belly and spindly legs that hung off the table. Uniform, umbilicated papules and pustules covered her body. At the sight of her, terror ripped through me – no clue. I rushed to the doctor lounge (nice the ship had one) and flipped channels on a little TV mounted on the ceiling. Suddenly, my nurse burst in, she was frantic because dozens of angry adults and crying children were crammed in the hallway. Apparently, I had been watching TV for hours and my whole clinic was now backed up.

Running-late dreams are common and usually relate to real life. For us, the clinic has been busy lately. Vaccinated patients are returning after a year with their skin cancers that have flourished and psoriasis covering them like kudzu. Staying on time has been difficult. Yet, despite the challenge, some of my colleagues manage easily. Why are they always on time? I talked to a few to get insight. In particular, they “see the floor” better than other docs and therefore make continual adjustments to stay on pace. At its essence, they are using super-powers of observation to make decisions. It reminded me of a podcast about court awareness and great passers in basketball like the Charlotte Hornets’ LaMelo Ball and NBA great, Bill Bradley.

Bradley had an extraordinary ability to know where all the players were, and where they would be, at any given moment. He spent years honing this skill, noticing details in store windows as he stared straight ahead walking down a street. It’s reported his peripheral vision extended 5%-15% wider than average and he used it to gather more information and to process it more quickly. As a result he made outstanding decisions and fast, ultimately earning a spot in the Hall of Fame in Springfield.

Hall of Fame clinicians similarly take in a wider view than others and process that information quickly. They know how much time they have spent in the room, sense the emotional needs of the patient and anticipate the complexity of the problem. They quickly get to the critical questions and examinations that will make the diagnosis. They know the experience and skill of their medical assistant. They know the level of difficulty and even the temperament of patients who lie ahead on the schedule. All this is processed and used in moment-to-moment decision making. Do I sit down or stand up now? Can I excise this today, or reschedule? Do I ask another question? Do I step out of this room and see another in parallel while this biopsy is set up? And always, do I dare ask about grandkids or do I politely move on?

By broadening out their vision, they optimize their clinic, providing the best possible service, whether the day is busy or slow. I found their economy of motion also means they are less exhausted at the end of the day. I bet if when they dream of being on a ship, they’re sipping a Mai Tai, lounging on the deck.

For more on Bill Bradley and becoming more observant about your surroundings, you might appreciate the following:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/01/23/a-sense-of-where-you-are and freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-mindfulness/

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.

Have you ever had a nightmare you’re running late? Recently I dreamt I was seeing patients on a ship, a little cruiser like the ones that give you tours of Boston Harbor, with low ceilings and narrow iron stairs. My nurse stood where what would have been the coffee and danish window. My first patient was a newborn (this was a nightmare, in case you forgot) who was enormous. She had a big belly and spindly legs that hung off the table. Uniform, umbilicated papules and pustules covered her body. At the sight of her, terror ripped through me – no clue. I rushed to the doctor lounge (nice the ship had one) and flipped channels on a little TV mounted on the ceiling. Suddenly, my nurse burst in, she was frantic because dozens of angry adults and crying children were crammed in the hallway. Apparently, I had been watching TV for hours and my whole clinic was now backed up.

Running-late dreams are common and usually relate to real life. For us, the clinic has been busy lately. Vaccinated patients are returning after a year with their skin cancers that have flourished and psoriasis covering them like kudzu. Staying on time has been difficult. Yet, despite the challenge, some of my colleagues manage easily. Why are they always on time? I talked to a few to get insight. In particular, they “see the floor” better than other docs and therefore make continual adjustments to stay on pace. At its essence, they are using super-powers of observation to make decisions. It reminded me of a podcast about court awareness and great passers in basketball like the Charlotte Hornets’ LaMelo Ball and NBA great, Bill Bradley.

Bradley had an extraordinary ability to know where all the players were, and where they would be, at any given moment. He spent years honing this skill, noticing details in store windows as he stared straight ahead walking down a street. It’s reported his peripheral vision extended 5%-15% wider than average and he used it to gather more information and to process it more quickly. As a result he made outstanding decisions and fast, ultimately earning a spot in the Hall of Fame in Springfield.

Hall of Fame clinicians similarly take in a wider view than others and process that information quickly. They know how much time they have spent in the room, sense the emotional needs of the patient and anticipate the complexity of the problem. They quickly get to the critical questions and examinations that will make the diagnosis. They know the experience and skill of their medical assistant. They know the level of difficulty and even the temperament of patients who lie ahead on the schedule. All this is processed and used in moment-to-moment decision making. Do I sit down or stand up now? Can I excise this today, or reschedule? Do I ask another question? Do I step out of this room and see another in parallel while this biopsy is set up? And always, do I dare ask about grandkids or do I politely move on?

By broadening out their vision, they optimize their clinic, providing the best possible service, whether the day is busy or slow. I found their economy of motion also means they are less exhausted at the end of the day. I bet if when they dream of being on a ship, they’re sipping a Mai Tai, lounging on the deck.

For more on Bill Bradley and becoming more observant about your surroundings, you might appreciate the following:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/01/23/a-sense-of-where-you-are and freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-mindfulness/

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.

Have you ever had a nightmare you’re running late? Recently I dreamt I was seeing patients on a ship, a little cruiser like the ones that give you tours of Boston Harbor, with low ceilings and narrow iron stairs. My nurse stood where what would have been the coffee and danish window. My first patient was a newborn (this was a nightmare, in case you forgot) who was enormous. She had a big belly and spindly legs that hung off the table. Uniform, umbilicated papules and pustules covered her body. At the sight of her, terror ripped through me – no clue. I rushed to the doctor lounge (nice the ship had one) and flipped channels on a little TV mounted on the ceiling. Suddenly, my nurse burst in, she was frantic because dozens of angry adults and crying children were crammed in the hallway. Apparently, I had been watching TV for hours and my whole clinic was now backed up.

Running-late dreams are common and usually relate to real life. For us, the clinic has been busy lately. Vaccinated patients are returning after a year with their skin cancers that have flourished and psoriasis covering them like kudzu. Staying on time has been difficult. Yet, despite the challenge, some of my colleagues manage easily. Why are they always on time? I talked to a few to get insight. In particular, they “see the floor” better than other docs and therefore make continual adjustments to stay on pace. At its essence, they are using super-powers of observation to make decisions. It reminded me of a podcast about court awareness and great passers in basketball like the Charlotte Hornets’ LaMelo Ball and NBA great, Bill Bradley.

Bradley had an extraordinary ability to know where all the players were, and where they would be, at any given moment. He spent years honing this skill, noticing details in store windows as he stared straight ahead walking down a street. It’s reported his peripheral vision extended 5%-15% wider than average and he used it to gather more information and to process it more quickly. As a result he made outstanding decisions and fast, ultimately earning a spot in the Hall of Fame in Springfield.

Hall of Fame clinicians similarly take in a wider view than others and process that information quickly. They know how much time they have spent in the room, sense the emotional needs of the patient and anticipate the complexity of the problem. They quickly get to the critical questions and examinations that will make the diagnosis. They know the experience and skill of their medical assistant. They know the level of difficulty and even the temperament of patients who lie ahead on the schedule. All this is processed and used in moment-to-moment decision making. Do I sit down or stand up now? Can I excise this today, or reschedule? Do I ask another question? Do I step out of this room and see another in parallel while this biopsy is set up? And always, do I dare ask about grandkids or do I politely move on?

By broadening out their vision, they optimize their clinic, providing the best possible service, whether the day is busy or slow. I found their economy of motion also means they are less exhausted at the end of the day. I bet if when they dream of being on a ship, they’re sipping a Mai Tai, lounging on the deck.

For more on Bill Bradley and becoming more observant about your surroundings, you might appreciate the following:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/01/23/a-sense-of-where-you-are and freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-mindfulness/

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.

The health disparities seen in today’s high rates of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality are rooted in health inequities and generational stress dating back centuries in the United States, but today’s obstetricians can make changes in their own practices to address this inequity, according to Haywood L. Brown, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and associate dean of diversity at the Morsani College of Medicine and vice president of institutional equity at the University of South Florida, Tampa.

Dr. Brown delivered his remarks during the Benson and Pamela Harer Seminar on History at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on May 2. His talk focused on the origins of perinatal and maternal health inequities and how those original factors play out today in increased maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality among Black women and their babies.

“Racial and ethnic disparities and inequity in maternal and child health are prevalent and persistent. We have to move beyond the documentation,” Dr. Brown told attendees. “We have to adopt uniform care standards, recognizing our own biases and understanding that the contribution of social determinants of health are important in the care and outcome of women. And we have to work on decreasing the stress of women who give birth.”

Evelyn Nicole Mitchell, MD, faculty chair of the ob.gyn. diversity and inclusion committee at the University of Southern California, found Dr. Brown’s talk compelling and hopes it opens the eyes of others who attended.

“You really have to understand the why behind the problems we have, and it really goes back to slavery and this historical distrust that’s been here from the beginning,” Dr. Mitchell said in an interview. “I hope this allows people to open their eyes and think about this situation from their patients’ shoes, to really put their guard down and explore, ‘how can I contribute to fixing this system that has been here from the beginning?’ I think a lot of people get defensive and think: ‘Oh, I’m not a racist. I just don’t want to talk about this,’ but it’s about a system being racist.” The question then, Dr. Mitchell said, is: “So how do I contribute to that system?”

Dr. Brown frequently returned to the theme of high stress levels in Black mothers contributing to poorer outcomes, such as preterm birth. That stress arises originally from the generational stress brought on by racism and oppression over the centuries but has been compounded by poverty, racial injustice, lack of access to adequate nutrition, lower education levels, environmental factors, and other determinants of health.

“The bottom line, as Dr. Brown said, is that we need to decrease the stress level of Black mothers giving birth,” Dr. Mitchell said. “How can I, as a provider, decrease the stress level of my patients? Well, No. 1, I can identify and eliminate implicit bias that I may harbor.”
 

Slavery husbandry laid the groundwork for today

The most surprising aspect of Dr. Brown’s lecture for Dr. Mitchell was the fact that enslaved women received a measure of protection that other enslaved people did not to “ensure that they were healthy and that they were able to reproduce in the future,” Dr. Mitchell said. “It was for the wrong reasons – to keep slavery going – but in a sense they were prioritizing Black women to take advantage of their reproductive capacity, compared to nowadays where Black women are facing severe disparities.”

To safeguard enslaved women’s fecundity, plantation owners attempted to reduce stressors in the women’s lives, such as allowing them to cohabitate with a husband and nuclear family, though sexual assault and abuse still occurred. The owners also tracked the enslaved girls’ menstrual cycles after menarche to maximize their “breeding” potential, especially between the ages of 15 and 24. Slave owners delegated older enslaved women as maternity caregivers and midwives, leading to the passing down of midwifery skills through generations of Black American women.

“Pregnant women received the best medical care on the plantation because of the premium placed on reproduction,” Dr. Brown said. Wealthier planters called in doctors for complicated deliveries, which provided J. Marian Sims the ability conduct surgical experiments on Betsey, Lucy, and Anarcha to treat vesicovaginal fistula since fistula “limited her ability to do the maximum work she could in the house or on the plantation,” Dr. Brown said.

After slavery ended, health care access did not improve for Black people. In 1920, there was approximately 1 Black physician for every 3,000 Black people, compared with 1 in 500 for the White population, and grannie midwives continued to be the primary birthing attendants for Black women. Over the next several decades, however, both maternal and infant mortality across all races began steeply dropping. Reasons for the drop included the incorporation of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1930, a shift from home births to hospital births, and the legalization of abortion, which led to an 89% decline in deaths from septic illegal abortions from 1950 to 1973.

Still, Black maternal and infant mortality remained higher than White, and the poverty gap further exacerbated outcomes.

“Substandard maternity care really is the origin of many of the Black maternal and infant morbidity and mortality” complications, such as low birth weight, small for gestational age, growth restriction, and intrauterine starvation, “which we now believe are the origin of things like hypertension, diabetes, and obesity,” Dr. Brown said.

Today, inequities persist because of the systemic racism throughout this history.

“As we talk about health disparities, prematurity, growth restriction, and maternal morbidity, the fetal origins for adult disease in diabetes and hypertension and obesity have generational implications over the last 400 years,” Dr. Brown said. “Generational stress and stresses in lack women from slavery to present times are some of the origins of the things that we see today, including segregation, economic inequities, eugenic sterilizations, the quality of education, and of course, systemic racism on health care access and quality.”

It is this long arc of history that Dr. Mitchell hopes attendees will begin to grasp.

“If you don’t understand all that and have that depth, there’s no way for you to truly understand the problems that are going on and how to solve them,” Dr. Mitchell said. She hopes that especially those who have been more “resistant to accepting these truths” can start to see the big picture. “Hopefully, they can look at it as a systemic problem and then focus on how they can change the system.”

Dr Brown is a contributor to UpToDate and the Merck Manual and serves on the advisory boards of Merck for Mothers Global Women’s Health and BabyScripts. Dr. Mitchell has no disclosures.

The health disparities seen in today’s high rates of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality are rooted in health inequities and generational stress dating back centuries in the United States, but today’s obstetricians can make changes in their own practices to address this inequity, according to Haywood L. Brown, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and associate dean of diversity at the Morsani College of Medicine and vice president of institutional equity at the University of South Florida, Tampa.

Dr. Brown delivered his remarks during the Benson and Pamela Harer Seminar on History at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on May 2. His talk focused on the origins of perinatal and maternal health inequities and how those original factors play out today in increased maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality among Black women and their babies.

“Racial and ethnic disparities and inequity in maternal and child health are prevalent and persistent. We have to move beyond the documentation,” Dr. Brown told attendees. “We have to adopt uniform care standards, recognizing our own biases and understanding that the contribution of social determinants of health are important in the care and outcome of women. And we have to work on decreasing the stress of women who give birth.”

Evelyn Nicole Mitchell, MD, faculty chair of the ob.gyn. diversity and inclusion committee at the University of Southern California, found Dr. Brown’s talk compelling and hopes it opens the eyes of others who attended.

“You really have to understand the why behind the problems we have, and it really goes back to slavery and this historical distrust that’s been here from the beginning,” Dr. Mitchell said in an interview. “I hope this allows people to open their eyes and think about this situation from their patients’ shoes, to really put their guard down and explore, ‘how can I contribute to fixing this system that has been here from the beginning?’ I think a lot of people get defensive and think: ‘Oh, I’m not a racist. I just don’t want to talk about this,’ but it’s about a system being racist.” The question then, Dr. Mitchell said, is: “So how do I contribute to that system?”

Dr. Brown frequently returned to the theme of high stress levels in Black mothers contributing to poorer outcomes, such as preterm birth. That stress arises originally from the generational stress brought on by racism and oppression over the centuries but has been compounded by poverty, racial injustice, lack of access to adequate nutrition, lower education levels, environmental factors, and other determinants of health.

“The bottom line, as Dr. Brown said, is that we need to decrease the stress level of Black mothers giving birth,” Dr. Mitchell said. “How can I, as a provider, decrease the stress level of my patients? Well, No. 1, I can identify and eliminate implicit bias that I may harbor.”
 

Slavery husbandry laid the groundwork for today

The most surprising aspect of Dr. Brown’s lecture for Dr. Mitchell was the fact that enslaved women received a measure of protection that other enslaved people did not to “ensure that they were healthy and that they were able to reproduce in the future,” Dr. Mitchell said. “It was for the wrong reasons – to keep slavery going – but in a sense they were prioritizing Black women to take advantage of their reproductive capacity, compared to nowadays where Black women are facing severe disparities.”

To safeguard enslaved women’s fecundity, plantation owners attempted to reduce stressors in the women’s lives, such as allowing them to cohabitate with a husband and nuclear family, though sexual assault and abuse still occurred. The owners also tracked the enslaved girls’ menstrual cycles after menarche to maximize their “breeding” potential, especially between the ages of 15 and 24. Slave owners delegated older enslaved women as maternity caregivers and midwives, leading to the passing down of midwifery skills through generations of Black American women.

“Pregnant women received the best medical care on the plantation because of the premium placed on reproduction,” Dr. Brown said. Wealthier planters called in doctors for complicated deliveries, which provided J. Marian Sims the ability conduct surgical experiments on Betsey, Lucy, and Anarcha to treat vesicovaginal fistula since fistula “limited her ability to do the maximum work she could in the house or on the plantation,” Dr. Brown said.

After slavery ended, health care access did not improve for Black people. In 1920, there was approximately 1 Black physician for every 3,000 Black people, compared with 1 in 500 for the White population, and grannie midwives continued to be the primary birthing attendants for Black women. Over the next several decades, however, both maternal and infant mortality across all races began steeply dropping. Reasons for the drop included the incorporation of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1930, a shift from home births to hospital births, and the legalization of abortion, which led to an 89% decline in deaths from septic illegal abortions from 1950 to 1973.

Still, Black maternal and infant mortality remained higher than White, and the poverty gap further exacerbated outcomes.

“Substandard maternity care really is the origin of many of the Black maternal and infant morbidity and mortality” complications, such as low birth weight, small for gestational age, growth restriction, and intrauterine starvation, “which we now believe are the origin of things like hypertension, diabetes, and obesity,” Dr. Brown said.

Today, inequities persist because of the systemic racism throughout this history.

“As we talk about health disparities, prematurity, growth restriction, and maternal morbidity, the fetal origins for adult disease in diabetes and hypertension and obesity have generational implications over the last 400 years,” Dr. Brown said. “Generational stress and stresses in lack women from slavery to present times are some of the origins of the things that we see today, including segregation, economic inequities, eugenic sterilizations, the quality of education, and of course, systemic racism on health care access and quality.”

It is this long arc of history that Dr. Mitchell hopes attendees will begin to grasp.

“If you don’t understand all that and have that depth, there’s no way for you to truly understand the problems that are going on and how to solve them,” Dr. Mitchell said. She hopes that especially those who have been more “resistant to accepting these truths” can start to see the big picture. “Hopefully, they can look at it as a systemic problem and then focus on how they can change the system.”

Dr Brown is a contributor to UpToDate and the Merck Manual and serves on the advisory boards of Merck for Mothers Global Women’s Health and BabyScripts. Dr. Mitchell has no disclosures.

The health disparities seen in today’s high rates of Black infant and maternal morbidity and mortality are rooted in health inequities and generational stress dating back centuries in the United States, but today’s obstetricians can make changes in their own practices to address this inequity, according to Haywood L. Brown, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and associate dean of diversity at the Morsani College of Medicine and vice president of institutional equity at the University of South Florida, Tampa.

Dr. Brown delivered his remarks during the Benson and Pamela Harer Seminar on History at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on May 2. His talk focused on the origins of perinatal and maternal health inequities and how those original factors play out today in increased maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality among Black women and their babies.

“Racial and ethnic disparities and inequity in maternal and child health are prevalent and persistent. We have to move beyond the documentation,” Dr. Brown told attendees. “We have to adopt uniform care standards, recognizing our own biases and understanding that the contribution of social determinants of health are important in the care and outcome of women. And we have to work on decreasing the stress of women who give birth.”

Evelyn Nicole Mitchell, MD, faculty chair of the ob.gyn. diversity and inclusion committee at the University of Southern California, found Dr. Brown’s talk compelling and hopes it opens the eyes of others who attended.

“You really have to understand the why behind the problems we have, and it really goes back to slavery and this historical distrust that’s been here from the beginning,” Dr. Mitchell said in an interview. “I hope this allows people to open their eyes and think about this situation from their patients’ shoes, to really put their guard down and explore, ‘how can I contribute to fixing this system that has been here from the beginning?’ I think a lot of people get defensive and think: ‘Oh, I’m not a racist. I just don’t want to talk about this,’ but it’s about a system being racist.” The question then, Dr. Mitchell said, is: “So how do I contribute to that system?”

Dr. Brown frequently returned to the theme of high stress levels in Black mothers contributing to poorer outcomes, such as preterm birth. That stress arises originally from the generational stress brought on by racism and oppression over the centuries but has been compounded by poverty, racial injustice, lack of access to adequate nutrition, lower education levels, environmental factors, and other determinants of health.

“The bottom line, as Dr. Brown said, is that we need to decrease the stress level of Black mothers giving birth,” Dr. Mitchell said. “How can I, as a provider, decrease the stress level of my patients? Well, No. 1, I can identify and eliminate implicit bias that I may harbor.”
 

Slavery husbandry laid the groundwork for today

The most surprising aspect of Dr. Brown’s lecture for Dr. Mitchell was the fact that enslaved women received a measure of protection that other enslaved people did not to “ensure that they were healthy and that they were able to reproduce in the future,” Dr. Mitchell said. “It was for the wrong reasons – to keep slavery going – but in a sense they were prioritizing Black women to take advantage of their reproductive capacity, compared to nowadays where Black women are facing severe disparities.”

To safeguard enslaved women’s fecundity, plantation owners attempted to reduce stressors in the women’s lives, such as allowing them to cohabitate with a husband and nuclear family, though sexual assault and abuse still occurred. The owners also tracked the enslaved girls’ menstrual cycles after menarche to maximize their “breeding” potential, especially between the ages of 15 and 24. Slave owners delegated older enslaved women as maternity caregivers and midwives, leading to the passing down of midwifery skills through generations of Black American women.

“Pregnant women received the best medical care on the plantation because of the premium placed on reproduction,” Dr. Brown said. Wealthier planters called in doctors for complicated deliveries, which provided J. Marian Sims the ability conduct surgical experiments on Betsey, Lucy, and Anarcha to treat vesicovaginal fistula since fistula “limited her ability to do the maximum work she could in the house or on the plantation,” Dr. Brown said.

After slavery ended, health care access did not improve for Black people. In 1920, there was approximately 1 Black physician for every 3,000 Black people, compared with 1 in 500 for the White population, and grannie midwives continued to be the primary birthing attendants for Black women. Over the next several decades, however, both maternal and infant mortality across all races began steeply dropping. Reasons for the drop included the incorporation of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1930, a shift from home births to hospital births, and the legalization of abortion, which led to an 89% decline in deaths from septic illegal abortions from 1950 to 1973.

Still, Black maternal and infant mortality remained higher than White, and the poverty gap further exacerbated outcomes.

“Substandard maternity care really is the origin of many of the Black maternal and infant morbidity and mortality” complications, such as low birth weight, small for gestational age, growth restriction, and intrauterine starvation, “which we now believe are the origin of things like hypertension, diabetes, and obesity,” Dr. Brown said.

Today, inequities persist because of the systemic racism throughout this history.

“As we talk about health disparities, prematurity, growth restriction, and maternal morbidity, the fetal origins for adult disease in diabetes and hypertension and obesity have generational implications over the last 400 years,” Dr. Brown said. “Generational stress and stresses in lack women from slavery to present times are some of the origins of the things that we see today, including segregation, economic inequities, eugenic sterilizations, the quality of education, and of course, systemic racism on health care access and quality.”

It is this long arc of history that Dr. Mitchell hopes attendees will begin to grasp.

“If you don’t understand all that and have that depth, there’s no way for you to truly understand the problems that are going on and how to solve them,” Dr. Mitchell said. She hopes that especially those who have been more “resistant to accepting these truths” can start to see the big picture. “Hopefully, they can look at it as a systemic problem and then focus on how they can change the system.”

Dr Brown is a contributor to UpToDate and the Merck Manual and serves on the advisory boards of Merck for Mothers Global Women’s Health and BabyScripts. Dr. Mitchell has no disclosures.

Evidence summary

No difference in overall hypoglycemia risk between glargine and NPH

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 RCTs compared efficacy and safety outcomes for insulin glargine, NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations, and insulin detemir in 12,669 adults with type 2 ­diabetes (T2D) who were also taking an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD).¹ In the comparison of glargine to NPH, there was no difference in risk for hypoglycemia (5 trials; N not provided; risk ratio [RR] = 0.92; 0.84-1.001).

Symptomatic hypoglycemia (6 RCTs; RR = 0.89; 0.83-0.96) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (6 RCTs; RR = 0.63; 0.51-0.77) occurred significantly less frequently in those treated with glargine and an OAD compared to NPH and an OAD. The risk for severe hypoglycemia was not different between regimens (5 RCTs; RR = 0.76; 0.47-1.23). Weight gain was also similar (6 RCTs; weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.36 kg [–0.12 to 0.84]). This review was limited by the fact that many of the trials were of moderate quality, the majority were funded by pharmaceutical companies, fasting glucose goals varied between trials, and some trials had a short duration (6 months).

There may be some advantages of glargine over NPH

A 2008 meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (5 of which were not included in the 2015 review) with 4385 patients with T2D compared fasting plasma glucose (FPG), A1C, hypoglycemia, and body weight for patients treated with NPH vs with glargine.² Researchers found a significant difference in patient-reported hypoglycemia (10 trials; N not provided; 59% vs 53%; P < .001), symptomatic hypoglycemia (6 trials; 51% vs 43%; P < .0001), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (8 trials; 33% vs 19%; P < .001), favoring glargine over NPH. However, there was no difference between these 2 groups in confirmed hypoglycemia (2 trials; 10% vs 6.3%; P = .11) or severe hypoglycemia (7 trials; 2.4% vs 1.4%; P = .07). Of note, there was no difference between groups in FPG or A1C and a smaller weight gain in the NPH group (6 trials; WMD = 0.33 kg; 95% CI, –0.61 to –0.06). This review did not assess potential biases in the included trials.

Other results indicate a significant benefit from glargine

A 2014 RCT (published after the systematic review search date) compared hypoglycemia risk between NPH and glargine in 1017 adults ages 30 to 70 years who’d had T2D for at least 1 year.³ Patients were randomized to receive an OAD paired with either once-daily glargine or twice-daily NPH. Insulin doses were titrated over the first 3 years of the study to achieve standard glycemic control (described as FPG < 120 mg/dL; this goal was changed to < 100 mg/dL after the first year).

Over 5 years, once-daily glargine resulted in a significantly lower risk for all symptomatic hypoglycemia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and for any severe event (OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95) compared to NPH. Using a logistic regression model, the authors predicted that if 25 patients were treated with NPH instead of glargine, 1 additional patient would experience at least 1 severe hypoglycemic event. This trial was funded by a pharmaceutical company.

Hypoglycemia requiring hospital care was similar for basal insulin and NPH

A 2018 retrospective observational study (N = 25,489) analyzed the association between the initiation of basal insulin analogs vs NPH with hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions.⁴ Adults older than 19 years with clinically recognized diabetes were identified using electronic medical records; those included in the analysis had newly initiated basal insulin therapy during the prior 12 months. Data was gathered via chart review.

The difference in ED visits or hospital admissions was not different between groups (mean difference = 3.1 events per 100 person-years; 95% CI, –1.5 to 7.7). Among 4428 patients matched by propensity score, there was again no difference for hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions with insulin analog use (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.71-1.78).

Editor’s takeaway

Meta-analysis of large RCTs shows the glargine insulin adverse effects profile, specifically nonsevere hypoglycemia, to be inconsistently better than NPH. These small differences, plus once-daily dosing, may encourage prescribing of analog basal insulin, but price and the need for more than once-daily dosing remain worthy considerations.

Evidence summary

No difference in overall hypoglycemia risk between glargine and NPH

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 RCTs compared efficacy and safety outcomes for insulin glargine, NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations, and insulin detemir in 12,669 adults with type 2 ­diabetes (T2D) who were also taking an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD).¹ In the comparison of glargine to NPH, there was no difference in risk for hypoglycemia (5 trials; N not provided; risk ratio [RR] = 0.92; 0.84-1.001).

Symptomatic hypoglycemia (6 RCTs; RR = 0.89; 0.83-0.96) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (6 RCTs; RR = 0.63; 0.51-0.77) occurred significantly less frequently in those treated with glargine and an OAD compared to NPH and an OAD. The risk for severe hypoglycemia was not different between regimens (5 RCTs; RR = 0.76; 0.47-1.23). Weight gain was also similar (6 RCTs; weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.36 kg [–0.12 to 0.84]). This review was limited by the fact that many of the trials were of moderate quality, the majority were funded by pharmaceutical companies, fasting glucose goals varied between trials, and some trials had a short duration (6 months).

There may be some advantages of glargine over NPH

A 2008 meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (5 of which were not included in the 2015 review) with 4385 patients with T2D compared fasting plasma glucose (FPG), A1C, hypoglycemia, and body weight for patients treated with NPH vs with glargine.² Researchers found a significant difference in patient-reported hypoglycemia (10 trials; N not provided; 59% vs 53%; P < .001), symptomatic hypoglycemia (6 trials; 51% vs 43%; P < .0001), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (8 trials; 33% vs 19%; P < .001), favoring glargine over NPH. However, there was no difference between these 2 groups in confirmed hypoglycemia (2 trials; 10% vs 6.3%; P = .11) or severe hypoglycemia (7 trials; 2.4% vs 1.4%; P = .07). Of note, there was no difference between groups in FPG or A1C and a smaller weight gain in the NPH group (6 trials; WMD = 0.33 kg; 95% CI, –0.61 to –0.06). This review did not assess potential biases in the included trials.

Other results indicate a significant benefit from glargine

A 2014 RCT (published after the systematic review search date) compared hypoglycemia risk between NPH and glargine in 1017 adults ages 30 to 70 years who’d had T2D for at least 1 year.³ Patients were randomized to receive an OAD paired with either once-daily glargine or twice-daily NPH. Insulin doses were titrated over the first 3 years of the study to achieve standard glycemic control (described as FPG < 120 mg/dL; this goal was changed to < 100 mg/dL after the first year).

Over 5 years, once-daily glargine resulted in a significantly lower risk for all symptomatic hypoglycemia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and for any severe event (OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95) compared to NPH. Using a logistic regression model, the authors predicted that if 25 patients were treated with NPH instead of glargine, 1 additional patient would experience at least 1 severe hypoglycemic event. This trial was funded by a pharmaceutical company.

Hypoglycemia requiring hospital care was similar for basal insulin and NPH

A 2018 retrospective observational study (N = 25,489) analyzed the association between the initiation of basal insulin analogs vs NPH with hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions.⁴ Adults older than 19 years with clinically recognized diabetes were identified using electronic medical records; those included in the analysis had newly initiated basal insulin therapy during the prior 12 months. Data was gathered via chart review.

The difference in ED visits or hospital admissions was not different between groups (mean difference = 3.1 events per 100 person-years; 95% CI, –1.5 to 7.7). Among 4428 patients matched by propensity score, there was again no difference for hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions with insulin analog use (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.71-1.78).

Editor’s takeaway

Meta-analysis of large RCTs shows the glargine insulin adverse effects profile, specifically nonsevere hypoglycemia, to be inconsistently better than NPH. These small differences, plus once-daily dosing, may encourage prescribing of analog basal insulin, but price and the need for more than once-daily dosing remain worthy considerations.

Evidence summary

No difference in overall hypoglycemia risk between glargine and NPH

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 RCTs compared efficacy and safety outcomes for insulin glargine, NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations, and insulin detemir in 12,669 adults with type 2 ­diabetes (T2D) who were also taking an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD).¹ In the comparison of glargine to NPH, there was no difference in risk for hypoglycemia (5 trials; N not provided; risk ratio [RR] = 0.92; 0.84-1.001).

Symptomatic hypoglycemia (6 RCTs; RR = 0.89; 0.83-0.96) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (6 RCTs; RR = 0.63; 0.51-0.77) occurred significantly less frequently in those treated with glargine and an OAD compared to NPH and an OAD. The risk for severe hypoglycemia was not different between regimens (5 RCTs; RR = 0.76; 0.47-1.23). Weight gain was also similar (6 RCTs; weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.36 kg [–0.12 to 0.84]). This review was limited by the fact that many of the trials were of moderate quality, the majority were funded by pharmaceutical companies, fasting glucose goals varied between trials, and some trials had a short duration (6 months).

There may be some advantages of glargine over NPH

A 2008 meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (5 of which were not included in the 2015 review) with 4385 patients with T2D compared fasting plasma glucose (FPG), A1C, hypoglycemia, and body weight for patients treated with NPH vs with glargine.² Researchers found a significant difference in patient-reported hypoglycemia (10 trials; N not provided; 59% vs 53%; P < .001), symptomatic hypoglycemia (6 trials; 51% vs 43%; P < .0001), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (8 trials; 33% vs 19%; P < .001), favoring glargine over NPH. However, there was no difference between these 2 groups in confirmed hypoglycemia (2 trials; 10% vs 6.3%; P = .11) or severe hypoglycemia (7 trials; 2.4% vs 1.4%; P = .07). Of note, there was no difference between groups in FPG or A1C and a smaller weight gain in the NPH group (6 trials; WMD = 0.33 kg; 95% CI, –0.61 to –0.06). This review did not assess potential biases in the included trials.

Other results indicate a significant benefit from glargine

A 2014 RCT (published after the systematic review search date) compared hypoglycemia risk between NPH and glargine in 1017 adults ages 30 to 70 years who’d had T2D for at least 1 year.³ Patients were randomized to receive an OAD paired with either once-daily glargine or twice-daily NPH. Insulin doses were titrated over the first 3 years of the study to achieve standard glycemic control (described as FPG < 120 mg/dL; this goal was changed to < 100 mg/dL after the first year).

Over 5 years, once-daily glargine resulted in a significantly lower risk for all symptomatic hypoglycemia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and for any severe event (OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95) compared to NPH. Using a logistic regression model, the authors predicted that if 25 patients were treated with NPH instead of glargine, 1 additional patient would experience at least 1 severe hypoglycemic event. This trial was funded by a pharmaceutical company.

Hypoglycemia requiring hospital care was similar for basal insulin and NPH

A 2018 retrospective observational study (N = 25,489) analyzed the association between the initiation of basal insulin analogs vs NPH with hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions.⁴ Adults older than 19 years with clinically recognized diabetes were identified using electronic medical records; those included in the analysis had newly initiated basal insulin therapy during the prior 12 months. Data was gathered via chart review.

The difference in ED visits or hospital admissions was not different between groups (mean difference = 3.1 events per 100 person-years; 95% CI, –1.5 to 7.7). Among 4428 patients matched by propensity score, there was again no difference for hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospital admissions with insulin analog use (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.71-1.78).

Editor’s takeaway

Meta-analysis of large RCTs shows the glargine insulin adverse effects profile, specifically nonsevere hypoglycemia, to be inconsistently better than NPH. These small differences, plus once-daily dosing, may encourage prescribing of analog basal insulin, but price and the need for more than once-daily dosing remain worthy considerations.

Biopsy for this patient revealed folliculitis with Demodex mites visualized on histology. Direct immunofluorescence was negative. A KOH preparation was performed and was positive for large numbers of Demodex. Bacterial cultures were negative. The patient was started on a course of submicrobial doxycycline and ivermectin and showed marked improvement 1 month following treatment.

Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis (collectively referred to as Demodex) are microscopic parasitic mites that commonly live on human skin.1 Typically, the mite remains asymptomatic. However, in higher numbers, the infestation may cause dermatoses, called demodicosis. Demodex folliculitis is caused by high numbers of Demodex folliculorum, which lives in follicles and sebaceous glands. Lesions often present as itchy papules, pustules, and erythematous scaling on the face, ears, and scalp. Blepharitis may be present. Demodex folliculitis is more common in immunocompromised patients.2

Demodex may have a causative role in rosacea and present similarly, with a key difference being that Demodex-type rosacea is more scaly/dry and pustular than common rosacea.1 In Demodex folliculitis, bacterial cultures are often negative. A skin scraping for KOH will reveal increased mite colonization. The Demodex mite may also be seen in histologic slides.

Treatment of Demodex folliculitis includes crotamiton cream, permethrin cream, oral tetracyclines, topical or systemic metronidazole, and topical or oral ivermectin.

This case and photos were submitted by Susannah McClain, MD, Three Rivers Dermatology, Pittsburgh.
 

References

1. Rather PA and Hassan I. Indian J Dermatol. 2014 Jan;59(1):60-6.

2. Bachmeyer C and Moreno-Sabater A. CMAJ. 2017 Jun 26;189(25):E865.

Biopsy for this patient revealed folliculitis with Demodex mites visualized on histology. Direct immunofluorescence was negative. A KOH preparation was performed and was positive for large numbers of Demodex. Bacterial cultures were negative. The patient was started on a course of submicrobial doxycycline and ivermectin and showed marked improvement 1 month following treatment.

Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis (collectively referred to as Demodex) are microscopic parasitic mites that commonly live on human skin.1 Typically, the mite remains asymptomatic. However, in higher numbers, the infestation may cause dermatoses, called demodicosis. Demodex folliculitis is caused by high numbers of Demodex folliculorum, which lives in follicles and sebaceous glands. Lesions often present as itchy papules, pustules, and erythematous scaling on the face, ears, and scalp. Blepharitis may be present. Demodex folliculitis is more common in immunocompromised patients.2

Demodex may have a causative role in rosacea and present similarly, with a key difference being that Demodex-type rosacea is more scaly/dry and pustular than common rosacea.1 In Demodex folliculitis, bacterial cultures are often negative. A skin scraping for KOH will reveal increased mite colonization. The Demodex mite may also be seen in histologic slides.

Treatment of Demodex folliculitis includes crotamiton cream, permethrin cream, oral tetracyclines, topical or systemic metronidazole, and topical or oral ivermectin.

This case and photos were submitted by Susannah McClain, MD, Three Rivers Dermatology, Pittsburgh.
 

References

1. Rather PA and Hassan I. Indian J Dermatol. 2014 Jan;59(1):60-6.

2. Bachmeyer C and Moreno-Sabater A. CMAJ. 2017 Jun 26;189(25):E865.

Biopsy for this patient revealed folliculitis with Demodex mites visualized on histology. Direct immunofluorescence was negative. A KOH preparation was performed and was positive for large numbers of Demodex. Bacterial cultures were negative. The patient was started on a course of submicrobial doxycycline and ivermectin and showed marked improvement 1 month following treatment.

Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis (collectively referred to as Demodex) are microscopic parasitic mites that commonly live on human skin.1 Typically, the mite remains asymptomatic. However, in higher numbers, the infestation may cause dermatoses, called demodicosis. Demodex folliculitis is caused by high numbers of Demodex folliculorum, which lives in follicles and sebaceous glands. Lesions often present as itchy papules, pustules, and erythematous scaling on the face, ears, and scalp. Blepharitis may be present. Demodex folliculitis is more common in immunocompromised patients.2

Demodex may have a causative role in rosacea and present similarly, with a key difference being that Demodex-type rosacea is more scaly/dry and pustular than common rosacea.1 In Demodex folliculitis, bacterial cultures are often negative. A skin scraping for KOH will reveal increased mite colonization. The Demodex mite may also be seen in histologic slides.

Treatment of Demodex folliculitis includes crotamiton cream, permethrin cream, oral tetracyclines, topical or systemic metronidazole, and topical or oral ivermectin.

This case and photos were submitted by Susannah McClain, MD, Three Rivers Dermatology, Pittsburgh.
 

References

1. Rather PA and Hassan I. Indian J Dermatol. 2014 Jan;59(1):60-6.

2. Bachmeyer C and Moreno-Sabater A. CMAJ. 2017 Jun 26;189(25):E865.

Recognizing the systemic effects of endometriosis may help doctors better understand the experiences of patients with the disease and guide the approach to diagnosis and treatment, according to the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Beyond lesions in the pelvis, endometriosis may underlie a range of co-occurring conditions, such as generalized inflammation, fatigue, bowel or bladder dysfunction, depression, and anxiety, Hugh S. Taylor, MD, said at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Its systemic manifestations may explain why women with endometriosis tend to have a lower body mass index, compared with women without the disease, Dr. Taylor said.

“Stem cells, microRNAs, and generalized inflammation are some of the mechanisms that mediate these long-range effects on distant organ systems,” he said.

Studies have indicated that lesions in the pelvis do not fully explain the disease, and investigators continue to elucidate how “endometriosis that we see in the pelvis is really just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Taylor, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Pain, including dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia, “can be just as bad with ... stage 1 disease as it can be with stage 4 disease,” he said.

Some patients may not have pain, but have infertility. Other women are asymptomatic, and doctors find endometriosis incidentally.

One common definition of endometriosis – ectopic endometrial glands and stroma predominantly caused by retrograde menstruation – “probably overly simplifies this complex disease,” said Dr. Taylor, who reviewed the current understanding of endometriosis in an article in The Lancet. “The lesions in the pelvis are important. We see them. We treat them. But endometriosis has ... effects throughout the body.”

Dr. Taylor’s research group has shown that stem cells are a potential source of endometriosis. “There are cells from the endometriosis that can be found traveling in the circulation,” but their effects are unclear, he said.

Levels of several microRNAs may be increased or decreased in women with endometriosis, and these altered levels may induce the production of inflammatory cytokines. They also may serve as the basis of a blood test for endometriosis that could be ready for clinical use soon, Dr. Taylor said.

In a mouse model of endometriosis, the disease changes the electrophysiology of the brain and behavior. “We see changes in anxiety induced by endometriosis. We see changes in pain sensitivity induced by endometriosis. And we also see an increase in depression induced by endometriosis in this animal model,” Dr. Taylor said.

Although surgical therapy treats local disease, medical therapy may be needed to treat the systemic manifestations.

During a question-and-answer period after the presentation, Marcelle I. Cedars, MD, asked whether analgesic and hormonal management may be sufficient when a woman has suspected or laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis and pain is the primary complaint.

“Given the understanding of endometriosis, how would you suggest approaching treatment?” asked Dr. Cedars, president elect of the ASRM and director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco.

Analgesic and hormonal therapies remain “the best treatments we have,” Dr. Taylor said. He starts treatment with an oral contraceptive and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication – “not only for pain relief but to tamp some of the inflammation associated with endometriosis,” he said. If an oral contraceptive does not work, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist typically is the next step.

Dr. Taylor has disclosed ties to Dot Lab and AbbVie. Dr. Cedars had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Recognizing the systemic effects of endometriosis may help doctors better understand the experiences of patients with the disease and guide the approach to diagnosis and treatment, according to the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Beyond lesions in the pelvis, endometriosis may underlie a range of co-occurring conditions, such as generalized inflammation, fatigue, bowel or bladder dysfunction, depression, and anxiety, Hugh S. Taylor, MD, said at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Its systemic manifestations may explain why women with endometriosis tend to have a lower body mass index, compared with women without the disease, Dr. Taylor said.

“Stem cells, microRNAs, and generalized inflammation are some of the mechanisms that mediate these long-range effects on distant organ systems,” he said.

Studies have indicated that lesions in the pelvis do not fully explain the disease, and investigators continue to elucidate how “endometriosis that we see in the pelvis is really just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Taylor, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Pain, including dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia, “can be just as bad with ... stage 1 disease as it can be with stage 4 disease,” he said.

Some patients may not have pain, but have infertility. Other women are asymptomatic, and doctors find endometriosis incidentally.

One common definition of endometriosis – ectopic endometrial glands and stroma predominantly caused by retrograde menstruation – “probably overly simplifies this complex disease,” said Dr. Taylor, who reviewed the current understanding of endometriosis in an article in The Lancet. “The lesions in the pelvis are important. We see them. We treat them. But endometriosis has ... effects throughout the body.”

Dr. Taylor’s research group has shown that stem cells are a potential source of endometriosis. “There are cells from the endometriosis that can be found traveling in the circulation,” but their effects are unclear, he said.

Levels of several microRNAs may be increased or decreased in women with endometriosis, and these altered levels may induce the production of inflammatory cytokines. They also may serve as the basis of a blood test for endometriosis that could be ready for clinical use soon, Dr. Taylor said.

In a mouse model of endometriosis, the disease changes the electrophysiology of the brain and behavior. “We see changes in anxiety induced by endometriosis. We see changes in pain sensitivity induced by endometriosis. And we also see an increase in depression induced by endometriosis in this animal model,” Dr. Taylor said.

Although surgical therapy treats local disease, medical therapy may be needed to treat the systemic manifestations.

During a question-and-answer period after the presentation, Marcelle I. Cedars, MD, asked whether analgesic and hormonal management may be sufficient when a woman has suspected or laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis and pain is the primary complaint.

“Given the understanding of endometriosis, how would you suggest approaching treatment?” asked Dr. Cedars, president elect of the ASRM and director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco.

Analgesic and hormonal therapies remain “the best treatments we have,” Dr. Taylor said. He starts treatment with an oral contraceptive and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication – “not only for pain relief but to tamp some of the inflammation associated with endometriosis,” he said. If an oral contraceptive does not work, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist typically is the next step.

Dr. Taylor has disclosed ties to Dot Lab and AbbVie. Dr. Cedars had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Recognizing the systemic effects of endometriosis may help doctors better understand the experiences of patients with the disease and guide the approach to diagnosis and treatment, according to the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Beyond lesions in the pelvis, endometriosis may underlie a range of co-occurring conditions, such as generalized inflammation, fatigue, bowel or bladder dysfunction, depression, and anxiety, Hugh S. Taylor, MD, said at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Its systemic manifestations may explain why women with endometriosis tend to have a lower body mass index, compared with women without the disease, Dr. Taylor said.

“Stem cells, microRNAs, and generalized inflammation are some of the mechanisms that mediate these long-range effects on distant organ systems,” he said.

Studies have indicated that lesions in the pelvis do not fully explain the disease, and investigators continue to elucidate how “endometriosis that we see in the pelvis is really just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Taylor, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Pain, including dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia, “can be just as bad with ... stage 1 disease as it can be with stage 4 disease,” he said.

Some patients may not have pain, but have infertility. Other women are asymptomatic, and doctors find endometriosis incidentally.

One common definition of endometriosis – ectopic endometrial glands and stroma predominantly caused by retrograde menstruation – “probably overly simplifies this complex disease,” said Dr. Taylor, who reviewed the current understanding of endometriosis in an article in The Lancet. “The lesions in the pelvis are important. We see them. We treat them. But endometriosis has ... effects throughout the body.”

Dr. Taylor’s research group has shown that stem cells are a potential source of endometriosis. “There are cells from the endometriosis that can be found traveling in the circulation,” but their effects are unclear, he said.

Levels of several microRNAs may be increased or decreased in women with endometriosis, and these altered levels may induce the production of inflammatory cytokines. They also may serve as the basis of a blood test for endometriosis that could be ready for clinical use soon, Dr. Taylor said.

In a mouse model of endometriosis, the disease changes the electrophysiology of the brain and behavior. “We see changes in anxiety induced by endometriosis. We see changes in pain sensitivity induced by endometriosis. And we also see an increase in depression induced by endometriosis in this animal model,” Dr. Taylor said.

Although surgical therapy treats local disease, medical therapy may be needed to treat the systemic manifestations.

During a question-and-answer period after the presentation, Marcelle I. Cedars, MD, asked whether analgesic and hormonal management may be sufficient when a woman has suspected or laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis and pain is the primary complaint.

“Given the understanding of endometriosis, how would you suggest approaching treatment?” asked Dr. Cedars, president elect of the ASRM and director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco.

Analgesic and hormonal therapies remain “the best treatments we have,” Dr. Taylor said. He starts treatment with an oral contraceptive and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication – “not only for pain relief but to tamp some of the inflammation associated with endometriosis,” he said. If an oral contraceptive does not work, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist typically is the next step.

Dr. Taylor has disclosed ties to Dot Lab and AbbVie. Dr. Cedars had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com