In the first randomized controlled trial of prednisone for postvasectomy reversals, fertility researchers found that a high dose of the steroid reduced the rate of subsequent pregnancy.

“This is the first time it’s been shown that high doses [of prednisone] can make someone infertile,” said Landon Trost, MD, director of the Male Fertility and Peyronie’s Clinic in Orem, Utah, and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, who presented the study (Abstract MP42-19) on May 4 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) in San Antonio, Texas. 

Dr. Trost called the findings “a real shock. I almost didn’t believe the data when I saw it. It opens up a whole new set of areas for research and exploration.”

Dr. Trost’s clinic performs 1200 reversals per year out of the estimated 20,000 performed annually in the United States, he said. He said his practice has stopped using high-dose prednisone as a result of the study, which he performed at his own expense to examine the varying protocols for vasectomy reversal.

William Berg, MD, director of the Stony Brook Urology Men’s Health Program, in Stony Brook, New York, said that the expected patency rate for modern postvasectomy reversals, if performed properly, can be as high as 98%. However, in some men, patency occurs initially, but the accumulation of scar tissue at the site of reversal causes sperm counts in ejaculate to drop to zero.

Since the 1970s, urologists — with limited research to back — the practice  prescribed prednisone to patients with the goal of preventing scarring and blockages associated with vasectomy reversals. Dr. Berg called this practice “unsubstantiated” and noted that Dr. Trost’s study is the first prospective randomized controlled trial of this approach.

The study enrolled 75 men, with a mean age of roughly 38 years. The mean time since vasectomy was 6.6 years.

The low-dose arm (25 patients) received 5 mg of prednisone per week alternating with no treatment per week over 6 months. The high-dose arm (n = 14) received 20 mg of prednisone, tapered to 10 mg, 5 mg, and then off over 1 month, followed by every other month for 6 months. A prednisone-as-needed group (n = 11) received a tapered course of prednisone on the basis of whether they had decreasing or zero sperm counts. They received 20 mg for 5 days, 10 mg for 5 days, and 5 mg for 20 days.

A control arm (n = 25) received no prednisone.

Urologists typically use patency rates to measure success of vasectomy reversals. The patency rates at 12 months in Dr. Trost’s study were 100% in the control participants, prednisone-as-needed, and low-dose groups and 92% (13/14) in the high-dose group. 

Dr. Trost said that the story was told in the pregnancy rates. At the 1-year mark, pregnancy rates were 67% in the low-risk group and 65% in the control group but 38% and 17% in the prednisone-as-needed and high-dose group, respectively (P = .02).

The mean maximum sperm concentration was 40 million per mL, ranging from 29.7 million per mL for men in the control group to 54.3 million per mL in the low-dose group.

Dr. Trost said that he immediately stopped using high doses of prednisone in his practice and predicted that other clinics would follow suit. 

Dr. Berg said the drop in pregnancies with higher doses of prednisone is a first-time finding and suggests that a high dose may “be detrimental to sperm function in some way. I don’t think this ever has been described before.”

Dr. Trost financed the study himself. Dr. Berg reported no conflicts.

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

In the first randomized controlled trial of prednisone for postvasectomy reversals, fertility researchers found that a high dose of the steroid reduced the rate of subsequent pregnancy.

“This is the first time it’s been shown that high doses [of prednisone] can make someone infertile,” said Landon Trost, MD, director of the Male Fertility and Peyronie’s Clinic in Orem, Utah, and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, who presented the study (Abstract MP42-19) on May 4 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) in San Antonio, Texas. 

Dr. Trost called the findings “a real shock. I almost didn’t believe the data when I saw it. It opens up a whole new set of areas for research and exploration.”

Dr. Trost’s clinic performs 1200 reversals per year out of the estimated 20,000 performed annually in the United States, he said. He said his practice has stopped using high-dose prednisone as a result of the study, which he performed at his own expense to examine the varying protocols for vasectomy reversal.

William Berg, MD, director of the Stony Brook Urology Men’s Health Program, in Stony Brook, New York, said that the expected patency rate for modern postvasectomy reversals, if performed properly, can be as high as 98%. However, in some men, patency occurs initially, but the accumulation of scar tissue at the site of reversal causes sperm counts in ejaculate to drop to zero.

Since the 1970s, urologists — with limited research to back — the practice  prescribed prednisone to patients with the goal of preventing scarring and blockages associated with vasectomy reversals. Dr. Berg called this practice “unsubstantiated” and noted that Dr. Trost’s study is the first prospective randomized controlled trial of this approach.

The study enrolled 75 men, with a mean age of roughly 38 years. The mean time since vasectomy was 6.6 years.

The low-dose arm (25 patients) received 5 mg of prednisone per week alternating with no treatment per week over 6 months. The high-dose arm (n = 14) received 20 mg of prednisone, tapered to 10 mg, 5 mg, and then off over 1 month, followed by every other month for 6 months. A prednisone-as-needed group (n = 11) received a tapered course of prednisone on the basis of whether they had decreasing or zero sperm counts. They received 20 mg for 5 days, 10 mg for 5 days, and 5 mg for 20 days.

A control arm (n = 25) received no prednisone.

Urologists typically use patency rates to measure success of vasectomy reversals. The patency rates at 12 months in Dr. Trost’s study were 100% in the control participants, prednisone-as-needed, and low-dose groups and 92% (13/14) in the high-dose group. 

Dr. Trost said that the story was told in the pregnancy rates. At the 1-year mark, pregnancy rates were 67% in the low-risk group and 65% in the control group but 38% and 17% in the prednisone-as-needed and high-dose group, respectively (P = .02).

The mean maximum sperm concentration was 40 million per mL, ranging from 29.7 million per mL for men in the control group to 54.3 million per mL in the low-dose group.

Dr. Trost said that he immediately stopped using high doses of prednisone in his practice and predicted that other clinics would follow suit. 

Dr. Berg said the drop in pregnancies with higher doses of prednisone is a first-time finding and suggests that a high dose may “be detrimental to sperm function in some way. I don’t think this ever has been described before.”

Dr. Trost financed the study himself. Dr. Berg reported no conflicts.

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

In the first randomized controlled trial of prednisone for postvasectomy reversals, fertility researchers found that a high dose of the steroid reduced the rate of subsequent pregnancy.

“This is the first time it’s been shown that high doses [of prednisone] can make someone infertile,” said Landon Trost, MD, director of the Male Fertility and Peyronie’s Clinic in Orem, Utah, and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, who presented the study (Abstract MP42-19) on May 4 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) in San Antonio, Texas. 

Dr. Trost called the findings “a real shock. I almost didn’t believe the data when I saw it. It opens up a whole new set of areas for research and exploration.”

Dr. Trost’s clinic performs 1200 reversals per year out of the estimated 20,000 performed annually in the United States, he said. He said his practice has stopped using high-dose prednisone as a result of the study, which he performed at his own expense to examine the varying protocols for vasectomy reversal.

William Berg, MD, director of the Stony Brook Urology Men’s Health Program, in Stony Brook, New York, said that the expected patency rate for modern postvasectomy reversals, if performed properly, can be as high as 98%. However, in some men, patency occurs initially, but the accumulation of scar tissue at the site of reversal causes sperm counts in ejaculate to drop to zero.

Since the 1970s, urologists — with limited research to back — the practice  prescribed prednisone to patients with the goal of preventing scarring and blockages associated with vasectomy reversals. Dr. Berg called this practice “unsubstantiated” and noted that Dr. Trost’s study is the first prospective randomized controlled trial of this approach.

The study enrolled 75 men, with a mean age of roughly 38 years. The mean time since vasectomy was 6.6 years.

The low-dose arm (25 patients) received 5 mg of prednisone per week alternating with no treatment per week over 6 months. The high-dose arm (n = 14) received 20 mg of prednisone, tapered to 10 mg, 5 mg, and then off over 1 month, followed by every other month for 6 months. A prednisone-as-needed group (n = 11) received a tapered course of prednisone on the basis of whether they had decreasing or zero sperm counts. They received 20 mg for 5 days, 10 mg for 5 days, and 5 mg for 20 days.

A control arm (n = 25) received no prednisone.

Urologists typically use patency rates to measure success of vasectomy reversals. The patency rates at 12 months in Dr. Trost’s study were 100% in the control participants, prednisone-as-needed, and low-dose groups and 92% (13/14) in the high-dose group. 

Dr. Trost said that the story was told in the pregnancy rates. At the 1-year mark, pregnancy rates were 67% in the low-risk group and 65% in the control group but 38% and 17% in the prednisone-as-needed and high-dose group, respectively (P = .02).

The mean maximum sperm concentration was 40 million per mL, ranging from 29.7 million per mL for men in the control group to 54.3 million per mL in the low-dose group.

Dr. Trost said that he immediately stopped using high doses of prednisone in his practice and predicted that other clinics would follow suit. 

Dr. Berg said the drop in pregnancies with higher doses of prednisone is a first-time finding and suggests that a high dose may “be detrimental to sperm function in some way. I don’t think this ever has been described before.”

Dr. Trost financed the study himself. Dr. Berg reported no conflicts.

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

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental handheld ultrasonic device used in an office setting was shown to guide residual kidney stone fragments out of the body and markedly reduce the risk for relapse, researchers reported (Abstract MP29-10) at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association AUA in San Antonio, Texas.

Mathew Sorensen, MD, MS, an associate professor of urology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the Comprehensive Metabolic Stone Clinic at the Puget Sound VA, said that the risk for relapse of kidney stones was 70% lower in the treatment group than in the control group.

“This is an ultrasound-based propulsion procedure that is not like anything else that has ever existed. There’s nothing else that’s like it,” Dr. Sorensen said. “Essentially, in a session in the office with no anesthesia, we can use ultrasound energy to focus on those fragments and try to push them out of the unfavorable areas of the kidney.”

Roughly 20%-30% of patients who undergo surgery to remove kidney stones have residual fragments that can ultimately cause pain and send them to the emergency department or into hospital admission for treatment.

In the new study, 82 patients with stone fragments ≤ 5 mm were randomly assigned to receive the ultrasound treatment — which Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues developed over the past decade — or no procedure.

During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 20% of patients in the treatment group experienced relapse of stones compared with 50% of patients in the control group. 

Relapse was measured as the future occurrence of urgent medical visits for stone-related symptoms, surgeries, or growth of the residual fragments as measured on annual CT.

Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues found asymptomatic passage of fragments was twelvefold higher in the treatment group in the first 3 weeks (60% vs 5%). Asymptomatic passage was similar in both groups after 3 weeks.

Dr. Sorensen said that mild discomfort after the procedure was common, occurring in 38% of patients who underwent the treatment, but that it was short-lived and resolved without intervention; 8% of the treatment group and 7% of the control group had blood in the urine.

The propulsion device is available at two test sites in the University of Washington system; the manufacturer, SonoMotion Inc, a spinoff from the institution, is seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval for the technology, Dr. Sorensen said. 

David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Urology at Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, said that patients with stone fragments currently have two options: follow-up surgery or active surveillance.

“With this new device, we actually have the potential for doing one other thing, and that is treating these patients noninvasively and without anesthesia,” Dr. Schulsinger said. “Once it’s ready for prime time, I think [ultrasonic propulsion] will be very well accepted among urologists to manage patients with asymptomatic residual stones.”

Dr. Sorensen is an advisor and equity holder in SonoMotion Inc. Dr. Schulsinger reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

An experimental handheld ultrasonic device used in an office setting was shown to guide residual kidney stone fragments out of the body and markedly reduce the risk for relapse, researchers reported (Abstract MP29-10) at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association AUA in San Antonio, Texas.

Mathew Sorensen, MD, MS, an associate professor of urology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the Comprehensive Metabolic Stone Clinic at the Puget Sound VA, said that the risk for relapse of kidney stones was 70% lower in the treatment group than in the control group.

“This is an ultrasound-based propulsion procedure that is not like anything else that has ever existed. There’s nothing else that’s like it,” Dr. Sorensen said. “Essentially, in a session in the office with no anesthesia, we can use ultrasound energy to focus on those fragments and try to push them out of the unfavorable areas of the kidney.”

Roughly 20%-30% of patients who undergo surgery to remove kidney stones have residual fragments that can ultimately cause pain and send them to the emergency department or into hospital admission for treatment.

In the new study, 82 patients with stone fragments ≤ 5 mm were randomly assigned to receive the ultrasound treatment — which Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues developed over the past decade — or no procedure.

During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 20% of patients in the treatment group experienced relapse of stones compared with 50% of patients in the control group. 

Relapse was measured as the future occurrence of urgent medical visits for stone-related symptoms, surgeries, or growth of the residual fragments as measured on annual CT.

Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues found asymptomatic passage of fragments was twelvefold higher in the treatment group in the first 3 weeks (60% vs 5%). Asymptomatic passage was similar in both groups after 3 weeks.

Dr. Sorensen said that mild discomfort after the procedure was common, occurring in 38% of patients who underwent the treatment, but that it was short-lived and resolved without intervention; 8% of the treatment group and 7% of the control group had blood in the urine.

The propulsion device is available at two test sites in the University of Washington system; the manufacturer, SonoMotion Inc, a spinoff from the institution, is seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval for the technology, Dr. Sorensen said. 

David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Urology at Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, said that patients with stone fragments currently have two options: follow-up surgery or active surveillance.

“With this new device, we actually have the potential for doing one other thing, and that is treating these patients noninvasively and without anesthesia,” Dr. Schulsinger said. “Once it’s ready for prime time, I think [ultrasonic propulsion] will be very well accepted among urologists to manage patients with asymptomatic residual stones.”

Dr. Sorensen is an advisor and equity holder in SonoMotion Inc. Dr. Schulsinger reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

An experimental handheld ultrasonic device used in an office setting was shown to guide residual kidney stone fragments out of the body and markedly reduce the risk for relapse, researchers reported (Abstract MP29-10) at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association AUA in San Antonio, Texas.

Mathew Sorensen, MD, MS, an associate professor of urology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the Comprehensive Metabolic Stone Clinic at the Puget Sound VA, said that the risk for relapse of kidney stones was 70% lower in the treatment group than in the control group.

“This is an ultrasound-based propulsion procedure that is not like anything else that has ever existed. There’s nothing else that’s like it,” Dr. Sorensen said. “Essentially, in a session in the office with no anesthesia, we can use ultrasound energy to focus on those fragments and try to push them out of the unfavorable areas of the kidney.”

Roughly 20%-30% of patients who undergo surgery to remove kidney stones have residual fragments that can ultimately cause pain and send them to the emergency department or into hospital admission for treatment.

In the new study, 82 patients with stone fragments ≤ 5 mm were randomly assigned to receive the ultrasound treatment — which Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues developed over the past decade — or no procedure.

During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 20% of patients in the treatment group experienced relapse of stones compared with 50% of patients in the control group. 

Relapse was measured as the future occurrence of urgent medical visits for stone-related symptoms, surgeries, or growth of the residual fragments as measured on annual CT.

Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues found asymptomatic passage of fragments was twelvefold higher in the treatment group in the first 3 weeks (60% vs 5%). Asymptomatic passage was similar in both groups after 3 weeks.

Dr. Sorensen said that mild discomfort after the procedure was common, occurring in 38% of patients who underwent the treatment, but that it was short-lived and resolved without intervention; 8% of the treatment group and 7% of the control group had blood in the urine.

The propulsion device is available at two test sites in the University of Washington system; the manufacturer, SonoMotion Inc, a spinoff from the institution, is seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval for the technology, Dr. Sorensen said. 

David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Urology at Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, said that patients with stone fragments currently have two options: follow-up surgery or active surveillance.

“With this new device, we actually have the potential for doing one other thing, and that is treating these patients noninvasively and without anesthesia,” Dr. Schulsinger said. “Once it’s ready for prime time, I think [ultrasonic propulsion] will be very well accepted among urologists to manage patients with asymptomatic residual stones.”

Dr. Sorensen is an advisor and equity holder in SonoMotion Inc. Dr. Schulsinger reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

To the Editor:

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE) is a genetic perforating dermatosis characterized by fragmentation and calcification of elastic fibers that most commonly manifests on the skin, eyes, gastrointestinal tract, or cardiovascular system.¹ Classic skin findings include multiple symmetric yellowish papules favoring the flexural surfaces of the body and neck as well as the periumbilical and inguinal regions.^1,2 Many life-threatening complications from this disease can occur due to calcification of elastic fibers in other parts of the body, such as the internal elastic lamina of arteries, which can cause gastrointestinal tract bleeding and accelerated cardiovascular disease including valvular disease.^2,3 If PXE is localized to the skin only without systemic involvement or a family history, a diagnosis of perforating calcific elastosis (PCE) can be made. We report a case of PCE in a patient with a growing umbilical lesion.

A 49-year-old multiparous (gravida 3, para 3) woman presented for evaluation of an evolving periumbilical lesion of 4 months’ duration. She denied pain, bleeding, or drainage from the area, as well as any systemic symptoms. The patient had a surgical history of a laparoscopic hysterectomy 7 years prior to the current presentation due to uterine fibroids, which resulted in a periumbilical scar. At the current presentation, physical examination revealed 2 hyperpigmented to violaceous periumbilical papules coalescing into a plaque with overlying hyperkeratosis and crusting (Figure 1). A punch biopsy was performed and histopathology showed diffuse dermal collections of degenerated eosinophilic distorted elastic fibers with calcification (Figure 2). Further sections showed a transepidermal channel in which the elastic fibers extruded from the dermis through the epidermis (Figure 3). The diagnosis of acquired PCE was made based on the clinical presentation, relevant medical history, and lack of underlying medical conditions or family history of PXE. No further workup was needed, and the patient reported no further progression and rather some improvement (decrease in size) of the lesion at 3-month follow-up.

Perforating calcific elastosis (also known as periumbilical perforating PXE) is a rare acquired condition that is seen predominantly in multiparous middle-aged women.^4-6 This diagnosis consists of degenerated calcified elastic fibers that may perforate the skin of the abdominal or periumbilical region. It clinically manifests as multiple painless hyperkeratotic papules surrounding the periumbilical region.^4-6

The etiology and pathogenesis of PCE have not been defined but have been attributed to recurrent stressing of elastic fibers due to repeat traumas,¹ which is proposed to lead to degeneration of elastic fibers and calcification of damaged tissue.^4-7 As a result, PCE most commonly manifests in multiparous, obese, middle-aged women and patients with multiple abdominal surgeries or ascites.¹ It also has been reported in patients with renal failure due to deposition of abnormal calcium phosphate products onto elastic fibers.⁴ In our patient, the development of PCE was related to both multiparity and trauma from prior surgery.

The histopathologic findings of PCE and PXE are similar, warranting differentiation via thorough clinical examination as well as further investigation of the patient’s medical and family history. Both show degenerated, fragmented, curly elastic fibers with calcium deposition throughout the dermis and a transepidermal channel extruding these elastic fibers.^7,8 The biopsies stain positive for elastic fibers and calcium deposition. Calcium staining can help to differentiate these entities from elastosis perforans serpiginosa, which lacks the presence of calcium staining.⁷

There are no definitive treatments for PCE. A single case report of a patient with PCE and renal failure showed regression with hemodialysis.⁹ In a study evaluating patients with inherited PXE, notable improvement was seen in skin lesions treated with bisphosphonates, possibly suggesting that regulating serum calcium may contribute to improvement of the disease.³ Most cases spontaneously resolve with atrophic plaques. Our patient required no additional treatment with no further progression and reported improvement of the lesion with spontaneous decrease in size.

To the Editor:

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE) is a genetic perforating dermatosis characterized by fragmentation and calcification of elastic fibers that most commonly manifests on the skin, eyes, gastrointestinal tract, or cardiovascular system.¹ Classic skin findings include multiple symmetric yellowish papules favoring the flexural surfaces of the body and neck as well as the periumbilical and inguinal regions.^1,2 Many life-threatening complications from this disease can occur due to calcification of elastic fibers in other parts of the body, such as the internal elastic lamina of arteries, which can cause gastrointestinal tract bleeding and accelerated cardiovascular disease including valvular disease.^2,3 If PXE is localized to the skin only without systemic involvement or a family history, a diagnosis of perforating calcific elastosis (PCE) can be made. We report a case of PCE in a patient with a growing umbilical lesion.

A 49-year-old multiparous (gravida 3, para 3) woman presented for evaluation of an evolving periumbilical lesion of 4 months’ duration. She denied pain, bleeding, or drainage from the area, as well as any systemic symptoms. The patient had a surgical history of a laparoscopic hysterectomy 7 years prior to the current presentation due to uterine fibroids, which resulted in a periumbilical scar. At the current presentation, physical examination revealed 2 hyperpigmented to violaceous periumbilical papules coalescing into a plaque with overlying hyperkeratosis and crusting (Figure 1). A punch biopsy was performed and histopathology showed diffuse dermal collections of degenerated eosinophilic distorted elastic fibers with calcification (Figure 2). Further sections showed a transepidermal channel in which the elastic fibers extruded from the dermis through the epidermis (Figure 3). The diagnosis of acquired PCE was made based on the clinical presentation, relevant medical history, and lack of underlying medical conditions or family history of PXE. No further workup was needed, and the patient reported no further progression and rather some improvement (decrease in size) of the lesion at 3-month follow-up.

Perforating calcific elastosis (also known as periumbilical perforating PXE) is a rare acquired condition that is seen predominantly in multiparous middle-aged women.^4-6 This diagnosis consists of degenerated calcified elastic fibers that may perforate the skin of the abdominal or periumbilical region. It clinically manifests as multiple painless hyperkeratotic papules surrounding the periumbilical region.^4-6

The etiology and pathogenesis of PCE have not been defined but have been attributed to recurrent stressing of elastic fibers due to repeat traumas,¹ which is proposed to lead to degeneration of elastic fibers and calcification of damaged tissue.^4-7 As a result, PCE most commonly manifests in multiparous, obese, middle-aged women and patients with multiple abdominal surgeries or ascites.¹ It also has been reported in patients with renal failure due to deposition of abnormal calcium phosphate products onto elastic fibers.⁴ In our patient, the development of PCE was related to both multiparity and trauma from prior surgery.

The histopathologic findings of PCE and PXE are similar, warranting differentiation via thorough clinical examination as well as further investigation of the patient’s medical and family history. Both show degenerated, fragmented, curly elastic fibers with calcium deposition throughout the dermis and a transepidermal channel extruding these elastic fibers.^7,8 The biopsies stain positive for elastic fibers and calcium deposition. Calcium staining can help to differentiate these entities from elastosis perforans serpiginosa, which lacks the presence of calcium staining.⁷

There are no definitive treatments for PCE. A single case report of a patient with PCE and renal failure showed regression with hemodialysis.⁹ In a study evaluating patients with inherited PXE, notable improvement was seen in skin lesions treated with bisphosphonates, possibly suggesting that regulating serum calcium may contribute to improvement of the disease.³ Most cases spontaneously resolve with atrophic plaques. Our patient required no additional treatment with no further progression and reported improvement of the lesion with spontaneous decrease in size.

To the Editor:

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE) is a genetic perforating dermatosis characterized by fragmentation and calcification of elastic fibers that most commonly manifests on the skin, eyes, gastrointestinal tract, or cardiovascular system.¹ Classic skin findings include multiple symmetric yellowish papules favoring the flexural surfaces of the body and neck as well as the periumbilical and inguinal regions.^1,2 Many life-threatening complications from this disease can occur due to calcification of elastic fibers in other parts of the body, such as the internal elastic lamina of arteries, which can cause gastrointestinal tract bleeding and accelerated cardiovascular disease including valvular disease.^2,3 If PXE is localized to the skin only without systemic involvement or a family history, a diagnosis of perforating calcific elastosis (PCE) can be made. We report a case of PCE in a patient with a growing umbilical lesion.

A 49-year-old multiparous (gravida 3, para 3) woman presented for evaluation of an evolving periumbilical lesion of 4 months’ duration. She denied pain, bleeding, or drainage from the area, as well as any systemic symptoms. The patient had a surgical history of a laparoscopic hysterectomy 7 years prior to the current presentation due to uterine fibroids, which resulted in a periumbilical scar. At the current presentation, physical examination revealed 2 hyperpigmented to violaceous periumbilical papules coalescing into a plaque with overlying hyperkeratosis and crusting (Figure 1). A punch biopsy was performed and histopathology showed diffuse dermal collections of degenerated eosinophilic distorted elastic fibers with calcification (Figure 2). Further sections showed a transepidermal channel in which the elastic fibers extruded from the dermis through the epidermis (Figure 3). The diagnosis of acquired PCE was made based on the clinical presentation, relevant medical history, and lack of underlying medical conditions or family history of PXE. No further workup was needed, and the patient reported no further progression and rather some improvement (decrease in size) of the lesion at 3-month follow-up.

Perforating calcific elastosis (also known as periumbilical perforating PXE) is a rare acquired condition that is seen predominantly in multiparous middle-aged women.^4-6 This diagnosis consists of degenerated calcified elastic fibers that may perforate the skin of the abdominal or periumbilical region. It clinically manifests as multiple painless hyperkeratotic papules surrounding the periumbilical region.^4-6

The etiology and pathogenesis of PCE have not been defined but have been attributed to recurrent stressing of elastic fibers due to repeat traumas,¹ which is proposed to lead to degeneration of elastic fibers and calcification of damaged tissue.^4-7 As a result, PCE most commonly manifests in multiparous, obese, middle-aged women and patients with multiple abdominal surgeries or ascites.¹ It also has been reported in patients with renal failure due to deposition of abnormal calcium phosphate products onto elastic fibers.⁴ In our patient, the development of PCE was related to both multiparity and trauma from prior surgery.

The histopathologic findings of PCE and PXE are similar, warranting differentiation via thorough clinical examination as well as further investigation of the patient’s medical and family history. Both show degenerated, fragmented, curly elastic fibers with calcium deposition throughout the dermis and a transepidermal channel extruding these elastic fibers.^7,8 The biopsies stain positive for elastic fibers and calcium deposition. Calcium staining can help to differentiate these entities from elastosis perforans serpiginosa, which lacks the presence of calcium staining.⁷

There are no definitive treatments for PCE. A single case report of a patient with PCE and renal failure showed regression with hemodialysis.⁹ In a study evaluating patients with inherited PXE, notable improvement was seen in skin lesions treated with bisphosphonates, possibly suggesting that regulating serum calcium may contribute to improvement of the disease.³ Most cases spontaneously resolve with atrophic plaques. Our patient required no additional treatment with no further progression and reported improvement of the lesion with spontaneous decrease in size.

To the Editor:

Lyme disease is caused by spirochetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex and transmitted to humans by the bite of the Ixodes scapularis tick. It was first classified as a nationally notifiable disease in 1991, and the incidence has risen remarkably since then.¹ More than 63,000 cases are reported annually to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; however, this number reflects severe underreporting, as the true incidence of the disease is projected to be closer to 476,000 cases per year.² Additionally, 95% of US cases occur in the Northeast and upper Midwest.³ Given the pervasiveness of Lyme disease, early and reliable diagnostic methodology is critical, especially in cases in which the timeline of inoculation is unclear. We present a case of Lyme disease that was discovered during a routine dermatologic visit.

A 77-year-old White man with no relevant medical history presented to a dermatology clinic in west-central Virginia for a routine skin check. Physical examination revealed a well-appearing patient without overt skin abnormalities. However, on closer evaluation, a ­0.2×0.1-cm engorged black I scapularis tick was visualized on the left lateral upper back. There was a surrounding zone of erythema that measured less than the 5-cm-diameter criterion for erythema migrans.¹

Upon questioning, the patient reported that he was unaware of the tick and could not provide a timeline for inoculation. To ensure proper treatment, the tick was removed in the office and a specimen was sent for histopathology. The arthropod was formalin fixed and paraffin embedded, and it was examined using hematoxylin and eosin and Warthin-Starry stains. Histopathology of the specimen revealed a blood-engorged arthropod. Warthin-Starry stain of the abdomen of the tick highlighted tiny strandlike spirochetes within the gut that were compatible with B burgdorferi (Figure). This finding prompted treatment with a 3-week course of doxycycline. Following treatment, erythema resolved. The patient experienced no sequelae.

Lyme disease can cause a range of serious complications if left untreated, including arthritis, neurologic deficits, and heart block. During the early stages of disease, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods such as serologic testing are limited.⁴ The gold standard for the diagnosis of Lyme disease comprises culture and subsequent confirmation by polymerase chain reaction.¹ However, cultivation of B burgdorferi is challenging.⁵ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 2-tiered serologic antibody analysis, which has 27% sensitivity during the first week of cutaneous symptoms, and involves an enzyme-linked immunoassay followed by reflexive immunoblotting for positive or indeterminate cases.^2,6 The precision of this method is limited by several variables; for example, seroconversion fails to occur in approximately 40% of cases, even after proven exposure to the spirochete.⁷ Furthermore, the sensitivity of the test is particularly low during the first 4 to 6 weeks of infection—before the body mounts a proper immune response; fewer than 50% of patients exhibit a positive response to the test at initial presentation.³

Clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease is possible, though the pathognomonic erythema migrans rash can be delayed for as long as 30 days and remains absent in 20% to 30% of patients.¹ Prophylactic treatment can be offered to individuals who reside in a hyperendemic area and have a rash or have had an engorged Ixodes tick attached for longer than 36 hours.⁸

More definitive techniques for early diagnosis are needed to enable selective and accurate treatment. The standard of care for Lyme disease includes a 10-day course of doxycycline or a 14-day course of cefuroxime axetil or amoxicillin.⁹ Many patients tolerate treatment and achieve resolution of disease, but antibiotics are not benign, as some patients experience drug-related adverse effects such as photosensitivity, urticaria, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, esophagitis, hepatotoxicity, and the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction (fever, chills, rigors, nausea and vomiting, headache, tachycardia, hypotension, hyperventilation, flushing, myalgia, and exacerbation of lesions).^10,11 In a group of 123 patients with Lyme disease, 30% treated with cefuroxime axetil and 32% treated with doxycycline had 1 or more drug-related adverse events.¹⁰ Additionally, avoidable antibiotic use is associated with increasing antibiotic resistance.¹² Improved diagnostic accuracy would prevent unnecessary treatment. Galan and colleagues⁷ reported that Warthin-Starry staining of prepared sections of the abdomen of a tick allowed for detection of B burgdorferi with a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 83%. This technique did not delay the final biopsy report and may be a promising adjunct to the diagnosis of early Lyme disease.⁷

Anecdotally, many patients who present with an attached and engorged tick are unaware of the timeline of their exposure. Histologic analysis of a removed tick could aid in early clinical decision-making—ie, when the diagnosis is unclear and treatment guidelines vary by region and circumstance. Improved sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis can prevent unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which is associated with adverse effects and escalation of antibiotic resistance.

To the Editor:

Lyme disease is caused by spirochetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex and transmitted to humans by the bite of the Ixodes scapularis tick. It was first classified as a nationally notifiable disease in 1991, and the incidence has risen remarkably since then.¹ More than 63,000 cases are reported annually to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; however, this number reflects severe underreporting, as the true incidence of the disease is projected to be closer to 476,000 cases per year.² Additionally, 95% of US cases occur in the Northeast and upper Midwest.³ Given the pervasiveness of Lyme disease, early and reliable diagnostic methodology is critical, especially in cases in which the timeline of inoculation is unclear. We present a case of Lyme disease that was discovered during a routine dermatologic visit.

A 77-year-old White man with no relevant medical history presented to a dermatology clinic in west-central Virginia for a routine skin check. Physical examination revealed a well-appearing patient without overt skin abnormalities. However, on closer evaluation, a ­0.2×0.1-cm engorged black I scapularis tick was visualized on the left lateral upper back. There was a surrounding zone of erythema that measured less than the 5-cm-diameter criterion for erythema migrans.¹

Upon questioning, the patient reported that he was unaware of the tick and could not provide a timeline for inoculation. To ensure proper treatment, the tick was removed in the office and a specimen was sent for histopathology. The arthropod was formalin fixed and paraffin embedded, and it was examined using hematoxylin and eosin and Warthin-Starry stains. Histopathology of the specimen revealed a blood-engorged arthropod. Warthin-Starry stain of the abdomen of the tick highlighted tiny strandlike spirochetes within the gut that were compatible with B burgdorferi (Figure). This finding prompted treatment with a 3-week course of doxycycline. Following treatment, erythema resolved. The patient experienced no sequelae.

Lyme disease can cause a range of serious complications if left untreated, including arthritis, neurologic deficits, and heart block. During the early stages of disease, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods such as serologic testing are limited.⁴ The gold standard for the diagnosis of Lyme disease comprises culture and subsequent confirmation by polymerase chain reaction.¹ However, cultivation of B burgdorferi is challenging.⁵ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 2-tiered serologic antibody analysis, which has 27% sensitivity during the first week of cutaneous symptoms, and involves an enzyme-linked immunoassay followed by reflexive immunoblotting for positive or indeterminate cases.^2,6 The precision of this method is limited by several variables; for example, seroconversion fails to occur in approximately 40% of cases, even after proven exposure to the spirochete.⁷ Furthermore, the sensitivity of the test is particularly low during the first 4 to 6 weeks of infection—before the body mounts a proper immune response; fewer than 50% of patients exhibit a positive response to the test at initial presentation.³

Clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease is possible, though the pathognomonic erythema migrans rash can be delayed for as long as 30 days and remains absent in 20% to 30% of patients.¹ Prophylactic treatment can be offered to individuals who reside in a hyperendemic area and have a rash or have had an engorged Ixodes tick attached for longer than 36 hours.⁸

More definitive techniques for early diagnosis are needed to enable selective and accurate treatment. The standard of care for Lyme disease includes a 10-day course of doxycycline or a 14-day course of cefuroxime axetil or amoxicillin.⁹ Many patients tolerate treatment and achieve resolution of disease, but antibiotics are not benign, as some patients experience drug-related adverse effects such as photosensitivity, urticaria, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, esophagitis, hepatotoxicity, and the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction (fever, chills, rigors, nausea and vomiting, headache, tachycardia, hypotension, hyperventilation, flushing, myalgia, and exacerbation of lesions).^10,11 In a group of 123 patients with Lyme disease, 30% treated with cefuroxime axetil and 32% treated with doxycycline had 1 or more drug-related adverse events.¹⁰ Additionally, avoidable antibiotic use is associated with increasing antibiotic resistance.¹² Improved diagnostic accuracy would prevent unnecessary treatment. Galan and colleagues⁷ reported that Warthin-Starry staining of prepared sections of the abdomen of a tick allowed for detection of B burgdorferi with a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 83%. This technique did not delay the final biopsy report and may be a promising adjunct to the diagnosis of early Lyme disease.⁷

Anecdotally, many patients who present with an attached and engorged tick are unaware of the timeline of their exposure. Histologic analysis of a removed tick could aid in early clinical decision-making—ie, when the diagnosis is unclear and treatment guidelines vary by region and circumstance. Improved sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis can prevent unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which is associated with adverse effects and escalation of antibiotic resistance.

To the Editor:

Lyme disease is caused by spirochetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex and transmitted to humans by the bite of the Ixodes scapularis tick. It was first classified as a nationally notifiable disease in 1991, and the incidence has risen remarkably since then.¹ More than 63,000 cases are reported annually to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; however, this number reflects severe underreporting, as the true incidence of the disease is projected to be closer to 476,000 cases per year.² Additionally, 95% of US cases occur in the Northeast and upper Midwest.³ Given the pervasiveness of Lyme disease, early and reliable diagnostic methodology is critical, especially in cases in which the timeline of inoculation is unclear. We present a case of Lyme disease that was discovered during a routine dermatologic visit.

A 77-year-old White man with no relevant medical history presented to a dermatology clinic in west-central Virginia for a routine skin check. Physical examination revealed a well-appearing patient without overt skin abnormalities. However, on closer evaluation, a ­0.2×0.1-cm engorged black I scapularis tick was visualized on the left lateral upper back. There was a surrounding zone of erythema that measured less than the 5-cm-diameter criterion for erythema migrans.¹

Upon questioning, the patient reported that he was unaware of the tick and could not provide a timeline for inoculation. To ensure proper treatment, the tick was removed in the office and a specimen was sent for histopathology. The arthropod was formalin fixed and paraffin embedded, and it was examined using hematoxylin and eosin and Warthin-Starry stains. Histopathology of the specimen revealed a blood-engorged arthropod. Warthin-Starry stain of the abdomen of the tick highlighted tiny strandlike spirochetes within the gut that were compatible with B burgdorferi (Figure). This finding prompted treatment with a 3-week course of doxycycline. Following treatment, erythema resolved. The patient experienced no sequelae.

Lyme disease can cause a range of serious complications if left untreated, including arthritis, neurologic deficits, and heart block. During the early stages of disease, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods such as serologic testing are limited.⁴ The gold standard for the diagnosis of Lyme disease comprises culture and subsequent confirmation by polymerase chain reaction.¹ However, cultivation of B burgdorferi is challenging.⁵ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends 2-tiered serologic antibody analysis, which has 27% sensitivity during the first week of cutaneous symptoms, and involves an enzyme-linked immunoassay followed by reflexive immunoblotting for positive or indeterminate cases.^2,6 The precision of this method is limited by several variables; for example, seroconversion fails to occur in approximately 40% of cases, even after proven exposure to the spirochete.⁷ Furthermore, the sensitivity of the test is particularly low during the first 4 to 6 weeks of infection—before the body mounts a proper immune response; fewer than 50% of patients exhibit a positive response to the test at initial presentation.³

Clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease is possible, though the pathognomonic erythema migrans rash can be delayed for as long as 30 days and remains absent in 20% to 30% of patients.¹ Prophylactic treatment can be offered to individuals who reside in a hyperendemic area and have a rash or have had an engorged Ixodes tick attached for longer than 36 hours.⁸

More definitive techniques for early diagnosis are needed to enable selective and accurate treatment. The standard of care for Lyme disease includes a 10-day course of doxycycline or a 14-day course of cefuroxime axetil or amoxicillin.⁹ Many patients tolerate treatment and achieve resolution of disease, but antibiotics are not benign, as some patients experience drug-related adverse effects such as photosensitivity, urticaria, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, esophagitis, hepatotoxicity, and the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction (fever, chills, rigors, nausea and vomiting, headache, tachycardia, hypotension, hyperventilation, flushing, myalgia, and exacerbation of lesions).^10,11 In a group of 123 patients with Lyme disease, 30% treated with cefuroxime axetil and 32% treated with doxycycline had 1 or more drug-related adverse events.¹⁰ Additionally, avoidable antibiotic use is associated with increasing antibiotic resistance.¹² Improved diagnostic accuracy would prevent unnecessary treatment. Galan and colleagues⁷ reported that Warthin-Starry staining of prepared sections of the abdomen of a tick allowed for detection of B burgdorferi with a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 83%. This technique did not delay the final biopsy report and may be a promising adjunct to the diagnosis of early Lyme disease.⁷

Anecdotally, many patients who present with an attached and engorged tick are unaware of the timeline of their exposure. Histologic analysis of a removed tick could aid in early clinical decision-making—ie, when the diagnosis is unclear and treatment guidelines vary by region and circumstance. Improved sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis can prevent unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which is associated with adverse effects and escalation of antibiotic resistance.

Genetic predisposition likely directs intestinal disease location in pediatric Crohn’s disease (CD) — whether colon-predominant (C-CD) or small-bowel-predominant (SB-CD), a small analysis in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology suggests.

Richard Kellermayer, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics in the Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and colleagues compared the genetic makeup of patients based on their Crohn’s disease location — predominantly in the small bowel (L4) or predominantly in the colon (L2 and/or L3). They then generated bipartite networks of susceptibility genes to study the polygenic background of the disease subtypes. They hypothesize that such networks may govern where a patient develops Crohn’s disease.

Baylor College of Medicine

According to current understanding, as Dr. Kellermayer told GI & Hepatology News, most autoimmune disorders, CD included, develop in people with a genetic predisposition after serial environmental insults between conception and young adulthood. “As opposed to single-gene-associated genetic disorders, autoimmune diseases are linked to several hundred genes in which subtle anomalies can work in concert to predispose someone to a certain disorder,” he said. “We hope our findings will guide the development of personalized treatments based on the disease location at diagnosis to advance precision medicine.”
 

CD cases

Eight cases of SB-CD and 11 of C-CD met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at CD diagnosis was about 11 years for both subtypes, while 36.3% of patients with C-CD were female vs 25% of those with SB-CD. Ethnicity was 72.2% White in the C-CD group and 87.5% in the SB-CD group.

As to the main ileocolonic locations according to the Paris Classification of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, 54.5% in the C-CD group had involvement at L2 and 45.5% at L3. In SB-CD cases, 100% had disease at L4b, 37.5% at L4, and 50% at L1.

The researchers identified 115 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a combined annotation-dependent depletion (CADD) score on Phil’s Read Editor (PHRED) of >10 that was associated with 97 genes. PHRED is a computer program measuring the quality of the identification of nucleobases generated by automated DNA sequencing and scores the deleteriousness of single-nucleotide variants. The identified genes in this study had a significantly (P < .01) different allele variation between C-CD and SB-CD.

Among the top 28 candidates was an SNP in the EFNA3 gene with a CADD score > 20 for differentiating between the two phenotypically distinct CD groups. Furthermore, the EFNA3 rs17723260 (predicted to be deleterious) was found to have a significantly lower allele frequency (4.5%) in C-CD compared with its allele frequency of 37.5% in SB-CD (chi square P = .0097).

“This finding indicates that EFNA3 might play a role in modulating colonic inflammation, in which a deleterious genetic defect might provide protection against colitis (and direct autoimmunity against the proximal small bowel) in the polygenic background of CD,” the investigators wrote.

EFNA3 has been linked to both CD and ulcerative colitis. Another four genes associated with the top five SNP candidates had already been connected with IBD or mammalian intestinal inflammation. 

According to the authors, the biomedical literature and mouse model findings “implicate the translational relevance of our candidate gene compendium for directing colon- vs small-bowel–predominant CD development.” They hope the findings will be replicated in larger CD cohorts differentiated by disease location. “Our work may set the nidus for CD subtype–based precision medicine by guiding individualized treatment strategies,” they wrote.

This study was supported by the ProKIIDS Network of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation and the Public Health Service. It was also supported by the Wagner, Frugoni, and Klaasmeyer families’ Gutsy Kids Fund and by the DR and GL Laws Fund. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Genetic predisposition likely directs intestinal disease location in pediatric Crohn’s disease (CD) — whether colon-predominant (C-CD) or small-bowel-predominant (SB-CD), a small analysis in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology suggests.

Richard Kellermayer, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics in the Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and colleagues compared the genetic makeup of patients based on their Crohn’s disease location — predominantly in the small bowel (L4) or predominantly in the colon (L2 and/or L3). They then generated bipartite networks of susceptibility genes to study the polygenic background of the disease subtypes. They hypothesize that such networks may govern where a patient develops Crohn’s disease.

Baylor College of Medicine

According to current understanding, as Dr. Kellermayer told GI & Hepatology News, most autoimmune disorders, CD included, develop in people with a genetic predisposition after serial environmental insults between conception and young adulthood. “As opposed to single-gene-associated genetic disorders, autoimmune diseases are linked to several hundred genes in which subtle anomalies can work in concert to predispose someone to a certain disorder,” he said. “We hope our findings will guide the development of personalized treatments based on the disease location at diagnosis to advance precision medicine.”
 

CD cases

Eight cases of SB-CD and 11 of C-CD met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at CD diagnosis was about 11 years for both subtypes, while 36.3% of patients with C-CD were female vs 25% of those with SB-CD. Ethnicity was 72.2% White in the C-CD group and 87.5% in the SB-CD group.

As to the main ileocolonic locations according to the Paris Classification of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, 54.5% in the C-CD group had involvement at L2 and 45.5% at L3. In SB-CD cases, 100% had disease at L4b, 37.5% at L4, and 50% at L1.

The researchers identified 115 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a combined annotation-dependent depletion (CADD) score on Phil’s Read Editor (PHRED) of >10 that was associated with 97 genes. PHRED is a computer program measuring the quality of the identification of nucleobases generated by automated DNA sequencing and scores the deleteriousness of single-nucleotide variants. The identified genes in this study had a significantly (P < .01) different allele variation between C-CD and SB-CD.

Among the top 28 candidates was an SNP in the EFNA3 gene with a CADD score > 20 for differentiating between the two phenotypically distinct CD groups. Furthermore, the EFNA3 rs17723260 (predicted to be deleterious) was found to have a significantly lower allele frequency (4.5%) in C-CD compared with its allele frequency of 37.5% in SB-CD (chi square P = .0097).

“This finding indicates that EFNA3 might play a role in modulating colonic inflammation, in which a deleterious genetic defect might provide protection against colitis (and direct autoimmunity against the proximal small bowel) in the polygenic background of CD,” the investigators wrote.

EFNA3 has been linked to both CD and ulcerative colitis. Another four genes associated with the top five SNP candidates had already been connected with IBD or mammalian intestinal inflammation. 

According to the authors, the biomedical literature and mouse model findings “implicate the translational relevance of our candidate gene compendium for directing colon- vs small-bowel–predominant CD development.” They hope the findings will be replicated in larger CD cohorts differentiated by disease location. “Our work may set the nidus for CD subtype–based precision medicine by guiding individualized treatment strategies,” they wrote.

This study was supported by the ProKIIDS Network of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation and the Public Health Service. It was also supported by the Wagner, Frugoni, and Klaasmeyer families’ Gutsy Kids Fund and by the DR and GL Laws Fund. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Genetic predisposition likely directs intestinal disease location in pediatric Crohn’s disease (CD) — whether colon-predominant (C-CD) or small-bowel-predominant (SB-CD), a small analysis in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology suggests.

Richard Kellermayer, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics in the Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and colleagues compared the genetic makeup of patients based on their Crohn’s disease location — predominantly in the small bowel (L4) or predominantly in the colon (L2 and/or L3). They then generated bipartite networks of susceptibility genes to study the polygenic background of the disease subtypes. They hypothesize that such networks may govern where a patient develops Crohn’s disease.

Baylor College of Medicine

According to current understanding, as Dr. Kellermayer told GI & Hepatology News, most autoimmune disorders, CD included, develop in people with a genetic predisposition after serial environmental insults between conception and young adulthood. “As opposed to single-gene-associated genetic disorders, autoimmune diseases are linked to several hundred genes in which subtle anomalies can work in concert to predispose someone to a certain disorder,” he said. “We hope our findings will guide the development of personalized treatments based on the disease location at diagnosis to advance precision medicine.”
 

CD cases

Eight cases of SB-CD and 11 of C-CD met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at CD diagnosis was about 11 years for both subtypes, while 36.3% of patients with C-CD were female vs 25% of those with SB-CD. Ethnicity was 72.2% White in the C-CD group and 87.5% in the SB-CD group.

As to the main ileocolonic locations according to the Paris Classification of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, 54.5% in the C-CD group had involvement at L2 and 45.5% at L3. In SB-CD cases, 100% had disease at L4b, 37.5% at L4, and 50% at L1.

The researchers identified 115 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a combined annotation-dependent depletion (CADD) score on Phil’s Read Editor (PHRED) of >10 that was associated with 97 genes. PHRED is a computer program measuring the quality of the identification of nucleobases generated by automated DNA sequencing and scores the deleteriousness of single-nucleotide variants. The identified genes in this study had a significantly (P < .01) different allele variation between C-CD and SB-CD.

Among the top 28 candidates was an SNP in the EFNA3 gene with a CADD score > 20 for differentiating between the two phenotypically distinct CD groups. Furthermore, the EFNA3 rs17723260 (predicted to be deleterious) was found to have a significantly lower allele frequency (4.5%) in C-CD compared with its allele frequency of 37.5% in SB-CD (chi square P = .0097).

“This finding indicates that EFNA3 might play a role in modulating colonic inflammation, in which a deleterious genetic defect might provide protection against colitis (and direct autoimmunity against the proximal small bowel) in the polygenic background of CD,” the investigators wrote.

EFNA3 has been linked to both CD and ulcerative colitis. Another four genes associated with the top five SNP candidates had already been connected with IBD or mammalian intestinal inflammation. 

According to the authors, the biomedical literature and mouse model findings “implicate the translational relevance of our candidate gene compendium for directing colon- vs small-bowel–predominant CD development.” They hope the findings will be replicated in larger CD cohorts differentiated by disease location. “Our work may set the nidus for CD subtype–based precision medicine by guiding individualized treatment strategies,” they wrote.

This study was supported by the ProKIIDS Network of the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation and the Public Health Service. It was also supported by the Wagner, Frugoni, and Klaasmeyer families’ Gutsy Kids Fund and by the DR and GL Laws Fund. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

The recommended 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies may be safely extended to 15 years in adults with no family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) whose first colonoscopy is negative for CRC, a population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish nationwide registry data, researchers compared 110,074 individuals who had a first colonoscopy with negative findings for CRC at age 45-69 years (exposed group) with more than 1.9 million matched controls who either did not have a colonoscopy during the study period or underwent colonoscopy that led to a CRC diagnosis.
• They calculated 10-year standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) to compare risks for CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 29 years of follow-up, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC deaths occurred in the group with a negative initial colonoscopy.
• Up to 15 years after negative colonoscopy, the 10-year cumulative risk for CRC and CRC mortality was lower than in the control group, with an SIR of 0.72 and SMR of 0.55, respectively.
• Extending the screening interval from 10 to 15 years would miss early detection of only two CRC cases and prevention of only one CRC death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence for recommending a longer colonoscopy screening interval than what is currently recommended in most guidelines for populations with no familial risk of CRC,” the authors wrote. “A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Qunfeng Liang, MSc, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, was published online on May 2 in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily included White individuals, particularly ethnic Swedish individuals, so external validation would be necessary to generalize the recommendation to other populations. The researchers lacked data on non-endoscopic tests, such as fecal occult blood tests, which could have been performed as a substitution for colonoscopy during the interval between colonoscopy screenings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The recommended 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies may be safely extended to 15 years in adults with no family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) whose first colonoscopy is negative for CRC, a population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish nationwide registry data, researchers compared 110,074 individuals who had a first colonoscopy with negative findings for CRC at age 45-69 years (exposed group) with more than 1.9 million matched controls who either did not have a colonoscopy during the study period or underwent colonoscopy that led to a CRC diagnosis.
• They calculated 10-year standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) to compare risks for CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 29 years of follow-up, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC deaths occurred in the group with a negative initial colonoscopy.
• Up to 15 years after negative colonoscopy, the 10-year cumulative risk for CRC and CRC mortality was lower than in the control group, with an SIR of 0.72 and SMR of 0.55, respectively.
• Extending the screening interval from 10 to 15 years would miss early detection of only two CRC cases and prevention of only one CRC death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence for recommending a longer colonoscopy screening interval than what is currently recommended in most guidelines for populations with no familial risk of CRC,” the authors wrote. “A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Qunfeng Liang, MSc, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, was published online on May 2 in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily included White individuals, particularly ethnic Swedish individuals, so external validation would be necessary to generalize the recommendation to other populations. The researchers lacked data on non-endoscopic tests, such as fecal occult blood tests, which could have been performed as a substitution for colonoscopy during the interval between colonoscopy screenings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The recommended 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies may be safely extended to 15 years in adults with no family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) whose first colonoscopy is negative for CRC, a population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish nationwide registry data, researchers compared 110,074 individuals who had a first colonoscopy with negative findings for CRC at age 45-69 years (exposed group) with more than 1.9 million matched controls who either did not have a colonoscopy during the study period or underwent colonoscopy that led to a CRC diagnosis.
• They calculated 10-year standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) to compare risks for CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 29 years of follow-up, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC deaths occurred in the group with a negative initial colonoscopy.
• Up to 15 years after negative colonoscopy, the 10-year cumulative risk for CRC and CRC mortality was lower than in the control group, with an SIR of 0.72 and SMR of 0.55, respectively.
• Extending the screening interval from 10 to 15 years would miss early detection of only two CRC cases and prevention of only one CRC death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence for recommending a longer colonoscopy screening interval than what is currently recommended in most guidelines for populations with no familial risk of CRC,” the authors wrote. “A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Qunfeng Liang, MSc, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, was published online on May 2 in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily included White individuals, particularly ethnic Swedish individuals, so external validation would be necessary to generalize the recommendation to other populations. The researchers lacked data on non-endoscopic tests, such as fecal occult blood tests, which could have been performed as a substitution for colonoscopy during the interval between colonoscopy screenings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical guidelines on age-related hearing loss (ARHL), published in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, highlight referral recommendations for all clinicians, including primary care doctors, who often are the first clinicians to screen for and address the condition.

Betty S. Tsai Do, MD, with the department of head & neck surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek, California, is the first author for the guidelines, which recommend screening patients 50 years or older at the time of a healthcare encounter. They also detail when to test and refer.
 

Three ‘Strong Recommendations’

Three of the action points are labeled “strong recommendations.” They are:

• If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should conduct an audiogram or refer to a clinician who can conduct one.
• Clinicians should offer, or refer to a specialist who can offer, appropriately fit amplification, such as hearing aids.
• If patients have appropriately fit amplification and still have trouble with hearing and understanding speech, clinicians should refer patients to see if they are good candidates for a cochlear implant.

The authors note that ARHL is the most common sensory deficit seen in older patients, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. “Between ages 65 and 74, one in three adults experience hearing loss and almost 50% of those 75 years of age or older will report hearing loss according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.” Consequences of the untreated deficit, in addition to limiting ability to communicate, include higher risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease, depression, falls, and workplace marginalization.

Until now, there have been no evidence-based clinical guidelines on when to screen, test, and refer. Though previously proposed quality improvement measures have defined ARHL as starting at age 60, these guidelines include those 50 and older to promote earlier detection.
 

Guidelines Only Part of the Solution

While the guidelines are a step in the right direction, they won’t address some persistent barriers to changing practice, said Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and co-director of the Center for Disability Health and Wellness at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of the guideline team.

“I think [the guidelines] will raise the awareness on why it’s important to address hearing loss,” he says. “Many primary care providers don’t elevate hearing loss as a priority topic. The problem is that we’re struggling with getting things in place to have a more supportive system to carry out those recommendations.”
 

Lack of Training and Support

The problems include lack of training on hearing loss for physicians, starting with medical school. Another complication is time: A conversation about hearing loss adds to the multitude of conversations a primary care provider is expected to have with their patients in a short visit.

Additionally, when hearing loss is suspected, an audiologist may be hard to find to perform the audiogram, Dr. McKee says. If patients agree to see an audiologist and that specialist finds hearing loss, patients may not want to wear a device due to stigma or may not be able to afford a device that will fit properly and truly benefit them because Medicare does not cover hearing aids.

“Only about 20-plus percent of those eligible for hearing aids get them,” he said. Hearing aids available over the counter help some people, but may be difficult to fit properly and may be hard for some to use correctly, he added.

“That comes back to the primary care provider, so it’s unfortunately a very unsatisfying course,” he said.
 

‘Primary Care Providers Do Value Guidelines’

However, “Primary care providers do value guidelines. They do value strong recommendations,” he said. We are trying to figure out how we can support people with unaddressed hearing loss in the primary care setting, Dr. McKee said. “Once we get there, we need to advocate for an expansion of coverage,” he said.

The authors note that the messages in the guidelines are important for all clinicians.

“The impact of hearing loss and screening should not be the sole responsibility of an audiologist, an otolaryngologist, nor primary care provider. Any time and place that a patient interacts with the healthcare system is an opportunity for preventive healthcare, such as hearing screening, to occur,” they write.

Funding for this research was provided by the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Dr. Do and Dr. McKee report no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures of the co-authors are listed with the full text of the paper.
 

Clinical guidelines on age-related hearing loss (ARHL), published in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, highlight referral recommendations for all clinicians, including primary care doctors, who often are the first clinicians to screen for and address the condition.

Betty S. Tsai Do, MD, with the department of head & neck surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek, California, is the first author for the guidelines, which recommend screening patients 50 years or older at the time of a healthcare encounter. They also detail when to test and refer.
 

Three ‘Strong Recommendations’

Three of the action points are labeled “strong recommendations.” They are:

• If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should conduct an audiogram or refer to a clinician who can conduct one.
• Clinicians should offer, or refer to a specialist who can offer, appropriately fit amplification, such as hearing aids.
• If patients have appropriately fit amplification and still have trouble with hearing and understanding speech, clinicians should refer patients to see if they are good candidates for a cochlear implant.

The authors note that ARHL is the most common sensory deficit seen in older patients, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. “Between ages 65 and 74, one in three adults experience hearing loss and almost 50% of those 75 years of age or older will report hearing loss according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.” Consequences of the untreated deficit, in addition to limiting ability to communicate, include higher risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease, depression, falls, and workplace marginalization.

Until now, there have been no evidence-based clinical guidelines on when to screen, test, and refer. Though previously proposed quality improvement measures have defined ARHL as starting at age 60, these guidelines include those 50 and older to promote earlier detection.
 

Guidelines Only Part of the Solution

While the guidelines are a step in the right direction, they won’t address some persistent barriers to changing practice, said Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and co-director of the Center for Disability Health and Wellness at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of the guideline team.

“I think [the guidelines] will raise the awareness on why it’s important to address hearing loss,” he says. “Many primary care providers don’t elevate hearing loss as a priority topic. The problem is that we’re struggling with getting things in place to have a more supportive system to carry out those recommendations.”
 

Lack of Training and Support

The problems include lack of training on hearing loss for physicians, starting with medical school. Another complication is time: A conversation about hearing loss adds to the multitude of conversations a primary care provider is expected to have with their patients in a short visit.

Additionally, when hearing loss is suspected, an audiologist may be hard to find to perform the audiogram, Dr. McKee says. If patients agree to see an audiologist and that specialist finds hearing loss, patients may not want to wear a device due to stigma or may not be able to afford a device that will fit properly and truly benefit them because Medicare does not cover hearing aids.

“Only about 20-plus percent of those eligible for hearing aids get them,” he said. Hearing aids available over the counter help some people, but may be difficult to fit properly and may be hard for some to use correctly, he added.

“That comes back to the primary care provider, so it’s unfortunately a very unsatisfying course,” he said.
 

‘Primary Care Providers Do Value Guidelines’

However, “Primary care providers do value guidelines. They do value strong recommendations,” he said. We are trying to figure out how we can support people with unaddressed hearing loss in the primary care setting, Dr. McKee said. “Once we get there, we need to advocate for an expansion of coverage,” he said.

The authors note that the messages in the guidelines are important for all clinicians.

“The impact of hearing loss and screening should not be the sole responsibility of an audiologist, an otolaryngologist, nor primary care provider. Any time and place that a patient interacts with the healthcare system is an opportunity for preventive healthcare, such as hearing screening, to occur,” they write.

Funding for this research was provided by the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Dr. Do and Dr. McKee report no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures of the co-authors are listed with the full text of the paper.
 

Clinical guidelines on age-related hearing loss (ARHL), published in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, highlight referral recommendations for all clinicians, including primary care doctors, who often are the first clinicians to screen for and address the condition.

Betty S. Tsai Do, MD, with the department of head & neck surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek, California, is the first author for the guidelines, which recommend screening patients 50 years or older at the time of a healthcare encounter. They also detail when to test and refer.
 

Three ‘Strong Recommendations’

Three of the action points are labeled “strong recommendations.” They are:

• If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should conduct an audiogram or refer to a clinician who can conduct one.
• Clinicians should offer, or refer to a specialist who can offer, appropriately fit amplification, such as hearing aids.
• If patients have appropriately fit amplification and still have trouble with hearing and understanding speech, clinicians should refer patients to see if they are good candidates for a cochlear implant.

The authors note that ARHL is the most common sensory deficit seen in older patients, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. “Between ages 65 and 74, one in three adults experience hearing loss and almost 50% of those 75 years of age or older will report hearing loss according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.” Consequences of the untreated deficit, in addition to limiting ability to communicate, include higher risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease, depression, falls, and workplace marginalization.

Until now, there have been no evidence-based clinical guidelines on when to screen, test, and refer. Though previously proposed quality improvement measures have defined ARHL as starting at age 60, these guidelines include those 50 and older to promote earlier detection.
 

Guidelines Only Part of the Solution

While the guidelines are a step in the right direction, they won’t address some persistent barriers to changing practice, said Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and co-director of the Center for Disability Health and Wellness at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of the guideline team.

“I think [the guidelines] will raise the awareness on why it’s important to address hearing loss,” he says. “Many primary care providers don’t elevate hearing loss as a priority topic. The problem is that we’re struggling with getting things in place to have a more supportive system to carry out those recommendations.”
 

Lack of Training and Support

The problems include lack of training on hearing loss for physicians, starting with medical school. Another complication is time: A conversation about hearing loss adds to the multitude of conversations a primary care provider is expected to have with their patients in a short visit.

Additionally, when hearing loss is suspected, an audiologist may be hard to find to perform the audiogram, Dr. McKee says. If patients agree to see an audiologist and that specialist finds hearing loss, patients may not want to wear a device due to stigma or may not be able to afford a device that will fit properly and truly benefit them because Medicare does not cover hearing aids.

“Only about 20-plus percent of those eligible for hearing aids get them,” he said. Hearing aids available over the counter help some people, but may be difficult to fit properly and may be hard for some to use correctly, he added.

“That comes back to the primary care provider, so it’s unfortunately a very unsatisfying course,” he said.
 

‘Primary Care Providers Do Value Guidelines’

However, “Primary care providers do value guidelines. They do value strong recommendations,” he said. We are trying to figure out how we can support people with unaddressed hearing loss in the primary care setting, Dr. McKee said. “Once we get there, we need to advocate for an expansion of coverage,” he said.

The authors note that the messages in the guidelines are important for all clinicians.

“The impact of hearing loss and screening should not be the sole responsibility of an audiologist, an otolaryngologist, nor primary care provider. Any time and place that a patient interacts with the healthcare system is an opportunity for preventive healthcare, such as hearing screening, to occur,” they write.

Funding for this research was provided by the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Dr. Do and Dr. McKee report no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures of the co-authors are listed with the full text of the paper.
 

TORONTO — Misinformation in pediatric medicine, like other areas of medicine, is widely regarded as a major public health threat, but the good news is that a new survey reveals that pediatricians still believe their counsel is respected by patients and families.

Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.

These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).

While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.

Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
 

A Matter of Trust

According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.

There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.

However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.

When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.

For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
 

Encountering Misinformation

The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.

For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.

For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.

Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.

When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).

When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).

Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
 

A Growing Problem

The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.

One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.

“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.

Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”

Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
 

TORONTO — Misinformation in pediatric medicine, like other areas of medicine, is widely regarded as a major public health threat, but the good news is that a new survey reveals that pediatricians still believe their counsel is respected by patients and families.

Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.

These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).

While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.

Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
 

A Matter of Trust

According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.

There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.

However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.

When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.

For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
 

Encountering Misinformation

The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.

For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.

For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.

Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.

When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).

When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).

Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
 

A Growing Problem

The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.

One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.

“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.

Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”

Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
 

TORONTO — Misinformation in pediatric medicine, like other areas of medicine, is widely regarded as a major public health threat, but the good news is that a new survey reveals that pediatricians still believe their counsel is respected by patients and families.

Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.

These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).

While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.

Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
 

A Matter of Trust

According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.

There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.

However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.

When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.

For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
 

Encountering Misinformation

The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.

For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.

For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.

Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.

When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).

When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).

Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
 

A Growing Problem

The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.

One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.

“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.

Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”

Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
 

Recent newspaper headlines have focused almost exclusively on gender-affirming medical interventions for transgender youth (eg, puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones like estrogen and testosterone). It is true that these are important treatments that are consistently tied to improvements in mental health. However, an additional powerful predictor of good mental health outcomes for transgender youth is parental support and acceptance.

It is essential that clinicians consider this when creating treatment plans for transgender youth. While transgender young people are struggling with gender dysphoria, their parents are often struggling as well. Sadly, they are often afraid to share their own struggles, despite working through these being essential for their children’s thriving and well-being. I have a few key tips for combating this issue. My upcoming book Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity provides much more context for parents and providers, but I will highlight a few big takeaways here.

Stanford Lucille Packard Children&#039;s Hospital.

Give Parents Their Own Space

Many parents have never encountered a transgender person in their life and have a lot of questions. At times, they may be “thinking out loud” and say things in passing that aren’t their final thoughts or opinions on a matter. This can, unfortunately, be damaging to their children. I often speak with adult transgender people whose parents said something they no longer believe (eg, “being trans is just a mental illness – you need therapy to fix it”), but these comments stick in the person’s mind and drive shame and self-esteem challenges later in life, sometimes for decades. Parents need to have a safe space, with a trained professional with expertise in gender, to work through their concerns and questions away from their children, so that when they talk to their kids about gender, they are presenting their fully formed thoughts.

Validate Parents’ Difficult Experiences

As pediatric providers, we are often focused on the difficult experiences of our transgender pediatric patients. However, their parents tend to be struggling as well, and that struggling predicts adverse mental health outcomes for their children.

The most common reaction a parent has upon learning their child is transgender is fear. It’s important to validate this fear (and other feelings that come out), so that parents know they can share with you what’s really going on in their minds.

There are some common themes we see for parents. Some are big fears: fear that their child will be victimized or fear that their child will later regret taking gender-affirming hormones and blame the parents for giving permission to take them. Parents often say they had a gendered vision for what their child’s future would be like, and their child coming out as transgender changes that (it can be helpful to gently remind parents that children almost never grow up exactly how we predict).

Some themes are more mundane but nonetheless distressing for parents, such as not wanting to throw away meaningful souvenirs from past vacations that have their child’s birth name on them. Clinicians can and should validate these thoughts and feelings, while also providing additional context and education. I often recommend the book Found in Transition by Pariah Hassouri, a pediatrician who goes through many of these common struggles after her daughter comes out as transgender.

 

Take a Three-Stage Approach When Adolescents Are Considering Gender-Affirming Medical Interventions

We recently outlined our process for conducting a biopsychosocial assessment for adolescents considering pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria in The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, for those who want more detail on how to conduct these assessments. On the theme of supporting parents, I would highlight the value of taking a three-stage approach. In the first stage, a clinician meets with an adolescent alone to collect their gender history and discuss important considerations regarding the medical intervention. In stage two, the same information about the medical intervention is shared with parents, along with a summary of what the adolescent shared with the clinician (with the adolescent’s consent, of course). Often there will be some areas of disconnect. We make a list of these areas of disconnect that are addressed in stage three, in which the full family is brought together to get everyone on the same page and understanding each other’s perspectives.

Common disconnects include gender dysphoria seeming to “come out of nowhere” from the parents’ perspective, necessitating the young person to recount an early life experience in which they were harassed for expressing gender nonconformity, leading them to act stereotypically in line with their sex assigned at birth for years to avoid being “outed” and harassed more. Conversations around fertility preservation can be particularly complex. Young people and their parents also sometimes have different conceptualizations of gender identity and require a shared framework for talking about gender identity (which I offer in my forthcoming book). This list of family therapy topics can be diverse and highly dependent on the family. An additional resource for this phase of the family therapy is The Family Acceptance Project, which has created culturally tailored materials to help parents understand their sexual and gender minority children.

In summary, fostering healthy family functioning is essential for the care of transgender and gender diverse youth, and parents require support in addition to their children needing support. I encourage all gender providers to incorporate the vital element of family therapy into their practice.

 

Dr. Turban is director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on X @jack_turban.

Recent newspaper headlines have focused almost exclusively on gender-affirming medical interventions for transgender youth (eg, puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones like estrogen and testosterone). It is true that these are important treatments that are consistently tied to improvements in mental health. However, an additional powerful predictor of good mental health outcomes for transgender youth is parental support and acceptance.

It is essential that clinicians consider this when creating treatment plans for transgender youth. While transgender young people are struggling with gender dysphoria, their parents are often struggling as well. Sadly, they are often afraid to share their own struggles, despite working through these being essential for their children’s thriving and well-being. I have a few key tips for combating this issue. My upcoming book Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity provides much more context for parents and providers, but I will highlight a few big takeaways here.

Stanford Lucille Packard Children&#039;s Hospital.

Give Parents Their Own Space

Many parents have never encountered a transgender person in their life and have a lot of questions. At times, they may be “thinking out loud” and say things in passing that aren’t their final thoughts or opinions on a matter. This can, unfortunately, be damaging to their children. I often speak with adult transgender people whose parents said something they no longer believe (eg, “being trans is just a mental illness – you need therapy to fix it”), but these comments stick in the person’s mind and drive shame and self-esteem challenges later in life, sometimes for decades. Parents need to have a safe space, with a trained professional with expertise in gender, to work through their concerns and questions away from their children, so that when they talk to their kids about gender, they are presenting their fully formed thoughts.

Validate Parents’ Difficult Experiences

As pediatric providers, we are often focused on the difficult experiences of our transgender pediatric patients. However, their parents tend to be struggling as well, and that struggling predicts adverse mental health outcomes for their children.

The most common reaction a parent has upon learning their child is transgender is fear. It’s important to validate this fear (and other feelings that come out), so that parents know they can share with you what’s really going on in their minds.

There are some common themes we see for parents. Some are big fears: fear that their child will be victimized or fear that their child will later regret taking gender-affirming hormones and blame the parents for giving permission to take them. Parents often say they had a gendered vision for what their child’s future would be like, and their child coming out as transgender changes that (it can be helpful to gently remind parents that children almost never grow up exactly how we predict).

Some themes are more mundane but nonetheless distressing for parents, such as not wanting to throw away meaningful souvenirs from past vacations that have their child’s birth name on them. Clinicians can and should validate these thoughts and feelings, while also providing additional context and education. I often recommend the book Found in Transition by Pariah Hassouri, a pediatrician who goes through many of these common struggles after her daughter comes out as transgender.

 

Take a Three-Stage Approach When Adolescents Are Considering Gender-Affirming Medical Interventions

We recently outlined our process for conducting a biopsychosocial assessment for adolescents considering pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria in The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, for those who want more detail on how to conduct these assessments. On the theme of supporting parents, I would highlight the value of taking a three-stage approach. In the first stage, a clinician meets with an adolescent alone to collect their gender history and discuss important considerations regarding the medical intervention. In stage two, the same information about the medical intervention is shared with parents, along with a summary of what the adolescent shared with the clinician (with the adolescent’s consent, of course). Often there will be some areas of disconnect. We make a list of these areas of disconnect that are addressed in stage three, in which the full family is brought together to get everyone on the same page and understanding each other’s perspectives.

Common disconnects include gender dysphoria seeming to “come out of nowhere” from the parents’ perspective, necessitating the young person to recount an early life experience in which they were harassed for expressing gender nonconformity, leading them to act stereotypically in line with their sex assigned at birth for years to avoid being “outed” and harassed more. Conversations around fertility preservation can be particularly complex. Young people and their parents also sometimes have different conceptualizations of gender identity and require a shared framework for talking about gender identity (which I offer in my forthcoming book). This list of family therapy topics can be diverse and highly dependent on the family. An additional resource for this phase of the family therapy is The Family Acceptance Project, which has created culturally tailored materials to help parents understand their sexual and gender minority children.

In summary, fostering healthy family functioning is essential for the care of transgender and gender diverse youth, and parents require support in addition to their children needing support. I encourage all gender providers to incorporate the vital element of family therapy into their practice.

 

Dr. Turban is director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on X @jack_turban.

Recent newspaper headlines have focused almost exclusively on gender-affirming medical interventions for transgender youth (eg, puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones like estrogen and testosterone). It is true that these are important treatments that are consistently tied to improvements in mental health. However, an additional powerful predictor of good mental health outcomes for transgender youth is parental support and acceptance.

It is essential that clinicians consider this when creating treatment plans for transgender youth. While transgender young people are struggling with gender dysphoria, their parents are often struggling as well. Sadly, they are often afraid to share their own struggles, despite working through these being essential for their children’s thriving and well-being. I have a few key tips for combating this issue. My upcoming book Free to Be: Understanding Kids & Gender Identity provides much more context for parents and providers, but I will highlight a few big takeaways here.

Stanford Lucille Packard Children&#039;s Hospital.

Give Parents Their Own Space

Many parents have never encountered a transgender person in their life and have a lot of questions. At times, they may be “thinking out loud” and say things in passing that aren’t their final thoughts or opinions on a matter. This can, unfortunately, be damaging to their children. I often speak with adult transgender people whose parents said something they no longer believe (eg, “being trans is just a mental illness – you need therapy to fix it”), but these comments stick in the person’s mind and drive shame and self-esteem challenges later in life, sometimes for decades. Parents need to have a safe space, with a trained professional with expertise in gender, to work through their concerns and questions away from their children, so that when they talk to their kids about gender, they are presenting their fully formed thoughts.

Validate Parents’ Difficult Experiences

As pediatric providers, we are often focused on the difficult experiences of our transgender pediatric patients. However, their parents tend to be struggling as well, and that struggling predicts adverse mental health outcomes for their children.

The most common reaction a parent has upon learning their child is transgender is fear. It’s important to validate this fear (and other feelings that come out), so that parents know they can share with you what’s really going on in their minds.

There are some common themes we see for parents. Some are big fears: fear that their child will be victimized or fear that their child will later regret taking gender-affirming hormones and blame the parents for giving permission to take them. Parents often say they had a gendered vision for what their child’s future would be like, and their child coming out as transgender changes that (it can be helpful to gently remind parents that children almost never grow up exactly how we predict).

Some themes are more mundane but nonetheless distressing for parents, such as not wanting to throw away meaningful souvenirs from past vacations that have their child’s birth name on them. Clinicians can and should validate these thoughts and feelings, while also providing additional context and education. I often recommend the book Found in Transition by Pariah Hassouri, a pediatrician who goes through many of these common struggles after her daughter comes out as transgender.

 

Take a Three-Stage Approach When Adolescents Are Considering Gender-Affirming Medical Interventions

We recently outlined our process for conducting a biopsychosocial assessment for adolescents considering pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria in The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, for those who want more detail on how to conduct these assessments. On the theme of supporting parents, I would highlight the value of taking a three-stage approach. In the first stage, a clinician meets with an adolescent alone to collect their gender history and discuss important considerations regarding the medical intervention. In stage two, the same information about the medical intervention is shared with parents, along with a summary of what the adolescent shared with the clinician (with the adolescent’s consent, of course). Often there will be some areas of disconnect. We make a list of these areas of disconnect that are addressed in stage three, in which the full family is brought together to get everyone on the same page and understanding each other’s perspectives.

Common disconnects include gender dysphoria seeming to “come out of nowhere” from the parents’ perspective, necessitating the young person to recount an early life experience in which they were harassed for expressing gender nonconformity, leading them to act stereotypically in line with their sex assigned at birth for years to avoid being “outed” and harassed more. Conversations around fertility preservation can be particularly complex. Young people and their parents also sometimes have different conceptualizations of gender identity and require a shared framework for talking about gender identity (which I offer in my forthcoming book). This list of family therapy topics can be diverse and highly dependent on the family. An additional resource for this phase of the family therapy is The Family Acceptance Project, which has created culturally tailored materials to help parents understand their sexual and gender minority children.

In summary, fostering healthy family functioning is essential for the care of transgender and gender diverse youth, and parents require support in addition to their children needing support. I encourage all gender providers to incorporate the vital element of family therapy into their practice.

 

Dr. Turban is director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on X @jack_turban.