Transgender patients have unique needs regarding obstetric and gynecologic care as well as preventive care, and ob.gyns. can help by providing support, education, and understanding, according to new guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, urges public and private health insurance plans to cover necessary services for individuals with gender dysphoria, and advocates for inclusive, thoughtful, and affirming care for transgender individuals,” according to the committee opinion, published in the March issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The opinion was developed jointly by ACOG’s Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, led by Beth Cronin, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Colleen K, Stockdale, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“Lack of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity, as well as bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients,” the authors wrote.

The committee opinion provides guidance for ob.gyns. on topics including inclusivity, routine screening, fertility and reproductive issues, hormone therapy, medication use, and surgery.

“One of the most incredible things about being an ob.gyn. is that this field is a hybrid of primary care and surgical practice,” said K. Ashley Brandt, DO, in an interview. “Many patients seek out care from ob.gyns. for routine screening such as a Pap test, for initiation of hormone therapy, or for postoperative management,” said Dr. Brandt, an ob.gyn. and a plastic surgeon at Reading Hospital/Tower Health System in West Reading, Pa. “Many of my colleagues are starting to see an increase in transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals and do not know where to access resources or information on basic care needs. I think ACOG issuing this guidance is a great first step in providing an overview for the ob.gyn., who otherwise haven’t had formal training in transgender medicine,” she emphasized.

Dr. Brandt said she was not surprised by any of the recommendations. “These recommendations, while evolving and updating as new data emerge, have been in place by WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the Endocrine Society for quite some time,” she noted. “However, this updated committee opinion is a summary of recommendations that are relevant to the clinical practice of an ob.gyn.”

“Since the publication of Care for Transgender Adolescents (2017) and Healthcare for Transgender Individuals (2011), there has been an exponential increase in data that have helped to improve and guide best practices for this patient population including better defining risks, needs, therapy, and follow-up,” said Nancy Sokkary, MD, a specialist in pediatric and adolescent gynecology in Macon, Ga., in an interview. “This document also served as an opportunity for ACOG to educate ob.gyns. about health inequities and emphasize need for gender-affirming and inclusive care,” she said.

“These recommendations are consistent with literature that has been published over the last several years,” she added. “It is certainly important for ob.gyns. to have a document unequivocally supporting hysterectomies and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as medically necessary for transgender patients that desire these procedures for their transition.”
 

Inclusive environment

Approximately 1.4 million adults and 150,000 youth aged 13-17 years in the United States identify as transgender, but these individuals are often marginalized socially and economically, which can lead to worse health outcomes, according to the committee. “Creating a safe and affirming health care environment for all patients, including transgender individuals, is essential,” the authors said. Steps to create a supportive office setting include educating staff to avoid assumptions about sex and gender, and ask appropriately about choice of pronouns and orientation. Use patient forms that reflect a full range of options and places for patients to write in a response. Also, use electronic medical records to track information on use of names other than legal names. “Ob.gyns. play an important role in caring for gender-nonconforming people,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Ob.gyn. providers may have varying levels of participation in gender-affirming hormone or surgery provision, but they can universally conduct routine health maintenance, contraceptive and fertility counseling, and obstetric care in a respectful and inclusive environment,” she said.

Track transition issues

The opinion notes that many gender-transition medications can be prescribed not only by ob.gyns., but by a range of health care professionals with training and education. When it comes to medication and surgery, neither medication nor surgery is required for legally changing one’s name or gender, but patient desires vary from those seeking only letters of support for such legal changes to those who want to pursue hormone therapy or procedures such as chest surgery, hysterectomy, or phalloplasty.

Transgender patients seeking care from ob.gyns. include transmasculine and transfeminine individuals who are seeking various degrees of masculinizing or feminizing therapies.

Masculinizing therapies may result in development of facial hair, deepening voice, and changes in muscle mass, but patients undergoing masculinizing therapies should be reminded of the potential for continued ovulation, according to the opinion. “The only absolute contraindications to masculinizing hormone therapy are current pregnancy, unstable coronary artery disease, and polycythemia (hematocrit greater than 55%),” the authors wrote.

Feminizing therapies have no absolute contraindications, but “risks include venous thromboembolism (VTE), hypertriglyceridemia, development of gallstones, and elevated liver enzymes,” they noted.
 

Talk about sex and fertility

Clinicians treating transgender patients should discuss fertility and parenting early in the process of any gender transition, ideally before the patient undergoes hormone therapy or surgery, according to the opinion. Fertility preservation options for transgender patients are the same as for cisgender patients who wish to preserve fertility for various reasons, and include “sperm banking, oocyte preservation, embryo preservation, and in some cases, ovarian or testicular tissue cryopreservation,” the authors noted.

However, patients who do not desire pregnancy but may have the potential to become pregnant or impregnate others should be counseled on contraceptive options and reminded that gender-affirming hormone therapy alone does not provide effective contraception, they emphasized. In addition, “all patients should be counseled on barrier use for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases,” they said.
 

Consistent routine screening and preventive care

The committee opinion also states that transgender patients should undergo routine screening for any anatomical structures that are present, such as breast cancer screening for transmasculine individuals with breast tissue, and cervical cancer screening for those with a cervix. Transfeminine individuals should undergo prostate cancer screening in accordance with the recommendations for cisgender men, the authors said.

“As for all patients, transgender individuals should be counseled about the importance of routine preventive health care,” according to the opinion. “All individuals should be routinely screened for intimate partner violence, depression, substance use, cancer, and other health care needs and should be screened for sexually transmitted infections and counseled about appropriate immunizations based on age and risk factors, including HPV vaccination,” the authors said.

“We continue to see patient discrimination and discomfort with the medical system as a barrier to preventive care among gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Sokkary. “[Ensuring] that your clinic is a safe, inclusive place is a good start. Also, having providers such as ob.gyns. and family medicine physicians provide gender-affirming care in addition to routine screening and testing is helpful,” she said. 

One of the ongoing challenges of counseling transgender patients across a range of age groups, from youth through menopause, is a lack of data on the long-term effects of hormone therapy or surgical intervention, Dr. Brandt noted. “Since there is a paucity of this information, many of the screening recommendations fall in line with that of cisgender patients; however, this is not always the case as screening is determined by hormonal usage, risk factors, and surgical state. It is important for clinicians to be aware of evolutions in screening that will continue to occur as more evidence becomes available,” she emphasized.

In addition, “This document did not include specific guidance for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents, and there are many factors and recommendations that are unique to this population,” Dr. Sokkary said.  
 

Barriers and overcoming them

The main barrier to care with transgender and gender-nonconfirming patients is access to care and finding providers who are competent in gender-affirming health, Dr. Brandt noted. “Another significant barrier involves caring for transgender male patients in a traditionally ‘women’s health’ specialty,” she said. “While the office of an ob.gyn. can be very affirming for transgender women, it has the potential to exacerbate discomfort in transgender male patients,” she noted. “Having gender-affirming posters and pamphlets in the waiting area are ways to make patients feel more at ease. Another of the ways to overcome this barrier is education of the staff and health care providers,” added Dr. Brandt. “Fortunately, this is starting to occur at medical school and residency levels. For ob.gyns. already in practice, articles such as this committee opinion can serve as a resource for providers seeking to understand health care needs of this community,” she said.

“Cost and insurance coverage continue to be barriers, but this has improved immensely: There are now several local and national resources that can help with this depending on the issue,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Additionally, we still lack robust data that define cancer risk among transgender individuals, and until we have more evidence-based recommendations providers should follow screening outlined in this document,” she said.
 

Use the ACOG opinion as a starting point

“This committee opinion is a great introduction and summary for ob.gyns. seeking to understand basic care needs for gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Brandt. “However, I strongly encourage ob.gyns. who wish to truly incorporate gender-affirming care as part of their routine clinical practice to participate in continuing education, read the WPATH standards of care among many of the resources provided in the committee opinion, and attend conferences that are specific to transgender health and medicine,” she said.

The opinion received no outside funding. The authors were vetted by ACOG and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Brandt had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sokkary had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Transgender patients have unique needs regarding obstetric and gynecologic care as well as preventive care, and ob.gyns. can help by providing support, education, and understanding, according to new guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, urges public and private health insurance plans to cover necessary services for individuals with gender dysphoria, and advocates for inclusive, thoughtful, and affirming care for transgender individuals,” according to the committee opinion, published in the March issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The opinion was developed jointly by ACOG’s Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, led by Beth Cronin, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Colleen K, Stockdale, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“Lack of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity, as well as bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients,” the authors wrote.

The committee opinion provides guidance for ob.gyns. on topics including inclusivity, routine screening, fertility and reproductive issues, hormone therapy, medication use, and surgery.

“One of the most incredible things about being an ob.gyn. is that this field is a hybrid of primary care and surgical practice,” said K. Ashley Brandt, DO, in an interview. “Many patients seek out care from ob.gyns. for routine screening such as a Pap test, for initiation of hormone therapy, or for postoperative management,” said Dr. Brandt, an ob.gyn. and a plastic surgeon at Reading Hospital/Tower Health System in West Reading, Pa. “Many of my colleagues are starting to see an increase in transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals and do not know where to access resources or information on basic care needs. I think ACOG issuing this guidance is a great first step in providing an overview for the ob.gyn., who otherwise haven’t had formal training in transgender medicine,” she emphasized.

Dr. Brandt said she was not surprised by any of the recommendations. “These recommendations, while evolving and updating as new data emerge, have been in place by WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the Endocrine Society for quite some time,” she noted. “However, this updated committee opinion is a summary of recommendations that are relevant to the clinical practice of an ob.gyn.”

“Since the publication of Care for Transgender Adolescents (2017) and Healthcare for Transgender Individuals (2011), there has been an exponential increase in data that have helped to improve and guide best practices for this patient population including better defining risks, needs, therapy, and follow-up,” said Nancy Sokkary, MD, a specialist in pediatric and adolescent gynecology in Macon, Ga., in an interview. “This document also served as an opportunity for ACOG to educate ob.gyns. about health inequities and emphasize need for gender-affirming and inclusive care,” she said.

“These recommendations are consistent with literature that has been published over the last several years,” she added. “It is certainly important for ob.gyns. to have a document unequivocally supporting hysterectomies and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as medically necessary for transgender patients that desire these procedures for their transition.”
 

Inclusive environment

Approximately 1.4 million adults and 150,000 youth aged 13-17 years in the United States identify as transgender, but these individuals are often marginalized socially and economically, which can lead to worse health outcomes, according to the committee. “Creating a safe and affirming health care environment for all patients, including transgender individuals, is essential,” the authors said. Steps to create a supportive office setting include educating staff to avoid assumptions about sex and gender, and ask appropriately about choice of pronouns and orientation. Use patient forms that reflect a full range of options and places for patients to write in a response. Also, use electronic medical records to track information on use of names other than legal names. “Ob.gyns. play an important role in caring for gender-nonconforming people,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Ob.gyn. providers may have varying levels of participation in gender-affirming hormone or surgery provision, but they can universally conduct routine health maintenance, contraceptive and fertility counseling, and obstetric care in a respectful and inclusive environment,” she said.

Track transition issues

The opinion notes that many gender-transition medications can be prescribed not only by ob.gyns., but by a range of health care professionals with training and education. When it comes to medication and surgery, neither medication nor surgery is required for legally changing one’s name or gender, but patient desires vary from those seeking only letters of support for such legal changes to those who want to pursue hormone therapy or procedures such as chest surgery, hysterectomy, or phalloplasty.

Transgender patients seeking care from ob.gyns. include transmasculine and transfeminine individuals who are seeking various degrees of masculinizing or feminizing therapies.

Masculinizing therapies may result in development of facial hair, deepening voice, and changes in muscle mass, but patients undergoing masculinizing therapies should be reminded of the potential for continued ovulation, according to the opinion. “The only absolute contraindications to masculinizing hormone therapy are current pregnancy, unstable coronary artery disease, and polycythemia (hematocrit greater than 55%),” the authors wrote.

Feminizing therapies have no absolute contraindications, but “risks include venous thromboembolism (VTE), hypertriglyceridemia, development of gallstones, and elevated liver enzymes,” they noted.
 

Talk about sex and fertility

Clinicians treating transgender patients should discuss fertility and parenting early in the process of any gender transition, ideally before the patient undergoes hormone therapy or surgery, according to the opinion. Fertility preservation options for transgender patients are the same as for cisgender patients who wish to preserve fertility for various reasons, and include “sperm banking, oocyte preservation, embryo preservation, and in some cases, ovarian or testicular tissue cryopreservation,” the authors noted.

However, patients who do not desire pregnancy but may have the potential to become pregnant or impregnate others should be counseled on contraceptive options and reminded that gender-affirming hormone therapy alone does not provide effective contraception, they emphasized. In addition, “all patients should be counseled on barrier use for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases,” they said.
 

Consistent routine screening and preventive care

The committee opinion also states that transgender patients should undergo routine screening for any anatomical structures that are present, such as breast cancer screening for transmasculine individuals with breast tissue, and cervical cancer screening for those with a cervix. Transfeminine individuals should undergo prostate cancer screening in accordance with the recommendations for cisgender men, the authors said.

“As for all patients, transgender individuals should be counseled about the importance of routine preventive health care,” according to the opinion. “All individuals should be routinely screened for intimate partner violence, depression, substance use, cancer, and other health care needs and should be screened for sexually transmitted infections and counseled about appropriate immunizations based on age and risk factors, including HPV vaccination,” the authors said.

“We continue to see patient discrimination and discomfort with the medical system as a barrier to preventive care among gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Sokkary. “[Ensuring] that your clinic is a safe, inclusive place is a good start. Also, having providers such as ob.gyns. and family medicine physicians provide gender-affirming care in addition to routine screening and testing is helpful,” she said. 

One of the ongoing challenges of counseling transgender patients across a range of age groups, from youth through menopause, is a lack of data on the long-term effects of hormone therapy or surgical intervention, Dr. Brandt noted. “Since there is a paucity of this information, many of the screening recommendations fall in line with that of cisgender patients; however, this is not always the case as screening is determined by hormonal usage, risk factors, and surgical state. It is important for clinicians to be aware of evolutions in screening that will continue to occur as more evidence becomes available,” she emphasized.

In addition, “This document did not include specific guidance for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents, and there are many factors and recommendations that are unique to this population,” Dr. Sokkary said.  
 

Barriers and overcoming them

The main barrier to care with transgender and gender-nonconfirming patients is access to care and finding providers who are competent in gender-affirming health, Dr. Brandt noted. “Another significant barrier involves caring for transgender male patients in a traditionally ‘women’s health’ specialty,” she said. “While the office of an ob.gyn. can be very affirming for transgender women, it has the potential to exacerbate discomfort in transgender male patients,” she noted. “Having gender-affirming posters and pamphlets in the waiting area are ways to make patients feel more at ease. Another of the ways to overcome this barrier is education of the staff and health care providers,” added Dr. Brandt. “Fortunately, this is starting to occur at medical school and residency levels. For ob.gyns. already in practice, articles such as this committee opinion can serve as a resource for providers seeking to understand health care needs of this community,” she said.

“Cost and insurance coverage continue to be barriers, but this has improved immensely: There are now several local and national resources that can help with this depending on the issue,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Additionally, we still lack robust data that define cancer risk among transgender individuals, and until we have more evidence-based recommendations providers should follow screening outlined in this document,” she said.
 

Use the ACOG opinion as a starting point

“This committee opinion is a great introduction and summary for ob.gyns. seeking to understand basic care needs for gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Brandt. “However, I strongly encourage ob.gyns. who wish to truly incorporate gender-affirming care as part of their routine clinical practice to participate in continuing education, read the WPATH standards of care among many of the resources provided in the committee opinion, and attend conferences that are specific to transgender health and medicine,” she said.

The opinion received no outside funding. The authors were vetted by ACOG and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Brandt had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sokkary had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Transgender patients have unique needs regarding obstetric and gynecologic care as well as preventive care, and ob.gyns. can help by providing support, education, and understanding, according to new guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, urges public and private health insurance plans to cover necessary services for individuals with gender dysphoria, and advocates for inclusive, thoughtful, and affirming care for transgender individuals,” according to the committee opinion, published in the March issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The opinion was developed jointly by ACOG’s Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, led by Beth Cronin, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Colleen K, Stockdale, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“Lack of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity, as well as bias from health care professionals leads to inadequate access to, underuse of, and inequities within the health care system for transgender patients,” the authors wrote.

The committee opinion provides guidance for ob.gyns. on topics including inclusivity, routine screening, fertility and reproductive issues, hormone therapy, medication use, and surgery.

“One of the most incredible things about being an ob.gyn. is that this field is a hybrid of primary care and surgical practice,” said K. Ashley Brandt, DO, in an interview. “Many patients seek out care from ob.gyns. for routine screening such as a Pap test, for initiation of hormone therapy, or for postoperative management,” said Dr. Brandt, an ob.gyn. and a plastic surgeon at Reading Hospital/Tower Health System in West Reading, Pa. “Many of my colleagues are starting to see an increase in transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals and do not know where to access resources or information on basic care needs. I think ACOG issuing this guidance is a great first step in providing an overview for the ob.gyn., who otherwise haven’t had formal training in transgender medicine,” she emphasized.

Dr. Brandt said she was not surprised by any of the recommendations. “These recommendations, while evolving and updating as new data emerge, have been in place by WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the Endocrine Society for quite some time,” she noted. “However, this updated committee opinion is a summary of recommendations that are relevant to the clinical practice of an ob.gyn.”

“Since the publication of Care for Transgender Adolescents (2017) and Healthcare for Transgender Individuals (2011), there has been an exponential increase in data that have helped to improve and guide best practices for this patient population including better defining risks, needs, therapy, and follow-up,” said Nancy Sokkary, MD, a specialist in pediatric and adolescent gynecology in Macon, Ga., in an interview. “This document also served as an opportunity for ACOG to educate ob.gyns. about health inequities and emphasize need for gender-affirming and inclusive care,” she said.

“These recommendations are consistent with literature that has been published over the last several years,” she added. “It is certainly important for ob.gyns. to have a document unequivocally supporting hysterectomies and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy as medically necessary for transgender patients that desire these procedures for their transition.”
 

Inclusive environment

Approximately 1.4 million adults and 150,000 youth aged 13-17 years in the United States identify as transgender, but these individuals are often marginalized socially and economically, which can lead to worse health outcomes, according to the committee. “Creating a safe and affirming health care environment for all patients, including transgender individuals, is essential,” the authors said. Steps to create a supportive office setting include educating staff to avoid assumptions about sex and gender, and ask appropriately about choice of pronouns and orientation. Use patient forms that reflect a full range of options and places for patients to write in a response. Also, use electronic medical records to track information on use of names other than legal names. “Ob.gyns. play an important role in caring for gender-nonconforming people,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Ob.gyn. providers may have varying levels of participation in gender-affirming hormone or surgery provision, but they can universally conduct routine health maintenance, contraceptive and fertility counseling, and obstetric care in a respectful and inclusive environment,” she said.

Track transition issues

The opinion notes that many gender-transition medications can be prescribed not only by ob.gyns., but by a range of health care professionals with training and education. When it comes to medication and surgery, neither medication nor surgery is required for legally changing one’s name or gender, but patient desires vary from those seeking only letters of support for such legal changes to those who want to pursue hormone therapy or procedures such as chest surgery, hysterectomy, or phalloplasty.

Transgender patients seeking care from ob.gyns. include transmasculine and transfeminine individuals who are seeking various degrees of masculinizing or feminizing therapies.

Masculinizing therapies may result in development of facial hair, deepening voice, and changes in muscle mass, but patients undergoing masculinizing therapies should be reminded of the potential for continued ovulation, according to the opinion. “The only absolute contraindications to masculinizing hormone therapy are current pregnancy, unstable coronary artery disease, and polycythemia (hematocrit greater than 55%),” the authors wrote.

Feminizing therapies have no absolute contraindications, but “risks include venous thromboembolism (VTE), hypertriglyceridemia, development of gallstones, and elevated liver enzymes,” they noted.
 

Talk about sex and fertility

Clinicians treating transgender patients should discuss fertility and parenting early in the process of any gender transition, ideally before the patient undergoes hormone therapy or surgery, according to the opinion. Fertility preservation options for transgender patients are the same as for cisgender patients who wish to preserve fertility for various reasons, and include “sperm banking, oocyte preservation, embryo preservation, and in some cases, ovarian or testicular tissue cryopreservation,” the authors noted.

However, patients who do not desire pregnancy but may have the potential to become pregnant or impregnate others should be counseled on contraceptive options and reminded that gender-affirming hormone therapy alone does not provide effective contraception, they emphasized. In addition, “all patients should be counseled on barrier use for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases,” they said.
 

Consistent routine screening and preventive care

The committee opinion also states that transgender patients should undergo routine screening for any anatomical structures that are present, such as breast cancer screening for transmasculine individuals with breast tissue, and cervical cancer screening for those with a cervix. Transfeminine individuals should undergo prostate cancer screening in accordance with the recommendations for cisgender men, the authors said.

“As for all patients, transgender individuals should be counseled about the importance of routine preventive health care,” according to the opinion. “All individuals should be routinely screened for intimate partner violence, depression, substance use, cancer, and other health care needs and should be screened for sexually transmitted infections and counseled about appropriate immunizations based on age and risk factors, including HPV vaccination,” the authors said.

“We continue to see patient discrimination and discomfort with the medical system as a barrier to preventive care among gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Sokkary. “[Ensuring] that your clinic is a safe, inclusive place is a good start. Also, having providers such as ob.gyns. and family medicine physicians provide gender-affirming care in addition to routine screening and testing is helpful,” she said. 

One of the ongoing challenges of counseling transgender patients across a range of age groups, from youth through menopause, is a lack of data on the long-term effects of hormone therapy or surgical intervention, Dr. Brandt noted. “Since there is a paucity of this information, many of the screening recommendations fall in line with that of cisgender patients; however, this is not always the case as screening is determined by hormonal usage, risk factors, and surgical state. It is important for clinicians to be aware of evolutions in screening that will continue to occur as more evidence becomes available,” she emphasized.

In addition, “This document did not include specific guidance for transgender and gender-diverse adolescents, and there are many factors and recommendations that are unique to this population,” Dr. Sokkary said.  
 

Barriers and overcoming them

The main barrier to care with transgender and gender-nonconfirming patients is access to care and finding providers who are competent in gender-affirming health, Dr. Brandt noted. “Another significant barrier involves caring for transgender male patients in a traditionally ‘women’s health’ specialty,” she said. “While the office of an ob.gyn. can be very affirming for transgender women, it has the potential to exacerbate discomfort in transgender male patients,” she noted. “Having gender-affirming posters and pamphlets in the waiting area are ways to make patients feel more at ease. Another of the ways to overcome this barrier is education of the staff and health care providers,” added Dr. Brandt. “Fortunately, this is starting to occur at medical school and residency levels. For ob.gyns. already in practice, articles such as this committee opinion can serve as a resource for providers seeking to understand health care needs of this community,” she said.

“Cost and insurance coverage continue to be barriers, but this has improved immensely: There are now several local and national resources that can help with this depending on the issue,” said Dr. Sokkary. “Additionally, we still lack robust data that define cancer risk among transgender individuals, and until we have more evidence-based recommendations providers should follow screening outlined in this document,” she said.
 

Use the ACOG opinion as a starting point

“This committee opinion is a great introduction and summary for ob.gyns. seeking to understand basic care needs for gender-nonconforming individuals,” said Dr. Brandt. “However, I strongly encourage ob.gyns. who wish to truly incorporate gender-affirming care as part of their routine clinical practice to participate in continuing education, read the WPATH standards of care among many of the resources provided in the committee opinion, and attend conferences that are specific to transgender health and medicine,” she said.

The opinion received no outside funding. The authors were vetted by ACOG and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Brandt had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sokkary had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Editor’s note: This profile is part of SHM’s celebration of National Hospitalist Day on March 4. National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and celebrates the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape.

For Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, CEO since July 2020 for the Society of Hospital Medicine, an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and a lifelong proclivity for figuring out puzzles, solving problems, and taking things apart to see how they fit back together were building blocks for an exemplary career as a hospitalist, group administrator, and medical educator.

When he was growing up in historic Annapolis, Md., near the shores of Chesapeake Bay, things to put back together included remote control airplanes, small boat engines, and cars. As a hospitalist, his interest in solving problems and facility with numbers and systems led him to become an expert on quality improvement, transitions of care, and conflict management.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Howell

“I was one of the first four doctors hired. I thought I’d just do it for a year, but I loved inpatient work, so I stayed,” Dr. Howell said. “Roy mentored me for the next 20 years and helped me to become an above average hospitalist.”

Early on, Dr. Howell’s department chair, David Hellman, MD, who had worked at the University of California–San Francisco with hospital medicine pioneer Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, sent Dr. Howell to San Francisco to be mentored by Dr. Wachter, since there were few hospital mentors on the East Coast at that time.

“What I took away from that experience was how important it was to professionalize hospital medicine – in order to develop specialized expertise,” Dr. Howell recalled. “Dr. Wachter taught me that hospitalists need to have a professional focus. Quality improvement, systems-based improvement, and value all became part of that,” he said.

“Many people thought to be a hospitalist all you had to know was basic medicine. But it turns out medicine in the hospital is just as specialized as any other specialty. The hospital itself requires specialized knowledge that didn’t even exist 20 years ago.” Because of complicated disease states and clinical systems, hospitalists have to be better at navigating the software of today’s hospital.
 

New job opportunities

Dr. Howell describes his career path as a new job focus opening up every 5 years or so, redefining what he does and trying something new and exciting with better pay. His first was a focus on clinical hospital medicine and learning how to be a better doctor. Then in 2005 he began work as a teacher at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. There he mastered the teaching of medical trainees, winning awards as an instructor, including SHM’s award for excellence in teaching.

In 2010 he again changed his focus to program building, leading the expansion of the hospitalist service for Bayview and three other hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system. Dr. Howell helped grow the service to nearly 200 clinicians while becoming skilled at operational and program development.

His fourth job incarnation, starting in 2015, was the obsessive pursuit of quality improvement, marshaling data to measure and improve clinical and other outcomes on the quality dashboard – mortality, length of stay, readmissions, rates of adverse events – and putting quality improvement strategies in place.

“Our mortality rates at Bayview were well below national standards. We came up with an amazing program. A lot of hospital medicine programs pursue improvement, but we really measured it. We benchmarked ourselves against other programs at Hopkins,” he said. “I set up a dedicated conference room, as many QI programs do. We called it True North, and each wall had a different QI focus, with updates on the reported metrics. Every other week we met there to talk about the metrics,” he said.

That experience led to working with SHM, which he had joined as a member early in his career and for which he had previously served as president. He became SHM’s quality improvement liaison and a co-principal investigator on Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions), SHM’s pioneering, national mentored-implementation model aimed at improving transitions of care from participating hospitals to reduce readmissions. “BOOST really established SHM’s reputation as a quality improvement-oriented organization. It was a stake in the ground for quality and led to SHM receiving the Joint Commission’s 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award for Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality,” he said.

Dr. Howell’s fifth career phase, medical society management, emerged when he was recruited to apply for the SHM chief executive position – held since its inception by retiring CEO Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM. Dr. Howell started work at SHM in the midst of the pandemic, spending much of his time working from home – especially when Philadelphia implemented stricter COVID-19 restrictions. Once pandemic restrictions are loosened, he expects to do a lot of traveling. But for now, the external-facing part of his job is mainly on Zoom.
 

Making the world a better place

Dr. Howell said he has held fast to three mottos in life, which have guided his career path as well as his personal life: (1) to make the world a better place; (2) to be ethical and transparent; and (3) to invest in people. His wife of 19 years, Heather Howell, an Annapolis realtor, says making the world a better place is what they taught their children, Mason, 18, who starts college at Rice University in fall 2021 with an interest in premed, and Anna, 16, a competitive sailor. “We always had a poster hanging in our house extolling that message,” Ms. Howell said.

Dr. Howell grew up in a nautical family, with many of his relatives working in the maritime business. His kids grew up on the water, learning to pilot a powerboat before driving a car, as he did. “We boat all the time on the bay” in his lobster boat, which he often works on to keep it seaworthy, Ms. Howell said.

“There’s nothing like taking care of hospitalized patients to make you feel you’re making the world a better place,” Dr. Howell observed. “Very often you can make a huge difference for the patients you do care for, and that is incredibly rewarding.” Although the demands of his SHM leadership position required relinquishing most of his responsibilities at Johns Hopkins, he continues to see patients and teach residents there 2-4 weeks a year on a teaching service.

“Why do I still see patients? I find it so rewarding. And I get to teach, which I love,” he said. “To be honest, I don’t think you truly need to see patients to be head of a professional medical society like SHM. Maybe someday I’ll give that up. But only if it’s necessary to make the society more successful.”

Half of Dr. Howell’s Society work now is planned and half is “putting out fires” – while learning members’ needs in real time. “Right now, we’re worried about burnout and PTSD, because frankly it’s stressful to take care of COVID patients. It’s scary for a lot of clinicians. I’m working with our members to make sure they have what they need to be clinically prepared, including resources to be more resilient professionally.”

Every step of his career, Dr. Howell said, has seemed like the best job he ever had. “Making the world a better place is still important to me. I tell SHM members that it’s important to know they are making a difference. What they’re doing is really important, especially with COVID, and it needs to be sustainable,” he said.

“SHM has such a powerful mission – it’s about making patient care better, and making hospitalists better clinicians. I know the Society is having a powerful impact, and that’s good enough for me. I’m into teams. Hospital medicine is a team sport, but so is SHM, interacting with its members, staff, and board.”
 

Initiating another new program

One of Dr. Howell’s last major projects for Hopkins was to launch and be chief medical officer for the Joint Commission–accredited Baltimore Civic Center Field Hospital for COVID-19 patients, opened in March 2020.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Howell

With a surge capacity of 250 beds, and a negative pressure ward set up in the center’s exhibit hall, it is jointly operated by the University of Maryland Medical System and Johns Hopkins Hospital. The field hospital’s mission has since expanded to include viral tests, infusions of monoclonal antibodies, and COVID-19 vaccinations.

Planning for a smooth transition, Dr. Howell brought Melinda E. Kantsiper, MD, director of clinical operations, Division of Hospital Medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview, on board as associate medical officer, to eventually replace him as CMO after a few months working alongside him. “Eric brings that logical engineering eye to problem solving,” Dr. Kantsiper said.

Courtesy Johns Hopkins Medicine

Editor’s note: This profile is part of SHM’s celebration of National Hospitalist Day on March 4. National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and celebrates the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape.

For Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, CEO since July 2020 for the Society of Hospital Medicine, an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and a lifelong proclivity for figuring out puzzles, solving problems, and taking things apart to see how they fit back together were building blocks for an exemplary career as a hospitalist, group administrator, and medical educator.

When he was growing up in historic Annapolis, Md., near the shores of Chesapeake Bay, things to put back together included remote control airplanes, small boat engines, and cars. As a hospitalist, his interest in solving problems and facility with numbers and systems led him to become an expert on quality improvement, transitions of care, and conflict management.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Howell

“I was one of the first four doctors hired. I thought I’d just do it for a year, but I loved inpatient work, so I stayed,” Dr. Howell said. “Roy mentored me for the next 20 years and helped me to become an above average hospitalist.”

Early on, Dr. Howell’s department chair, David Hellman, MD, who had worked at the University of California–San Francisco with hospital medicine pioneer Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, sent Dr. Howell to San Francisco to be mentored by Dr. Wachter, since there were few hospital mentors on the East Coast at that time.

“What I took away from that experience was how important it was to professionalize hospital medicine – in order to develop specialized expertise,” Dr. Howell recalled. “Dr. Wachter taught me that hospitalists need to have a professional focus. Quality improvement, systems-based improvement, and value all became part of that,” he said.

“Many people thought to be a hospitalist all you had to know was basic medicine. But it turns out medicine in the hospital is just as specialized as any other specialty. The hospital itself requires specialized knowledge that didn’t even exist 20 years ago.” Because of complicated disease states and clinical systems, hospitalists have to be better at navigating the software of today’s hospital.
 

New job opportunities

Dr. Howell describes his career path as a new job focus opening up every 5 years or so, redefining what he does and trying something new and exciting with better pay. His first was a focus on clinical hospital medicine and learning how to be a better doctor. Then in 2005 he began work as a teacher at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. There he mastered the teaching of medical trainees, winning awards as an instructor, including SHM’s award for excellence in teaching.

In 2010 he again changed his focus to program building, leading the expansion of the hospitalist service for Bayview and three other hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system. Dr. Howell helped grow the service to nearly 200 clinicians while becoming skilled at operational and program development.

His fourth job incarnation, starting in 2015, was the obsessive pursuit of quality improvement, marshaling data to measure and improve clinical and other outcomes on the quality dashboard – mortality, length of stay, readmissions, rates of adverse events – and putting quality improvement strategies in place.

“Our mortality rates at Bayview were well below national standards. We came up with an amazing program. A lot of hospital medicine programs pursue improvement, but we really measured it. We benchmarked ourselves against other programs at Hopkins,” he said. “I set up a dedicated conference room, as many QI programs do. We called it True North, and each wall had a different QI focus, with updates on the reported metrics. Every other week we met there to talk about the metrics,” he said.

That experience led to working with SHM, which he had joined as a member early in his career and for which he had previously served as president. He became SHM’s quality improvement liaison and a co-principal investigator on Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions), SHM’s pioneering, national mentored-implementation model aimed at improving transitions of care from participating hospitals to reduce readmissions. “BOOST really established SHM’s reputation as a quality improvement-oriented organization. It was a stake in the ground for quality and led to SHM receiving the Joint Commission’s 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award for Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality,” he said.

Dr. Howell’s fifth career phase, medical society management, emerged when he was recruited to apply for the SHM chief executive position – held since its inception by retiring CEO Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM. Dr. Howell started work at SHM in the midst of the pandemic, spending much of his time working from home – especially when Philadelphia implemented stricter COVID-19 restrictions. Once pandemic restrictions are loosened, he expects to do a lot of traveling. But for now, the external-facing part of his job is mainly on Zoom.
 

Making the world a better place

Dr. Howell said he has held fast to three mottos in life, which have guided his career path as well as his personal life: (1) to make the world a better place; (2) to be ethical and transparent; and (3) to invest in people. His wife of 19 years, Heather Howell, an Annapolis realtor, says making the world a better place is what they taught their children, Mason, 18, who starts college at Rice University in fall 2021 with an interest in premed, and Anna, 16, a competitive sailor. “We always had a poster hanging in our house extolling that message,” Ms. Howell said.

Dr. Howell grew up in a nautical family, with many of his relatives working in the maritime business. His kids grew up on the water, learning to pilot a powerboat before driving a car, as he did. “We boat all the time on the bay” in his lobster boat, which he often works on to keep it seaworthy, Ms. Howell said.

“There’s nothing like taking care of hospitalized patients to make you feel you’re making the world a better place,” Dr. Howell observed. “Very often you can make a huge difference for the patients you do care for, and that is incredibly rewarding.” Although the demands of his SHM leadership position required relinquishing most of his responsibilities at Johns Hopkins, he continues to see patients and teach residents there 2-4 weeks a year on a teaching service.

“Why do I still see patients? I find it so rewarding. And I get to teach, which I love,” he said. “To be honest, I don’t think you truly need to see patients to be head of a professional medical society like SHM. Maybe someday I’ll give that up. But only if it’s necessary to make the society more successful.”

Half of Dr. Howell’s Society work now is planned and half is “putting out fires” – while learning members’ needs in real time. “Right now, we’re worried about burnout and PTSD, because frankly it’s stressful to take care of COVID patients. It’s scary for a lot of clinicians. I’m working with our members to make sure they have what they need to be clinically prepared, including resources to be more resilient professionally.”

Every step of his career, Dr. Howell said, has seemed like the best job he ever had. “Making the world a better place is still important to me. I tell SHM members that it’s important to know they are making a difference. What they’re doing is really important, especially with COVID, and it needs to be sustainable,” he said.

“SHM has such a powerful mission – it’s about making patient care better, and making hospitalists better clinicians. I know the Society is having a powerful impact, and that’s good enough for me. I’m into teams. Hospital medicine is a team sport, but so is SHM, interacting with its members, staff, and board.”
 

Initiating another new program

One of Dr. Howell’s last major projects for Hopkins was to launch and be chief medical officer for the Joint Commission–accredited Baltimore Civic Center Field Hospital for COVID-19 patients, opened in March 2020.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Howell

With a surge capacity of 250 beds, and a negative pressure ward set up in the center’s exhibit hall, it is jointly operated by the University of Maryland Medical System and Johns Hopkins Hospital. The field hospital’s mission has since expanded to include viral tests, infusions of monoclonal antibodies, and COVID-19 vaccinations.

Planning for a smooth transition, Dr. Howell brought Melinda E. Kantsiper, MD, director of clinical operations, Division of Hospital Medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview, on board as associate medical officer, to eventually replace him as CMO after a few months working alongside him. “Eric brings that logical engineering eye to problem solving,” Dr. Kantsiper said.

Courtesy Johns Hopkins Medicine

Editor’s note: This profile is part of SHM’s celebration of National Hospitalist Day on March 4. National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and celebrates the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape.

For Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, CEO since July 2020 for the Society of Hospital Medicine, an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and a lifelong proclivity for figuring out puzzles, solving problems, and taking things apart to see how they fit back together were building blocks for an exemplary career as a hospitalist, group administrator, and medical educator.

When he was growing up in historic Annapolis, Md., near the shores of Chesapeake Bay, things to put back together included remote control airplanes, small boat engines, and cars. As a hospitalist, his interest in solving problems and facility with numbers and systems led him to become an expert on quality improvement, transitions of care, and conflict management.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Howell

“I was one of the first four doctors hired. I thought I’d just do it for a year, but I loved inpatient work, so I stayed,” Dr. Howell said. “Roy mentored me for the next 20 years and helped me to become an above average hospitalist.”

Early on, Dr. Howell’s department chair, David Hellman, MD, who had worked at the University of California–San Francisco with hospital medicine pioneer Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, sent Dr. Howell to San Francisco to be mentored by Dr. Wachter, since there were few hospital mentors on the East Coast at that time.

“What I took away from that experience was how important it was to professionalize hospital medicine – in order to develop specialized expertise,” Dr. Howell recalled. “Dr. Wachter taught me that hospitalists need to have a professional focus. Quality improvement, systems-based improvement, and value all became part of that,” he said.

“Many people thought to be a hospitalist all you had to know was basic medicine. But it turns out medicine in the hospital is just as specialized as any other specialty. The hospital itself requires specialized knowledge that didn’t even exist 20 years ago.” Because of complicated disease states and clinical systems, hospitalists have to be better at navigating the software of today’s hospital.
 

New job opportunities

Dr. Howell describes his career path as a new job focus opening up every 5 years or so, redefining what he does and trying something new and exciting with better pay. His first was a focus on clinical hospital medicine and learning how to be a better doctor. Then in 2005 he began work as a teacher at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. There he mastered the teaching of medical trainees, winning awards as an instructor, including SHM’s award for excellence in teaching.

In 2010 he again changed his focus to program building, leading the expansion of the hospitalist service for Bayview and three other hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system. Dr. Howell helped grow the service to nearly 200 clinicians while becoming skilled at operational and program development.

His fourth job incarnation, starting in 2015, was the obsessive pursuit of quality improvement, marshaling data to measure and improve clinical and other outcomes on the quality dashboard – mortality, length of stay, readmissions, rates of adverse events – and putting quality improvement strategies in place.

“Our mortality rates at Bayview were well below national standards. We came up with an amazing program. A lot of hospital medicine programs pursue improvement, but we really measured it. We benchmarked ourselves against other programs at Hopkins,” he said. “I set up a dedicated conference room, as many QI programs do. We called it True North, and each wall had a different QI focus, with updates on the reported metrics. Every other week we met there to talk about the metrics,” he said.

That experience led to working with SHM, which he had joined as a member early in his career and for which he had previously served as president. He became SHM’s quality improvement liaison and a co-principal investigator on Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions), SHM’s pioneering, national mentored-implementation model aimed at improving transitions of care from participating hospitals to reduce readmissions. “BOOST really established SHM’s reputation as a quality improvement-oriented organization. It was a stake in the ground for quality and led to SHM receiving the Joint Commission’s 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award for Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality,” he said.

Dr. Howell’s fifth career phase, medical society management, emerged when he was recruited to apply for the SHM chief executive position – held since its inception by retiring CEO Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM. Dr. Howell started work at SHM in the midst of the pandemic, spending much of his time working from home – especially when Philadelphia implemented stricter COVID-19 restrictions. Once pandemic restrictions are loosened, he expects to do a lot of traveling. But for now, the external-facing part of his job is mainly on Zoom.
 

Making the world a better place

Dr. Howell said he has held fast to three mottos in life, which have guided his career path as well as his personal life: (1) to make the world a better place; (2) to be ethical and transparent; and (3) to invest in people. His wife of 19 years, Heather Howell, an Annapolis realtor, says making the world a better place is what they taught their children, Mason, 18, who starts college at Rice University in fall 2021 with an interest in premed, and Anna, 16, a competitive sailor. “We always had a poster hanging in our house extolling that message,” Ms. Howell said.

Dr. Howell grew up in a nautical family, with many of his relatives working in the maritime business. His kids grew up on the water, learning to pilot a powerboat before driving a car, as he did. “We boat all the time on the bay” in his lobster boat, which he often works on to keep it seaworthy, Ms. Howell said.

“There’s nothing like taking care of hospitalized patients to make you feel you’re making the world a better place,” Dr. Howell observed. “Very often you can make a huge difference for the patients you do care for, and that is incredibly rewarding.” Although the demands of his SHM leadership position required relinquishing most of his responsibilities at Johns Hopkins, he continues to see patients and teach residents there 2-4 weeks a year on a teaching service.

“Why do I still see patients? I find it so rewarding. And I get to teach, which I love,” he said. “To be honest, I don’t think you truly need to see patients to be head of a professional medical society like SHM. Maybe someday I’ll give that up. But only if it’s necessary to make the society more successful.”

Half of Dr. Howell’s Society work now is planned and half is “putting out fires” – while learning members’ needs in real time. “Right now, we’re worried about burnout and PTSD, because frankly it’s stressful to take care of COVID patients. It’s scary for a lot of clinicians. I’m working with our members to make sure they have what they need to be clinically prepared, including resources to be more resilient professionally.”

Every step of his career, Dr. Howell said, has seemed like the best job he ever had. “Making the world a better place is still important to me. I tell SHM members that it’s important to know they are making a difference. What they’re doing is really important, especially with COVID, and it needs to be sustainable,” he said.

“SHM has such a powerful mission – it’s about making patient care better, and making hospitalists better clinicians. I know the Society is having a powerful impact, and that’s good enough for me. I’m into teams. Hospital medicine is a team sport, but so is SHM, interacting with its members, staff, and board.”
 

Initiating another new program

One of Dr. Howell’s last major projects for Hopkins was to launch and be chief medical officer for the Joint Commission–accredited Baltimore Civic Center Field Hospital for COVID-19 patients, opened in March 2020.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Howell

With a surge capacity of 250 beds, and a negative pressure ward set up in the center’s exhibit hall, it is jointly operated by the University of Maryland Medical System and Johns Hopkins Hospital. The field hospital’s mission has since expanded to include viral tests, infusions of monoclonal antibodies, and COVID-19 vaccinations.

Planning for a smooth transition, Dr. Howell brought Melinda E. Kantsiper, MD, director of clinical operations, Division of Hospital Medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview, on board as associate medical officer, to eventually replace him as CMO after a few months working alongside him. “Eric brings that logical engineering eye to problem solving,” Dr. Kantsiper said.

Courtesy Johns Hopkins Medicine

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

A medical journal is retracting a paper after a psychiatrist alleged that the managing editor closely copied and published her withdrawn work and claimed it for his own.

In addition, the managing editor, Gary VandenBos, PhD, has resigned at the journal’s request, according to an email sent to the paper’s original author, psychiatrist Amy Barnhorst, MD, vice chair for community mental health at the University of California, Davis, and coauthor and UC Davis colleague Rocco Pallin, MPH.

Dr. Barnhorst shared emails – from the journal’s publisher, Springer Publishing Company, and from the editor in chief, Morgan Sammons, PhD – with this news organization.

The retraction is the end of a saga that began when Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin submitted a paper, at Dr. VandenBos’s request, to the Journal of Health Service Psychology, published by Springer.

As previously reported by this news organization, Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin eventually decided to withdraw the paper and were later notified by Dr. VandenBos that he’d published a similar article under his own authorship. Michael O. Miller, a retired judge who trained as a psychologist, was listed as a coauthor.

Dr. VandenBos did not acknowledge how heavily his paper borrowed from the withdrawn article by Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin The two women – acknowledged experts in the article’s subject matter on how physicians can talk to patients about gun violence – immediately notified Dr. Sammons and Springer Publishing when they saw the published piece, saying they believed it plagiarized their original submission.

According to the e-mail Springer sent to Dr. Barnhorst, the publisher investigated and said that it would “be retracting the article shortly.”

The retraction notice will state: “The Editor in Chief and the authors, Dr. VandenBos and Mr. Miller, have retracted this article, as it significantly overlaps with an unpublished manuscript by Amy Barnhorst and Rocco Pallin.” It also states that “[Dr.] VandenBos accepts full responsibility for the overlap.”

The original article will still be available, but it will be marked as “retracted” and feature a link to the retraction notice.

Dr. Barnhorst, who garnered at least 40,000 likes when she tweeted about the alleged theft of her work, said in an interview that she and Dr. Pallin are “glad to see that the investigation is complete and the retraction has been issued.”

“At least we can now submit it to a new journal in a version that appropriately represents our work and expertise,” said Dr. Barnhorst. “I still have no idea how or why this happened, nor how much of it was intentional and on whose part, but I guess I never will!”

Editor removed

When contacted by this news organization to comment on the retraction and removal of Dr. VandenBos as managing editor, Dr. Sammons said it was not possible because, “I treat such correspondence as confidential.”

Dr. Sammons said he could “confirm that our investigation is reaching its conclusion and my colleagues at Springer Nature would be happy to contact you when we can provide a further update.”

Springer spokesperson Anne Korn also would not comment beyond saying, “The conclusion of our investigation is still in progress and may take a little additional time.”  

In the letter sent to Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin, Dr. Sammons said he had “asked for and accepted the resignation of Dr. VandenBos,” and that the resignation will be announced “in the upcoming print issue of our journal.”

Dr. Sammons said he also notified the dean of the University of Arizona College of Law that Mr. Miller, who held a position at the school, was not aware of the original submission by the two women. Even so, the school suspended Mr. Miller’s academic appointment, according to Dr. Sammons’ letter.

The editor in chief also said that, while “[Dr.] VandenBos’ errors were substantial and had substantial consequences, my investigation did not find any intent to plagiarize your work.”

He apologized again to Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin, though, adding, “I and my associate editors have initiated a revision of our publications processes to ensure that errors such as the above do not occur in the future, and I apologize again that this lapse affected you and your scholarly work.”

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

A medical journal is retracting a paper after a psychiatrist alleged that the managing editor closely copied and published her withdrawn work and claimed it for his own.

In addition, the managing editor, Gary VandenBos, PhD, has resigned at the journal’s request, according to an email sent to the paper’s original author, psychiatrist Amy Barnhorst, MD, vice chair for community mental health at the University of California, Davis, and coauthor and UC Davis colleague Rocco Pallin, MPH.

Dr. Barnhorst shared emails – from the journal’s publisher, Springer Publishing Company, and from the editor in chief, Morgan Sammons, PhD – with this news organization.

The retraction is the end of a saga that began when Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin submitted a paper, at Dr. VandenBos’s request, to the Journal of Health Service Psychology, published by Springer.

As previously reported by this news organization, Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin eventually decided to withdraw the paper and were later notified by Dr. VandenBos that he’d published a similar article under his own authorship. Michael O. Miller, a retired judge who trained as a psychologist, was listed as a coauthor.

Dr. VandenBos did not acknowledge how heavily his paper borrowed from the withdrawn article by Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin The two women – acknowledged experts in the article’s subject matter on how physicians can talk to patients about gun violence – immediately notified Dr. Sammons and Springer Publishing when they saw the published piece, saying they believed it plagiarized their original submission.

According to the e-mail Springer sent to Dr. Barnhorst, the publisher investigated and said that it would “be retracting the article shortly.”

The retraction notice will state: “The Editor in Chief and the authors, Dr. VandenBos and Mr. Miller, have retracted this article, as it significantly overlaps with an unpublished manuscript by Amy Barnhorst and Rocco Pallin.” It also states that “[Dr.] VandenBos accepts full responsibility for the overlap.”

The original article will still be available, but it will be marked as “retracted” and feature a link to the retraction notice.

Dr. Barnhorst, who garnered at least 40,000 likes when she tweeted about the alleged theft of her work, said in an interview that she and Dr. Pallin are “glad to see that the investigation is complete and the retraction has been issued.”

“At least we can now submit it to a new journal in a version that appropriately represents our work and expertise,” said Dr. Barnhorst. “I still have no idea how or why this happened, nor how much of it was intentional and on whose part, but I guess I never will!”

Editor removed

When contacted by this news organization to comment on the retraction and removal of Dr. VandenBos as managing editor, Dr. Sammons said it was not possible because, “I treat such correspondence as confidential.”

Dr. Sammons said he could “confirm that our investigation is reaching its conclusion and my colleagues at Springer Nature would be happy to contact you when we can provide a further update.”

Springer spokesperson Anne Korn also would not comment beyond saying, “The conclusion of our investigation is still in progress and may take a little additional time.”  

In the letter sent to Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin, Dr. Sammons said he had “asked for and accepted the resignation of Dr. VandenBos,” and that the resignation will be announced “in the upcoming print issue of our journal.”

Dr. Sammons said he also notified the dean of the University of Arizona College of Law that Mr. Miller, who held a position at the school, was not aware of the original submission by the two women. Even so, the school suspended Mr. Miller’s academic appointment, according to Dr. Sammons’ letter.

The editor in chief also said that, while “[Dr.] VandenBos’ errors were substantial and had substantial consequences, my investigation did not find any intent to plagiarize your work.”

He apologized again to Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin, though, adding, “I and my associate editors have initiated a revision of our publications processes to ensure that errors such as the above do not occur in the future, and I apologize again that this lapse affected you and your scholarly work.”

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

A medical journal is retracting a paper after a psychiatrist alleged that the managing editor closely copied and published her withdrawn work and claimed it for his own.

In addition, the managing editor, Gary VandenBos, PhD, has resigned at the journal’s request, according to an email sent to the paper’s original author, psychiatrist Amy Barnhorst, MD, vice chair for community mental health at the University of California, Davis, and coauthor and UC Davis colleague Rocco Pallin, MPH.

Dr. Barnhorst shared emails – from the journal’s publisher, Springer Publishing Company, and from the editor in chief, Morgan Sammons, PhD – with this news organization.

The retraction is the end of a saga that began when Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin submitted a paper, at Dr. VandenBos’s request, to the Journal of Health Service Psychology, published by Springer.

As previously reported by this news organization, Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin eventually decided to withdraw the paper and were later notified by Dr. VandenBos that he’d published a similar article under his own authorship. Michael O. Miller, a retired judge who trained as a psychologist, was listed as a coauthor.

Dr. VandenBos did not acknowledge how heavily his paper borrowed from the withdrawn article by Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin The two women – acknowledged experts in the article’s subject matter on how physicians can talk to patients about gun violence – immediately notified Dr. Sammons and Springer Publishing when they saw the published piece, saying they believed it plagiarized their original submission.

According to the e-mail Springer sent to Dr. Barnhorst, the publisher investigated and said that it would “be retracting the article shortly.”

The retraction notice will state: “The Editor in Chief and the authors, Dr. VandenBos and Mr. Miller, have retracted this article, as it significantly overlaps with an unpublished manuscript by Amy Barnhorst and Rocco Pallin.” It also states that “[Dr.] VandenBos accepts full responsibility for the overlap.”

The original article will still be available, but it will be marked as “retracted” and feature a link to the retraction notice.

Dr. Barnhorst, who garnered at least 40,000 likes when she tweeted about the alleged theft of her work, said in an interview that she and Dr. Pallin are “glad to see that the investigation is complete and the retraction has been issued.”

“At least we can now submit it to a new journal in a version that appropriately represents our work and expertise,” said Dr. Barnhorst. “I still have no idea how or why this happened, nor how much of it was intentional and on whose part, but I guess I never will!”

Editor removed

When contacted by this news organization to comment on the retraction and removal of Dr. VandenBos as managing editor, Dr. Sammons said it was not possible because, “I treat such correspondence as confidential.”

Dr. Sammons said he could “confirm that our investigation is reaching its conclusion and my colleagues at Springer Nature would be happy to contact you when we can provide a further update.”

Springer spokesperson Anne Korn also would not comment beyond saying, “The conclusion of our investigation is still in progress and may take a little additional time.”  

In the letter sent to Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin, Dr. Sammons said he had “asked for and accepted the resignation of Dr. VandenBos,” and that the resignation will be announced “in the upcoming print issue of our journal.”

Dr. Sammons said he also notified the dean of the University of Arizona College of Law that Mr. Miller, who held a position at the school, was not aware of the original submission by the two women. Even so, the school suspended Mr. Miller’s academic appointment, according to Dr. Sammons’ letter.

The editor in chief also said that, while “[Dr.] VandenBos’ errors were substantial and had substantial consequences, my investigation did not find any intent to plagiarize your work.”

He apologized again to Dr. Barnhorst and Dr. Pallin, though, adding, “I and my associate editors have initiated a revision of our publications processes to ensure that errors such as the above do not occur in the future, and I apologize again that this lapse affected you and your scholarly work.”

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As Jade Myers set out to help create the virtual platform for SHM Converge, she was aware, through surveys and other communication, that the top wish of members of the Society of Hospital Medicine was an extensive and interactive educational experience.

“People really wanted to get back to the in-person conference,” said Ms. Myers, SHM’s director of meetings. “While we couldn’t do that, we can provide the same caliber and as robust an experience from an educational perspective as we would for an in-person activity.”

That has required significant revamping of the virtual platform compared to the platform for last year’s annual conference. In 2020, there was only one session running live at a time. This year, there will be 12 sessions running at the same time. There will also be more opportunities for networking, as well as other features for enjoyment and a sense of calm.

Here are some features of the SHM Converge platform:

• A host segment to kick-start each day, with an introduction of the day’s sessions and events.
• Nine didactic educational sessions at any given time. These sessions will include a live chat for peer-to-peer engagement, as well as questions and answers throughout the session to continue the discussion between speakers and participants.
• Three workshops at any given time. These sessions – on topics such as communication, gender equity, and clinical guidelines – will provide an opportunity for dynamic small-group discussion.
• A scientific abstract poster competition and reception, with an e-gallery of about 700 posters, providing a networking opportunity and highlighting emerging scientific and clinical cases.
• Special Interest Forums, in the form of live, interactive Zoom conferences. There will be 25 forums, which are designed to build community and facilitate collaboration.
• A variety of games, including trivia and a word scramble.
• Personalized profiles with information such as “Hospitalist in Training,” or “Committee Member.” These will be visible to other attendees to make it easier for people to connect when they have something in common.
• Early- and Mid-Career Speed Mentorship, in which a mentor and mentee can interact one-on-one, with each mentee able to meet with two mentors, with pairings designed for the best mentorship experience.
• Sessions on wellness and resilience.

“People are kind of Zoom fatigued,” Ms. Myers said, “so we’re trying to meet their needs while also offering an opportunity for respite, because our attendees are on the front lines right now, and they’re dealing with all types of fatigue and challenging times.”

The annual conference was on target for a banner year in 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of the in-person conference in San Diego, and SHM Converge is a product of planning that began then, as organizers started considering a virtual event.

“In 2020, we were slated to have the largest conference in person that we have ever had,” said Hayleigh Scott, SHM’s meeting projects manager. “San Diego was going to be our really big year.”

But attendance at last year’s virtual conference was a fraction of what was expected at the in-person conference. This year, that seems poised to improve. There will be many more offerings, with more than 125 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ and 45 Maintenance of Certification points possible, Ms. Myers said. Because attendees won’t have to worry about being in two places at once, it will be possible to secure more CME credits at SHM Converge than at any previous SHM annual conference, she said.

The volume of content will be a heavy load on SHM personnel. Last year, three society staff members were on hand at each session to make sure it ran smoothly and to answer questions. With 12 sessions running simultaneously this year, many more staff members will need to be involved. But that is not unfamiliar for the society during meeting week, Ms. Myers said.

“We’re going to need to pull from pretty much our entire staff in order to make this conference happen, which is exciting and daunting,” she said. “It’s always been an all-hands-on-deck program and this is going to be more similar to an in-person conference in that way.”

As Jade Myers set out to help create the virtual platform for SHM Converge, she was aware, through surveys and other communication, that the top wish of members of the Society of Hospital Medicine was an extensive and interactive educational experience.

“People really wanted to get back to the in-person conference,” said Ms. Myers, SHM’s director of meetings. “While we couldn’t do that, we can provide the same caliber and as robust an experience from an educational perspective as we would for an in-person activity.”

That has required significant revamping of the virtual platform compared to the platform for last year’s annual conference. In 2020, there was only one session running live at a time. This year, there will be 12 sessions running at the same time. There will also be more opportunities for networking, as well as other features for enjoyment and a sense of calm.

Here are some features of the SHM Converge platform:

• A host segment to kick-start each day, with an introduction of the day’s sessions and events.
• Nine didactic educational sessions at any given time. These sessions will include a live chat for peer-to-peer engagement, as well as questions and answers throughout the session to continue the discussion between speakers and participants.
• Three workshops at any given time. These sessions – on topics such as communication, gender equity, and clinical guidelines – will provide an opportunity for dynamic small-group discussion.
• A scientific abstract poster competition and reception, with an e-gallery of about 700 posters, providing a networking opportunity and highlighting emerging scientific and clinical cases.
• Special Interest Forums, in the form of live, interactive Zoom conferences. There will be 25 forums, which are designed to build community and facilitate collaboration.
• A variety of games, including trivia and a word scramble.
• Personalized profiles with information such as “Hospitalist in Training,” or “Committee Member.” These will be visible to other attendees to make it easier for people to connect when they have something in common.
• Early- and Mid-Career Speed Mentorship, in which a mentor and mentee can interact one-on-one, with each mentee able to meet with two mentors, with pairings designed for the best mentorship experience.
• Sessions on wellness and resilience.

“People are kind of Zoom fatigued,” Ms. Myers said, “so we’re trying to meet their needs while also offering an opportunity for respite, because our attendees are on the front lines right now, and they’re dealing with all types of fatigue and challenging times.”

The annual conference was on target for a banner year in 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of the in-person conference in San Diego, and SHM Converge is a product of planning that began then, as organizers started considering a virtual event.

“In 2020, we were slated to have the largest conference in person that we have ever had,” said Hayleigh Scott, SHM’s meeting projects manager. “San Diego was going to be our really big year.”

But attendance at last year’s virtual conference was a fraction of what was expected at the in-person conference. This year, that seems poised to improve. There will be many more offerings, with more than 125 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ and 45 Maintenance of Certification points possible, Ms. Myers said. Because attendees won’t have to worry about being in two places at once, it will be possible to secure more CME credits at SHM Converge than at any previous SHM annual conference, she said.

The volume of content will be a heavy load on SHM personnel. Last year, three society staff members were on hand at each session to make sure it ran smoothly and to answer questions. With 12 sessions running simultaneously this year, many more staff members will need to be involved. But that is not unfamiliar for the society during meeting week, Ms. Myers said.

“We’re going to need to pull from pretty much our entire staff in order to make this conference happen, which is exciting and daunting,” she said. “It’s always been an all-hands-on-deck program and this is going to be more similar to an in-person conference in that way.”

As Jade Myers set out to help create the virtual platform for SHM Converge, she was aware, through surveys and other communication, that the top wish of members of the Society of Hospital Medicine was an extensive and interactive educational experience.

“People really wanted to get back to the in-person conference,” said Ms. Myers, SHM’s director of meetings. “While we couldn’t do that, we can provide the same caliber and as robust an experience from an educational perspective as we would for an in-person activity.”

That has required significant revamping of the virtual platform compared to the platform for last year’s annual conference. In 2020, there was only one session running live at a time. This year, there will be 12 sessions running at the same time. There will also be more opportunities for networking, as well as other features for enjoyment and a sense of calm.

Here are some features of the SHM Converge platform:

• A host segment to kick-start each day, with an introduction of the day’s sessions and events.
• Nine didactic educational sessions at any given time. These sessions will include a live chat for peer-to-peer engagement, as well as questions and answers throughout the session to continue the discussion between speakers and participants.
• Three workshops at any given time. These sessions – on topics such as communication, gender equity, and clinical guidelines – will provide an opportunity for dynamic small-group discussion.
• A scientific abstract poster competition and reception, with an e-gallery of about 700 posters, providing a networking opportunity and highlighting emerging scientific and clinical cases.
• Special Interest Forums, in the form of live, interactive Zoom conferences. There will be 25 forums, which are designed to build community and facilitate collaboration.
• A variety of games, including trivia and a word scramble.
• Personalized profiles with information such as “Hospitalist in Training,” or “Committee Member.” These will be visible to other attendees to make it easier for people to connect when they have something in common.
• Early- and Mid-Career Speed Mentorship, in which a mentor and mentee can interact one-on-one, with each mentee able to meet with two mentors, with pairings designed for the best mentorship experience.
• Sessions on wellness and resilience.

“People are kind of Zoom fatigued,” Ms. Myers said, “so we’re trying to meet their needs while also offering an opportunity for respite, because our attendees are on the front lines right now, and they’re dealing with all types of fatigue and challenging times.”

The annual conference was on target for a banner year in 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of the in-person conference in San Diego, and SHM Converge is a product of planning that began then, as organizers started considering a virtual event.

“In 2020, we were slated to have the largest conference in person that we have ever had,” said Hayleigh Scott, SHM’s meeting projects manager. “San Diego was going to be our really big year.”

But attendance at last year’s virtual conference was a fraction of what was expected at the in-person conference. This year, that seems poised to improve. There will be many more offerings, with more than 125 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ and 45 Maintenance of Certification points possible, Ms. Myers said. Because attendees won’t have to worry about being in two places at once, it will be possible to secure more CME credits at SHM Converge than at any previous SHM annual conference, she said.

The volume of content will be a heavy load on SHM personnel. Last year, three society staff members were on hand at each session to make sure it ran smoothly and to answer questions. With 12 sessions running simultaneously this year, many more staff members will need to be involved. But that is not unfamiliar for the society during meeting week, Ms. Myers said.

“We’re going to need to pull from pretty much our entire staff in order to make this conference happen, which is exciting and daunting,” she said. “It’s always been an all-hands-on-deck program and this is going to be more similar to an in-person conference in that way.”

With dozens and dozens of sessions on the SHM Converge program, picking what to go to can feel virtually impossible.

The editorial board of The Hospitalist is here to help. With knowledge in an array of subspecialties – and experience in attending many SHM annual conferences, they have pointed out sessions they consider “must see,” whether based on the importance of the topic, the entertainment aspect, or the dynamic qualities of the speakers.

Here are their selections:
 

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, physician assistant department chair, South University, West Palm Beach, Fla.

What You Say, What They Hear: Conversations with Your Hospital C-suite (Tuesday, May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)

“As a department leader, developing my communication skills is always an area I seek to improve,” Dr. Gadalla said. “Tips to help with interpreting the audience and tailoring presentations for receptive feedback are invaluable tools.”

Hiring the Right Hospitalist: The Other Kind of Choosing Wisely (Wednesday, May 5, 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.)

“[This] is also an interesting session – selection criteria in the age of virtual interviewing is challenging,” she said. “I look forward to benefiting from my colleagues’ experience to enhance my leadership style.”

Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, FAAFP, MBA, hospitalist at Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn.

Understanding High-Value Care: Cost, Rationing, Overuse, and Underuse: Workshop (Tuesday May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)

“Health care in the U.S. is expensive, and we have to pay utmost attention to the cost while providing the highest-quality medical care and service to sustain the health care,” Dr. Odeti said. “I am excited about this workshop organized by Dr. Justin Glasgow, Dr. Sarah Baron, Dr. Mona Krouss, and Dr. Harry Cho. I have known these leaders in the health care quality and patient safety arena over several years and their immense contributions to their organizations and the quality improvement special interest group of SHM. This workshop will help us understand how to define value in health care, implement high-value care, and eliminate low-value care.”

Hospitalists Piloting the Twin Engines of the Mid-Revenue Cycle Ship: A Primer on Utilization Management and Clinical Documentation Improvement (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)

“The business of running hospitals carries with it many financial challenges,” Dr. Odeti said. “The intersection of tremendous fixed overhead and the vagaries of payer behavior is the cause. The COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact have compounded the problem. Hospitalists are natural institution leaders who are fundamental in overcoming this impasse through taking command and piloting the twin-engine ship of utilization management and clinical documentation improvement. These two domains working in synergy with experienced pilots are critical to attaining both high-quality care and the long-term viability of our health care systems. Dr. Aziz Ansari has been an expert in this domain and a highly sought-after speaker at SHM annual conferences. His sessions are incredibly captivating and educational.”

Harry Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief value officer at NYC Health+ Hospitals

Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)

“[I am] always looking forward to a fun-filled session for medical learning with this fantastic group of facilitators,” Dr. Cho said.

Back to the Future - Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)

“Listening to Brad Sharpe brings me back to the days in training, eagerly absorbing every pearl of wisdom from mentors,” he said.

Marina Farah, MD, MHA, performance improvement consultant, FarahMD Consulting, Corvallis, Ore.

James Kim, MD, associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta

Health Equity and Disparities in Hospitalized Patients (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. )

“[Kimberly Manning, MD] is an amazing speaker, and I know that this is a topic that she can speak about both eloquently and passionately,” Dr. Kim said. “She has been advocating for her patients at Grady for years and so this is something that she has first-hand experience about.”

Top 5 Clinical Practice Guidelines Every Hospitalist Needs to Know: Workshop (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. )

“This sounds like a high-yield session,” he said. “For busy clinicians, being able to know what guidelines should affect your daily practice is extremely important.”

Lonika Sood, MD, MHPE, FACP, FHM, clinical education director of internal medicine, Washington State University, Spokane

Anika Kumar, MD, FAAP, FHM, assistant professor of pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine

Fireside Chat: Story-telling and the Nocturnist in Pediatrics (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.)

“I look forward to their discussion about storytelling and the role narrative medicine plays in patient care, especially pediatrics,” Dr. Kumar said.

Febrile Infant Update (Thursday, May 6, 3:10 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)

“This clinical update session with Dr. Russell McCulloh will be exciting, as caring for febrile infants is bread-and-butter pediatric hospital medicine,” she said. “And this update will help review new research in this diagnosis.”

Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, FACP, CHCQM-PHYADV, director of clinical operations, quality, and patient experience, Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C.

Any session in the “Clinical Updates” and “Quality” tracks

“I would recommend ‘Clinical Updates’ and ‘Quality’ sessions, as they are so close to my practice and I look forward to those sessions,” Dr. Sitammagari said. “Clinical Updates provide the latest updates in clinical practice which is very useful for everyday patient management for hospitalists. Quality sessions discuss innovative ways to improve the quality of hospitalist practice.”

Raman Palabindala, MD, SFHM, medical director of utilization management, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson

Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)

“I will always promote my fun event, Medical Jeopardy (Dr. Palabindala is a moderator). It is going to be a challenge between three great attendings from three great organizations across the country to win the national Jeopardy competition. Not only will you learn a lot, but you also will have a lot of fun. I am sure it is going to be more entertaining this time, given virtual play.”

LAMA’s DRAMA: Left AMA – Documentation & Rules of AMA (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)

“I also recommend the talk by Dr. Medarametla not just for the title LAMA DRAMA (for ‘left against medical advice’),” he said. “We all need to learn this one to the core and I am sure he will deliver the most engaging presentation.”

With dozens and dozens of sessions on the SHM Converge program, picking what to go to can feel virtually impossible.

The editorial board of The Hospitalist is here to help. With knowledge in an array of subspecialties – and experience in attending many SHM annual conferences, they have pointed out sessions they consider “must see,” whether based on the importance of the topic, the entertainment aspect, or the dynamic qualities of the speakers.

Here are their selections:
 

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, physician assistant department chair, South University, West Palm Beach, Fla.

What You Say, What They Hear: Conversations with Your Hospital C-suite (Tuesday, May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)

“As a department leader, developing my communication skills is always an area I seek to improve,” Dr. Gadalla said. “Tips to help with interpreting the audience and tailoring presentations for receptive feedback are invaluable tools.”

Hiring the Right Hospitalist: The Other Kind of Choosing Wisely (Wednesday, May 5, 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.)

“[This] is also an interesting session – selection criteria in the age of virtual interviewing is challenging,” she said. “I look forward to benefiting from my colleagues’ experience to enhance my leadership style.”

Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, FAAFP, MBA, hospitalist at Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn.

Understanding High-Value Care: Cost, Rationing, Overuse, and Underuse: Workshop (Tuesday May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)

“Health care in the U.S. is expensive, and we have to pay utmost attention to the cost while providing the highest-quality medical care and service to sustain the health care,” Dr. Odeti said. “I am excited about this workshop organized by Dr. Justin Glasgow, Dr. Sarah Baron, Dr. Mona Krouss, and Dr. Harry Cho. I have known these leaders in the health care quality and patient safety arena over several years and their immense contributions to their organizations and the quality improvement special interest group of SHM. This workshop will help us understand how to define value in health care, implement high-value care, and eliminate low-value care.”

Hospitalists Piloting the Twin Engines of the Mid-Revenue Cycle Ship: A Primer on Utilization Management and Clinical Documentation Improvement (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)

“The business of running hospitals carries with it many financial challenges,” Dr. Odeti said. “The intersection of tremendous fixed overhead and the vagaries of payer behavior is the cause. The COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact have compounded the problem. Hospitalists are natural institution leaders who are fundamental in overcoming this impasse through taking command and piloting the twin-engine ship of utilization management and clinical documentation improvement. These two domains working in synergy with experienced pilots are critical to attaining both high-quality care and the long-term viability of our health care systems. Dr. Aziz Ansari has been an expert in this domain and a highly sought-after speaker at SHM annual conferences. His sessions are incredibly captivating and educational.”

Harry Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief value officer at NYC Health+ Hospitals

Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)

“[I am] always looking forward to a fun-filled session for medical learning with this fantastic group of facilitators,” Dr. Cho said.

Back to the Future - Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)

“Listening to Brad Sharpe brings me back to the days in training, eagerly absorbing every pearl of wisdom from mentors,” he said.

Marina Farah, MD, MHA, performance improvement consultant, FarahMD Consulting, Corvallis, Ore.

James Kim, MD, associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta

Health Equity and Disparities in Hospitalized Patients (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. )

“[Kimberly Manning, MD] is an amazing speaker, and I know that this is a topic that she can speak about both eloquently and passionately,” Dr. Kim said. “She has been advocating for her patients at Grady for years and so this is something that she has first-hand experience about.”

Top 5 Clinical Practice Guidelines Every Hospitalist Needs to Know: Workshop (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. )

“This sounds like a high-yield session,” he said. “For busy clinicians, being able to know what guidelines should affect your daily practice is extremely important.”

Lonika Sood, MD, MHPE, FACP, FHM, clinical education director of internal medicine, Washington State University, Spokane

Anika Kumar, MD, FAAP, FHM, assistant professor of pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine

Fireside Chat: Story-telling and the Nocturnist in Pediatrics (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.)

“I look forward to their discussion about storytelling and the role narrative medicine plays in patient care, especially pediatrics,” Dr. Kumar said.

Febrile Infant Update (Thursday, May 6, 3:10 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)

“This clinical update session with Dr. Russell McCulloh will be exciting, as caring for febrile infants is bread-and-butter pediatric hospital medicine,” she said. “And this update will help review new research in this diagnosis.”

Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, FACP, CHCQM-PHYADV, director of clinical operations, quality, and patient experience, Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C.

Any session in the “Clinical Updates” and “Quality” tracks

“I would recommend ‘Clinical Updates’ and ‘Quality’ sessions, as they are so close to my practice and I look forward to those sessions,” Dr. Sitammagari said. “Clinical Updates provide the latest updates in clinical practice which is very useful for everyday patient management for hospitalists. Quality sessions discuss innovative ways to improve the quality of hospitalist practice.”

Raman Palabindala, MD, SFHM, medical director of utilization management, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson

Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)

“I will always promote my fun event, Medical Jeopardy (Dr. Palabindala is a moderator). It is going to be a challenge between three great attendings from three great organizations across the country to win the national Jeopardy competition. Not only will you learn a lot, but you also will have a lot of fun. I am sure it is going to be more entertaining this time, given virtual play.”

LAMA’s DRAMA: Left AMA – Documentation & Rules of AMA (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)

“I also recommend the talk by Dr. Medarametla not just for the title LAMA DRAMA (for ‘left against medical advice’),” he said. “We all need to learn this one to the core and I am sure he will deliver the most engaging presentation.”

With dozens and dozens of sessions on the SHM Converge program, picking what to go to can feel virtually impossible.

The editorial board of The Hospitalist is here to help. With knowledge in an array of subspecialties – and experience in attending many SHM annual conferences, they have pointed out sessions they consider “must see,” whether based on the importance of the topic, the entertainment aspect, or the dynamic qualities of the speakers.

Here are their selections:
 

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, physician assistant department chair, South University, West Palm Beach, Fla.

What You Say, What They Hear: Conversations with Your Hospital C-suite (Tuesday, May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)

“As a department leader, developing my communication skills is always an area I seek to improve,” Dr. Gadalla said. “Tips to help with interpreting the audience and tailoring presentations for receptive feedback are invaluable tools.”

Hiring the Right Hospitalist: The Other Kind of Choosing Wisely (Wednesday, May 5, 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.)

“[This] is also an interesting session – selection criteria in the age of virtual interviewing is challenging,” she said. “I look forward to benefiting from my colleagues’ experience to enhance my leadership style.”

Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, FAAFP, MBA, hospitalist at Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn.

Understanding High-Value Care: Cost, Rationing, Overuse, and Underuse: Workshop (Tuesday May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)

“Health care in the U.S. is expensive, and we have to pay utmost attention to the cost while providing the highest-quality medical care and service to sustain the health care,” Dr. Odeti said. “I am excited about this workshop organized by Dr. Justin Glasgow, Dr. Sarah Baron, Dr. Mona Krouss, and Dr. Harry Cho. I have known these leaders in the health care quality and patient safety arena over several years and their immense contributions to their organizations and the quality improvement special interest group of SHM. This workshop will help us understand how to define value in health care, implement high-value care, and eliminate low-value care.”

Hospitalists Piloting the Twin Engines of the Mid-Revenue Cycle Ship: A Primer on Utilization Management and Clinical Documentation Improvement (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)

“The business of running hospitals carries with it many financial challenges,” Dr. Odeti said. “The intersection of tremendous fixed overhead and the vagaries of payer behavior is the cause. The COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact have compounded the problem. Hospitalists are natural institution leaders who are fundamental in overcoming this impasse through taking command and piloting the twin-engine ship of utilization management and clinical documentation improvement. These two domains working in synergy with experienced pilots are critical to attaining both high-quality care and the long-term viability of our health care systems. Dr. Aziz Ansari has been an expert in this domain and a highly sought-after speaker at SHM annual conferences. His sessions are incredibly captivating and educational.”

Harry Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief value officer at NYC Health+ Hospitals

Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)

“[I am] always looking forward to a fun-filled session for medical learning with this fantastic group of facilitators,” Dr. Cho said.

Back to the Future - Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)

“Listening to Brad Sharpe brings me back to the days in training, eagerly absorbing every pearl of wisdom from mentors,” he said.

Marina Farah, MD, MHA, performance improvement consultant, FarahMD Consulting, Corvallis, Ore.

James Kim, MD, associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta

Health Equity and Disparities in Hospitalized Patients (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. )

“[Kimberly Manning, MD] is an amazing speaker, and I know that this is a topic that she can speak about both eloquently and passionately,” Dr. Kim said. “She has been advocating for her patients at Grady for years and so this is something that she has first-hand experience about.”

Top 5 Clinical Practice Guidelines Every Hospitalist Needs to Know: Workshop (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. )

“This sounds like a high-yield session,” he said. “For busy clinicians, being able to know what guidelines should affect your daily practice is extremely important.”

Lonika Sood, MD, MHPE, FACP, FHM, clinical education director of internal medicine, Washington State University, Spokane

Anika Kumar, MD, FAAP, FHM, assistant professor of pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine

Fireside Chat: Story-telling and the Nocturnist in Pediatrics (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.)

“I look forward to their discussion about storytelling and the role narrative medicine plays in patient care, especially pediatrics,” Dr. Kumar said.

Febrile Infant Update (Thursday, May 6, 3:10 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)

“This clinical update session with Dr. Russell McCulloh will be exciting, as caring for febrile infants is bread-and-butter pediatric hospital medicine,” she said. “And this update will help review new research in this diagnosis.”

Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, FACP, CHCQM-PHYADV, director of clinical operations, quality, and patient experience, Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C.

Any session in the “Clinical Updates” and “Quality” tracks

“I would recommend ‘Clinical Updates’ and ‘Quality’ sessions, as they are so close to my practice and I look forward to those sessions,” Dr. Sitammagari said. “Clinical Updates provide the latest updates in clinical practice which is very useful for everyday patient management for hospitalists. Quality sessions discuss innovative ways to improve the quality of hospitalist practice.”

Raman Palabindala, MD, SFHM, medical director of utilization management, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson

Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)

“I will always promote my fun event, Medical Jeopardy (Dr. Palabindala is a moderator). It is going to be a challenge between three great attendings from three great organizations across the country to win the national Jeopardy competition. Not only will you learn a lot, but you also will have a lot of fun. I am sure it is going to be more entertaining this time, given virtual play.”

LAMA’s DRAMA: Left AMA – Documentation & Rules of AMA (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)

“I also recommend the talk by Dr. Medarametla not just for the title LAMA DRAMA (for ‘left against medical advice’),” he said. “We all need to learn this one to the core and I am sure he will deliver the most engaging presentation.”